It does not make a particle of difference, so far as the principle is concerned. Is it not reasonable to ask this House to provide that when they do fall in, should the municipality decide to operate these franchises itself, it shall be enabled to do so ? That is the effect of the amendment the committee are asked to agree to. It has been said several times that I was not present at the meeting of the committee at which this Bill was considered. Well, I am not a member of that committee, but. I had another committee meeting to attend to, or I would have been there. I do not know what was done at the committee meeting, but, of course, accept unreservedly the statement of hon. gentlemen who were present; blit I siay that these amendments were prepared by the counsel of the city of Toronto, and handed to me before he left Ottawa. If it be said that this company and all other similar companies will come under the operation of a general Act, when it is passed, that need not have a deterent effect on those who propose to put their capital into this scheme. What I assume to provide against, is discrimination, and I contend that there ought to be a clause in this Bill providing that this company shall come under the operation of any general law that may be passed in the future, dealing with this and other companies of a similar nature. Surely it is not unreasonable that we should have a provision of this kind in. the Bill ? It would be a great injustice if parliament were to pass a Bill, under the operation of which this company might hold up any municipality, by having a monopoly of electrical energy, and prevent the people getting the greatest amount of benefit out of any franchise which they desire to dispose of or to operate. There is no desire to prevent the incorporation of this company, but there is no reason why the rights of municipalities should not be protected. I hope, therefore, that the committee will agree to the amendment suggested.