Mr. MOWAT:

No particular law is mentioned here. If it was specified there might be some complication, but this is a wide general section which provides that if there is something in the provincial law that will help this board to do its work it can be invoked.

Section agreed to on division.

On section 10-provision for repeal by Governor in Council if Ontario passes legislation referred to in the previous Act of this session.

Mr. FIELDING:

Is that proviso necessary? Power to do a thing does not always carry with it power to undo it, and once you have, under the British North America Act, declared a work to he for the general advantage of Canada, have you power to return it to the control of the province?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I think that has been

decided. If not, I know an opinion has been given on it very lately in the case of some British Columbia works. This Parliament had declared works for the general advantage of Canada beyond what were in mind at the time the legislation passed and inclusive of a lot of street railways in that province. Then the question came before the Justice Department as to whether or not we could ever remove them from that category. The opinion was that we could, and we did.

Mr. FIELDING:

But was it ever determined judicially?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I am rather of opinion that it has not been.

Mr. FIELDING:

It strikes me that a

plain rough reading of the British North America Act would be otherwise.

Mr. MOWAT:

Why should not these

works be for the general advantage of Canada? This has been declared to be a navigable river, and therefore under subsection 10 of section 91 of The British North America Act it is clearly within the control of the Dominion. It seems to me very proper that these works should be declared for the general advantage of Canada.

This gives me an opportunity to say what nobody so far has said to-night, that the Government of Canada should be very careful not to give away any water-powers not yet developed by the provinces. In view of our enormous national debt it seems to me that if there are assets of this kind which as yet have not been declared to be Dominion assets, the very best thing that can happen is that they should be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.

Section agreed to on division.

On the title:

Mr. McKENZIE:

I wish to call the

Prime Minister's attention to the fact that in the penal provisions made in clauses 4 and 5 there is no provision for cases where there may be default in payment of fine. If there is refusal to pay the fine, that is the end of it.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Well, there is provision for imprisonment as well.

Mr. McKENZIE:

But that is not in

default of payment of fine.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

What I suppose the

draftsman had in mind was this: only a corporation is going to undertake anything

TMr. Fielding.]

in violation of this Act of the character described in clauses 4 and 5, and if the corporation does not pay the fine the amount can be levied and collected in the usual way. I am not sure there is not a provision in our statutes for imprisonment in the event of non-payment of fine, incident to the fine itself. However, I do not speak positively as to that.

Mr. BUREAU:

I am still in doubt with regard to the word "may" in the fourth line of section 10. It seems to me that to leave the clause in that form will not be doing the square or manly thing by Ontario. There is something in the use of the word "may" here which I cannot quite describe; my knowledge of English is so limited that I cannot indicate exactly what it is.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I think "may" is the right word. The Government is empowered to do it; that makes it the duty of the Government to do it unless there be reason to the contrary. It is certainly the intention of the Government to do it. The passing of the joint legislation shows that to begin with, as does the proposal to take the province in in joint control. I do not think it would aid to use the word "shall," because there might possibly be circumstances under which the Governor in Council could not proceed as set out in the section.

Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton):

I beg to move in amendment, seconded by Mr. Ross:

That this Bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months.

Mr. McCREA:

I hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. PROULX:

I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. LALOR:

I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. NESBITT:

I was paired with the hon. member for Westmount-St. Henry (Mr. Leduc). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. McCOIG:

I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.