Mr. MOWAT:

The best way to get over the difficulty here is to discuss the whole Bill at one time. Apparently, the feeling upon both sides of the House is that if we have made a technical error-and this is denied by the law officers-which will destroy the mam Act and the vote of the peoples in Alberta and other provinces, then it will be beneath the dignity of Parliament to allow that.

But the question arises: Shall we, by passing this legislation, interfere with the rights of private litigants? As I understand the matter, the whole case is that of the Gold Seal Liquor Company asking for a mandatory order against the refusal of the express company to carry the goods. That would mean that the only remedy that the Gold Seal Liquor Company would have had would be the costs if they were successful in getting that mandatory injunction. Therefore, the third clause of the Act, which allows the court to award costs in view of this legislation, should put them in exactly the same position as they were before they started their litigation. It is inconceivable to me that with a clause like clause 3 in force, the court, when advised of the passing of such legislation as this would not decree that all costs incurred by the Gold Seal Company, of which they would be deprived by reason of this Act, could not be reimbursed to them. My only trouble in connection with the clause is that it does not say by whom the costs are to be reimbursed. It would not be fair to ask the Dominion Express Company to reimburse the costs which the Gold Seal Liquor Company would obtain by litigation because no fault would lie with the express company. The clause might be re-*

cast by in some way enacting that the costs should be othewise reimbursed. It would not be out of the way to suggest that the Dominion of Canada itself should reimburse any of the litigants for costs incurred in proceedings which are nullified by this legislation. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that he should add to the clause something to that effect.

Mr. MOWAT:

The construction being in Ontario, I think it was very wise for the draughtsman to use that expression.

Mr. MOWAT:

Yes.

Mr. MOWAT:

It may refer to the Rivers and Streams Act of Ontario. In the case of the Keewatin Power Company vs. Town of Kenora, Mr. Justice Anglin held:

I have little hesitation in holding that the Winnipeg river, said to carry a volume of wate" little inferior to that of the Ottawa, formerly a great channel of commerce, must be deemed a navigable river.

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.