Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter I. The dominion of Canada

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. T] THE DOMINION OF CANADA 679 covered with waters other than in the case of waters forming parts of harbours or canals : the Actitself forbade interference by such sales with navigation or the use of harbours. Again, the provincial legislatures are the proper authorities to regulate the form of conveyance of fishery rights. The provinces also can deal with, by regulations as to lease or sale, their own rights in the fisheries in virtue of their un- granted public lands. Such legislation really deals with property, and does not come within the term fisheries in s. 91. But again, the Federal Parliament could pass an Act regulat- ing works constructed in or over navigable waters, for the Act clearly related to matters of navigation.! As a result of this decision, Ontario and Quebec issued licences to regulate the valuable fisheries in their inland waters? It may be added that the Canada Courts held that there is no private property in the beds of the great lakes or great navigable rivers, and the Australian High Court has applied this to a salt lagoon. (e) Escheats Another series of cases arose from the idea that the pre- fogative could not be affected by anything less than the Federal Parliament, as the provinces were not in any way connected with the Crown, but were merely like municipal bodies. Thus in 1874 the Governor-General in Council dis- allowed an Act of Ontario regarding escheats. The reasons all come to the same thing, that the Lieutenant-Governor could not assent in the royal name to an Act, that it was a matter of prerogative, and that the province had nothing to do with prerogative.? In 1876 it was judicially held in ! Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v. Atiorneys-General for the Provinces of Ontario, &c., 26 8. C. R. 444; [1898] A. C. 700; as to great lakes, see 26 8, C. R., at pp. 520 seq. ; lagoons, Williams v. Booth, 10C.L. R. 342. See for the earlier cases, Wheeler, pp. 72seq. ; The Queen v. Moss, 268, C. R. 322 (property in bed of navigable riversis in the provinces); Wyatt v. Attorney-General of Quebec, [1911] A. C. 489. * Canada House of Commons Debates, 1899, ii. 2910, 2911; the matter still presents difficulties ; see Provincial Legislation, 1899-1900, pp. 46, 47, 57 seq. ; 1901-3, PD. 59-61; House of Commons Debates, 1910-1, pp. 6778 seq. * Canada Sess. Pap., 1877, No. 89, pp. 88 seq. The Act was 37 Vict. c. 8. The position is still different as recards Manitoba. where an Act. 47 Vict.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation