1904-04-07

LABOUR UNION LABELS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 35) respecting Labour Union Labels.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Explain.
Mr. RALPH SMITH.: The simple object of this Bill *is to provide for the registration by the government of union labels. At the present time union labels are being used in this country by certain labour organizations, in agreement with the men who produce the article, and it has been found by experience that these labels are counterfeit. The object of this Bill is to provide for the registration of these labels and, to this extent, to protect union labour.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
been paid.
6.	Mr. B. C. Rayworth.	,..ne to
7.	No ; the department had no 1
call for tenders, as trains on the ilW^ wick and Prince Edward Island were blocked by snow, and anan=e js*1*' had to be made without delay to hat forwarded by stage.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOR# '
i. lias any uroer m uuuiicn	viaPte. aC'
virtue of the Act 3 Edward VTI** cal)d transferring the management, charge «_ dUt? ^ tion of any public work, or any	' daSljte
function, with respect to any work std^r
wnrlrs which is assinnod or vested " v d
["The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) will see from the expression of assent which has greeted my statement, that I have not altogether misvoiced the opinions of the gentlemen with whom I have the honour to sit. Then the president goes on in his letter to the premier :\nIt has always seemed to me that the government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, being in point of fact partners in the enterprise-the former actuated by considerations of national policy, the latter by the necessity for securing its share in the growing prosperity of the Northwest-the burden of financial liability should he shared between the 'two in as equable proportions as possible, out", u"I venture to think-and this view is strongly held by my board-that too large a portion of the burden has been imposed upon the Grand Trunk Company. I think I am correct in believing that this shifting of the balance was caused by the extreme, and I must say, in some respects unfair, opposition which the Bill met with in the House.\nAgain I would like to call attention to the fact that the government had a solid majority. I am not going to say a word against that majority or imply that it was improperly or dishonestly obtained ; but the fact is, as every member of this House knows,' that the government had a solid majority last session, which voted down every amendment which we proposed with the object of casting additional burdens on thei Grand Trunk Company. Two trifling amendments, I think, were accepted by the government, and to neither of these is exception taken by Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson in this letter. So that no burden was placed on the Grand Trunk Company by this side of the House, although we tried to place a number of them upon it and regretted that we did not succeed ; and any additional burden which was cast upon that company must have been cast by the colleagues or supporters of the premier. This is what led the public to believe that we on this side had imposed additional burdens on the Grand Trunk Company while hon. gentlemen on the other side had been friendly to the enterprise in its inception, and not as it was carried through with those burdens imposed. You will notice that the gentleman considers himself to be a partner with the government of Canada, not with the people of Canada. It seems never to have entered his mind that he was in partnership with the people of Canada. In his speech before the shareholders he again spoke of being in partnership with the government of Canada ; and Lord Welby also called attention to that fact. Perhaps the fact that these gentlemen are in partnership with the government of Canada may lead hon. gentlemen opposite to see how they can support even such amendments as those we have before us. An election has been held not long since in the province of Quebec, where the senior member of the firm did his duty by the junior member. If he had not done so, a different result might have followed in that election. Are we to understand that in all elections that are to be held in this country, the senior partner in the firm of Wilson, Hays, Cox, Government and Company, will help the junior member in the interests of the firm and the government ? Then, the gentleman goes on to say :\nI hope that you will understand that the chief amendments which we will propose will in no way affect the principles of the Act or curtail the rights of the government..\nI think he is correct. I do not think anything that is proposed will curtail the rights Mr. NORTHRTTP.\n>r affect the principle oi\nof the government or artect rue pim-e-the Act. The principle of the Act wa give the Grand Trunk Company every t in sight, and that principle has beeJ* nts. faithfully lived up to in these amend\xae1 The rights of the government were to ^ everything possible to the senior mevao ^ the firm, and those rights are not chi oJ>\nby these amendments. But the l'lgh the people of Canada are seriously cui gjr by these amendments ; and knowing $ Charles Rivers-Wilson to be an ed,, gtic man, we can well understand the sal\n\tworas-al.e.\nsmile with which he wrote these\nJust consider what these ameiidme\xae\nOne clause relates to the rental of the eru division. I do not suppose this\\,gStofl have gone through the House ,ast.sLucis| had it not been for the wonderful \xae\xae istef-\nIXIU M-\tucni\tme\t- Ariuisic\ncomputation made by the Finance s0pff who showed that he had only to take^ .. money out of one pocket and put 1", u'another, and all the obligations of t** t6e eminent would cease ; yet here we b\xae c0o! Grand Trunk Company making \xae\xae proposition that the rent payable I g o* eastern division should be only a _ the net earnings. No covenant or to pay rent. If they made money^, to and good ; if not, then worse ; ther\xae be no liability on the part of the c yrer\xae to the government. The governme\xae\xae i](jjnr to spend six or seven millions i* tla\xaea the line from Quebec to Moncton an use it over to the Grand Trunk Company b]igeO as they saw fit, and they would not n thjP to pay a dollar for the use of it \xae\xaeth made the running expenses. *u jn tl\xae* height of impudence was reached gaJ suggestion ; and when the gentle\xae\'" rigjit that this proposal does not curtail ^9t \xae, of the government, can we \'3elie^,nntrasteJ. did not smile to himself when he go the difference of meaning between a ^ O\xae.\nLilt; U1LLC1 t-JUt;c JL uicamiife ~\tQl v ^g\neminent of Canada and the Pe0?hege d" ada-because unfortunately in \xae term8\' \u201e these are not always synonymous ^yis1 ,\nThen, with regard to the weste^urtB^t the government are to pay three" ^; J, the cost, no matter what it tpI,egt it is coolly proposed here that i* fbe no\xae\n.11\nnot be paid by the company\to\xae\nunless interest is earned-no l\xae1 part of the\n&\nthe - tte o\xae\ni06\'\nst is earueu-uu *\n\n[DOT] or Grand Trunk ComP , jio P\'\nand\n5 0\\ ill\'\n\u201eet "\xae\xaes oi bonds or the government can \xb0 ,,jing\xae. terest except from the surplus\tpar\xae w\nany assets which it may have, " s 0f sible source from which the ho \u201eny _t\nveresi except. iium me the company. So that if the \xab tbe P\xb0,0r of the firm could have indue\xae\xae n,0re \xae J partner-or perhaps it would artn\xaer rect to say that if the junior yli\xae\ntner\nbee\xae\nh\'e\nPf>\nreS\xae\ndared to give tbe senior P\xae1\' wanted, no rent would have "^ei-eS\xae 1\' $o on the eastern division, and no escoP- 0i respect to tlie western divisi \'eaviii\xae^,if much as came out of the surpi , jg^a\xae the road; and that, as the \xa3\n&37\n\n8ovp,,\u201e\' "0UM not curtail tlie rights of the on I U?nt\' whatever\na thp\t\'vna lever effect it might have\n\\VhPnllSrts of tbe people of Canada, ship ail(. t"e gentleman spoke of a partner-betVeert ?, *lle financial burden being shared it seeiu \' Partners in equable proportions, Oave ni, , me that the junior partner might Live vioi e<1 up courage for a moment and \xb0t Can\'n i something on behalf of the people il\'lip,, Iaa\' wfi\xb0 are bearing all the expense, not pa e suggested that the company should ?Xc\xb0Pt oreni:al on the easterns division Live of the net earnings, would it not L havp6n a g\xb0od idea for the government f*\xabr |Je \'. Sa*d : We think you should pay *foil ai. 0ei|t instead of three per cent, when Ces%ns\')COl2ing and asking for further con-S!>nie ai.\' why did they not see that the that hment was aPPliecl to the eastern ;\xb0 the *a(* been so successfully applied tu think \'SfGrn end ? But they did not seem\na r*U rtf 4-1\tcimtuiuiiiuuis cut".\nth 1 1 Will\u2122era are ot mill0r importance,\n/Lost; k,\' hot occupy time in discussinj 3 Us see ...!;ahtug amendments (i. 7 and h', u'\xabn\'6 c\nti* ^apDni-i-Persuade members of this House Uk, wit the Rm\t...i....\n\'3 Oiip0 ^bat the practical results of these t,, si\xb0h tfl0;.\u201e!he great arguments used last\nf - gov\u201e* 11 id was this : inasmiich as a arths 0fnSei,t 0111y guaranteed three-0t\' the p ,e bonds on the western end H \'.\'"fourth\'^ Trunk Company guaranteed ii\u201e arst ni \' and the government was to have (J\'fiQd, tgage and the Grand Trunk a pjfiLters i,a? l}ut forth forcibly by several th *afice an, uding 1 think the Minister of L,i fact th. +tlle Minister of Justice, that\nHi\ni\t"CUUOICI V/l. o u.\na s\xaecond ^le tJrand Trunk\nCompany\nth\'fi\'hce\t1 think the Minister of\nC\t\nHi\n8a tii\n\xb0U ii **all lo , "**\tm save meuiseives\n\\v(n,h\xae first tl3at the interest was paid\ntgagee ether.\n8a&llfi sens? mortgage made that company ttw\' becan\'i ". guarantor of tlie first mort-, J haq t se in order to save themselves\nVVo,,, Ill\'st\t\' diieiesu vi a\nIVv sten ffiot,tgage or the first mor Lent 1 admii au<1 cut them out altot 4)1,1. ffi ord,wouLl be a very good argu-8(>ta evfil... *h ry evel\'y day business. No 0ik a gooa"3 .tune the first mortgagee can tv. 8econ,i fifitantial man to advance money erablv -0ltgage, his security is very file Lent n1j(,|11,1b1\'ovotL lint while that fitiii *tate 0f>bt be used last year, what is hf0u these Ulnaffail\'s to-day? To-day we \'fi\'fihi t flown i extraordinary concessions Seco^nt rn01.io.,y means of which the gov-8tig\u201e t ifiorte-fl^ ag0 Practically becomes a "ish ptaetievf\xae un(f the Grand Trunk mort-stoM to 11)1,3 *\' takes priority. I do not \'N\'t\' i d0 matters or to be misunder-?>ttage is j ot sa>\' that the government jjfige lu. , Gver.v sense made the second ^-C\'imft, hi,, /be Grand Trunk mortgage li\'fikv e,f first , 1 \xb0 say that practical! jhc oaftcr\'(.j * fiortgage of the gover:\nLto n5fid Ti\'id,?. ca\'*ed second mortgage of\nsay that practically tlie\ner tu [DOT]",ortf\nid t f fi0-\xae\nIll,v ^ointlnl^u^a^wa5r- Lot me illus\neminent\ntp - called soc \'\n?:n\'nh Railway\npose any gentleman in\nthis House were offered two mortgages- one a mortgage on a property, say for $12,000, taking first rank, and the other a mortgage for $4,000, coming second, which would correspond with the proportion existing between the government and tlie Grand Trunk mortgages. If the first mortgagee has his mortgage dated and registered first, everybody can see that it takes precedence, and that the other is entirely subject to it, just as last, year the Grand Trunk mortgage was subject to that of the government. But suppose in the mortgage, which was first in point of time and registration, there was a clause providing that no step whatever could be taken by the mortgagee to collect principle or interest for a hundred years, can there be any doubt that, in such a case, the second mortgage practically became the first ? Is there any one who would not prefer the second ? Suppose that the terms of years in which the first mortgagee could not take any proceedings were 50 instead of 100 or 15 years instead of 50, would not tlie first mortgage take practically the second place to a corresponding extent ? If the property were good for the $12,000, the amount of the first mortgage, and nothing more, the second mortgagee would undoubtedly, during the fifteen years in which the first mortgage was precluded from taking any action, take good care to collect his principle and interest before his predecessor could have any opportunity of cutting the ground from under him. Consequently, we find that although the Grand Trunk mortgage ranks second, the operation of the first is suspended for fifteen years, taking that and nothing more, the second mortgage practically becomes the first.\nBut that is not all. During the fifteen years the holders of the second mortgage have the exercise of all their rights. They can sue and distrain for interest, they can take all the remedies they are entitled to as mortgagees, while the first mortgagee is tied up. But even when the fifteen years come to an enfi and the first mortgagee is allowed to wake up from his Rip Van Winkle slumber, he cannot sue or foreclose. All he can do is, put a receiver in charge to operate the road and apply the surplus profits, after paying operating expenses, pari passu- heaven forgive us-between the two mortgagees, so that the so-called first mortgage becomes in no way superior to the second. If the receiver collect $100 net profits, $75 will go to the government and $25 to the Grand Trunk Railway. Both are in all respects on the same footing with regard to the moneys collected by the receiver Let me consider this further. During the fifteen years, during which nothing has been paid on the first mortgage, there was of course a tremendous increase of debt. Suppose the interest were only three per cent, three per cent in fifteen years on $100,000,000 would', 'give $45,000,000. So that in fifteen years, by simple interest alone, the amount due the first mortgagee would almost be fifty per cent above what it was originally, and his claim would be much greater. Whereas the second mortgagee would have either exactly the same claim as originally, because he would have collected the interest during the interval, or a lesser claim or possibly would have been paid in full. Therefore when the receiver steps in, the Grand Trunk Railway will have succeeded in having its liability reduced or wiped out altogether by getting its bonds paid in the interval and in any event it is on an equal footing with the government as regards the division of the net profits. Why is it, when the head of the firm asked for a change in the financial conditions, that the government, which has no pecuniary interests in the outcome of the road, should allow its position to be lowered to that of a second mortgagee, while the Grand Trunk Railway, which has so much to take out of the enterprise, should be given the position of first mortgagee ?\nWhat is the Grand Trunk doing ? A great deal has been said of the desirability of carrying out the contract, because it is going to secure trade for Canadian ports. I know that this question of securing trade for Canadian ports, that this is a dangerous subject, for it is one on which one is apt to be misunderstood. Perhaps there was never a truer remark, or one more thoroughly misunderstood, than the famous remark of Dr. Johnson, that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Although everybody knew that no more patriotic man ever lived than Dr. Johnson, those opposed to him chose to apply that remark in a different way altogether to that which he intended. The idea he intended to convey was that patriotism is so great a virtue, that a scoundrel, who had none in his composition, would try to cover up his rascalities by assuming the appearance of that virtue. In like manner there is a great assumption of virtue and a great deal of nonsense spoken about bringing traffic to Canadian ports, and many attempts are made to deceive the people in connection with that question. I am as anxious as any one to see the traffic of the country carried through Canadian ports, but that question like every other must be considered in connection with its surroundings. I am not so anxiousi to see wheat shipped to Halifax or St. John as to make our farmers in the west pay five cents or ten cents a bushel more to obtain that privilege. I think the true patriotic Canadian spirit is to apply our best energies to the task of so cheapening transportation that we can ship our western products through our Canadian ports at lower rates than, or at least at rates equally as low as those at which they can be shipped through foreign ports. But if it turns out that we cannot do either, our Mr. NORTHRUP.\nproducts will seek those other ports,\n\ndo not let us abandon the idea. Let us\ndo', u' \' - 1\t.. *\t" .... V. .. L \'\t.. -\t1 tio11\nall in our power to secure the transpoi\nof the products of the northwest to - ^\nt M eeni\n~\tLi-lClU\t.1\nit is seeking to attain. But, with c0pdian ports in preference to foreign V , The government has urged, as the Siefl \\ tification for its scheme, that that is th ^\nRas\nrespect to the government, we are polled to say that the head of the ^ g ma\xae a good deal more to say on that\nthe junior. On that subject Sir\nRivers-Wilson has put himself on red\noi-(l\n\nto\n&0-\nto what the Grand Trunk propose ^ tJ,e He has stated clearly that the reason\n~\t- -\tml\nGrand Trunk Railway want to S\xb0 ,p yee\xae\nnorthwest is\nthat for years they ha\\e\nr\thmirirl traffic', u'carrying their west bound trafficclaim to carry many manufactured a from the east to the west-200\tjia\xae\nthen delivered It over to the L\'aD.,1 r\xae\' Pacific Railway and never received\tyjc\nturn any freight from the Canadian ^ ye Railway. Here are Mr. Hays\' wor ,,0rt \xae. found on pages 30 and 31 of the \'prpr\xae\xae* the general meeting of the Grand Railway shareholders :\tm*\nWe are to-day handling from 16,000,\xae\xae\xae ug)i8j\xae 000,000-last year it reached 24,000,000^^ yaH of grain, which came across the lake I V\xae\xae Superior down to our ports, feeding ut o Grand Trunk system locally throng " j tario, and this gives us the whole y from Montreal, thus contributing a \'jl0ld lf \xaes. portion of our earnings. We cannot 0f fa system if we do not take some meal tening it to us.\t.\ncl\xae8\nOn page 31 he says :\nti\xab\nThat traffic will be lost to us if not "p, it up, so that to-day the question\tnoj.epe\nyour position is going to be if y\xb0\xae\tWn* t-', u' - going to De II\tjt w>-etbark on this enterprise, but what jg 0" j\n\'\trwnr* \xaeue>-\na**\nif you do. That is the question u ing must decide to-day ; that is nSid\xaer\xae1\' 1 to which you must give serious co -\t(l\xae(\nAnd so the whole argument t\xb0 tliev \'\',,j. Trunk shareholders was that n 0f tD* e willing to do all that was ask , 0Ofte\xae,er that is, to guarantee the\t\u201e0ods \xaejCl)\nbonds, then, instead of handing\tynef\nto the Canadian Pacific\t[j,\nwould give them nothing in f.|..(,ndl)\' them over to a 1 turni\nwould hand them over\nwhich would give them _ jn \'aUjd\ntraffic of the west which they \'\'u (-ye \xae gjjt\nt0 cr\xae\xae; p\nover their own system down vgr\xae t . Now if the real design of tn * W\xaergflpis to enable the farmers of \u2122 ag transport their products to yelieverf(ii*5 ly as possible, can anybody are the farmers of the Northwe eXpe\xae\xae jre\xae to be aided to this end by tne nu\xae ^ of some fifty or seventy-five 0 million dollars, whatever the ,\tW1\xaeflgo\xae\'\nmay be, in building a road 1 last f\xae tc Quebec, when we find tfi y Art cgi>*\' wheat was shipped from tlfi\'ee Montreal or Quebec for an', u'Par>US\'le^ ^at b\'le Gtraiid Trunk and tiie tho1\'? \xaeoullcl roads are carrying grain from lakes to Quebec at this very small one V \xaeul\'ely it must be obvious to every farm .t if we reaIl5\' wish to assist the mers of the west, it can be done mucii\nl3etter along the line suggested by the hon.\neact\nrden), j am not going to advocate that\nlioi,1ISller of the opposition (Mr. R. l,\nis leu,ai\' scheme, because I think this CjA matter which ought to be threshed Dosed \xb0le a transportation committee com-tkat [DOT] exPel\'ts, but I venture to say Porti r tlle matter were left to a transit d,tlon committee aud they were to evolve sa\u201e ^est possible scheme, no one would Sehen tile Present as even a passably good titic-ts ^6 to secure transportation of the pro-than +?1 the west to the east more cheaply ^ they have been carried in the past. Actin\' \xae\'r>\nthere is another provision, Way i11 by which the Grand Trunk Rail-^5.000 oooWed to tlisPose \xb0t\' a portion of the\n^fatleme\nof stock. Here again if hon. mnan?1 opP\xb0site would only bear in\n\narguments they and their leaders year, they would find that almost\nWhich ?,rgllment, if not every argument, c0l " tlrey employed to justify their own has bPenCes in v\xb0ting\' for this agreement t rem en,SWePt away by these amendments. \' [DOT] ember the hon. Minister of Finance * midin:\nL but\nHafl\'Aforce, arguing that the Grand Trunk\n"\t*,y having to keep this 125,000,000\n\xb04r. i - t]\nAbilityle, ln\xa7\') with his usual eloquence and Usual f . as 1 thought with less than his', u'fhisStp^h hi their possession, the people of ^Xietv\'Vi^\' n\xaeed not have the slightest\nBfl i, tllaf- frpior\'hf rotno Turrmlrl Tin. i nnroa <2.\neu\ntb,\nby the\nthat freight rates would be increas-\n**6 n, issue ot that Trunk\nJ\'fiiq \xab unless they paid for it, and having (\'iiy e would have to hold it, and if the \'think-\u21226 when rates had to be fixed, the\nissue of that stock. He said that Railway could not have\nWh\ntat L^ut\'ers would only have to ascertain \xaeJUl bea* I)aid for that stock which would }hey e 111 the company\'s possession, as bhsis J\'uid not sell it, and from that as a pf tw \xae rates might be fixed. Now all r any ut\'gum\xabnt is swept away. If there ah -i ,.r, \'ce hi that argument, and it bPPositeS?ment that helped hon. gentlemen ?h\'ept \u201e t0 a conclusion last year, it is o^Way [DOT]/. now>\nbecause the Grand Trunk !;h- $25 (v.nis admitted, is allowed to obtain hl\'i]],, \' \'1,000 without paying a dollar, and \'* Ukeg ae stock, can sell as much of it as , the ,?vi<hng it has a controlling voice\nsS " \'\nc\xb0hfess Jc-Y \xb0f the Grand Trunk Pacific.\n^ ClO llflt IrnnitT rirbn t fboon itrAt\'/lo\n- j , u\xb0t know what these words Gran(1uudei\'stand that they mean that \u201e -drs .\u201e Trunk Railway can sell every , ^Ir. jja \'heir stock to Sir Itivers-Wilson dt- \'Would 01 S01l>e one else in their interest the y0f) . secure to them the management -\t[DOT] It is a peculiarly worded conam not sure if the Grand Trunk\nhoR.\nb\'a\nhtqi^Ud I\n5^1\t* tly\touiu it ixiv vjrl.clliu jli iiui\\\n\xb0ck to th\xb0S<-.l0. umke a present of that\nvarious gentlemen who have\nbeen so successful in persuading the right hon. the premier (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to agree to the contract, there is nothing in the contract to prevent them selling it. or holding it and drawing dividends when the time comes. As to this clause I think we are fairly entitled to turn on the hon. gentlemen opposite the arguments they used last year, and instead of using our time and wasting our ability in debating the matter, we can simply say : If hon. gentlemen opposite were sincere last year and really believed that the ultimate advantages, which they predicted would result from the Grand Trunk Railway holding the stock, they shouid leave the original contract as it is and not amend it.\nThe last clause to which I shall refer is the clause providing for the disposition of the road after the termination of the lease. Although this is dealing with a time fifty years from now, and although they may think what is done then is of little present importance, still it is a grave question In the case of a country which, unlike any individual, is sure to be here fifty years hence. It is a serious question whether we have tin-right to tie up this railway and the adjoining lines of railway fifty years hence, when we do not know what the conditions of the country will be then. Section 11 reads :\nIn case, during the currency of the lease of the eastern division, the company shall have constructed a branch line or lines running from a point or points in the said eastern division, the government shall, if at the expiration of the said lease, it shall determine to undertake the operation of the said eastern division-\nDo what V\n-take over such branch line or lines as the company may elect not to retain, at such value as may be agreed upon, or as may, in case of failure so to agree, be determined in the manner provided by paragraph 24 (2) of the said contract, which is hereby made applicable to cases arising under this paragraph.\nThat is to say, by arbitration. Just see the one-sidedness again ! Where was the junior partner at that time, when the interests of the country were at stake ? Here the Grand Trunk Railway is allowed, through the Grand Trunk Pacific, to operate the road for fifty years, and at the end of that time the partnership is dissolved and the senior partner is allowed to take what he likes, while the junior partner must buy the rest whether he likes it or not Is St not quite conceivable that line after line or utterly unprofitable road may be constructs., built like some recently constructed, lines which have been authorized here for political reasons and for considerations which should not have induced their construction. Yet this unfortunate country, fifty years hence, will have to take them over, because the Grand Trunk will not want them. Why is it in regard to all of these lines, the leased line or .the west line, wherever anything Is to be done at the end of fifty years, the', 'people are ignored and all the rights are given to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ? Surely it is enough to make one feel, as X said before, that Sir Rivers-Wilson well understood with whom he was dealing, when he said it was a partnership between the company and the government of Canada.\nAnd now, I shall -only say _ one word in conclusion. The lion, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). speaking a day or two ago. wound up his speech very eloquently by explaining the position of the Liberal party. These, Sir, are his closing words :\nI have to give my liou. friend (Mr>\nR. L. Borden) his answer upon that point, and I have to say that, so far from drawing back, so far from hesitating in connection with this enterprise, this government desires it to be understood that the Liberal party of Canada pledges its political existence on the carrying out of this enterprise.\nThat is as true as u great many statements that have been made. Is there a gentleman here who does not remember that last session we challenged the lion, gentlemen opposite to stake their political existence, and go to the people who supply the money for the construction of the railway, who will pay the freights upon it and who, of all people, have a right to be heard ? We challenged hon. gentlemen opposite to go before them, we submitted an amendment to the effect that no action should he taken until the people had an opportunity of speaking, and the solid majority voted us down, the contract of which they were so proud, and which was so absolutely final, was passed, but afterwards fell through, and the other party to it comes back with demands even more extraordinary than could have been dreamed of a year ago. Where was the government then, and where was the Liberal party V The Liberal party could not make up its mind for some time whether it would dare to face the people or whether it would creep back to the House. Finally it decided not to face the people and crept back to the House. To-night I again challenge the government to dissolve this House as soon as they see fit; not to pass this iniquitous measure, but to go to the people, who have never given a mandate for the passage of such legislation. The people of Canada were appealed to on a dozen different grounds. In voting they were influenced by free trade or protectionist sentiment, by religious or racial or other reasons. We again ask the government to appeal to the people of this country, who have never given ~ them a mandate to pass such legislation. We challenge them to appeal to the people, and on behalf of the people we say that we are prepared to meet them before the electors, and if the people of Canada decide to pass such legislation, we will humbly bow and assist in the passage of that legislation and in making it as perfect as possible. But we will never consent to the passage of such legislation until the people whom Mr. NORTHRUP.\nwe represent and who are so vitally interes ed in this legislation have a chance to spea [DOT]\nMr. BENJAMIN RUSSELL moved the adjournment of the debate.']
Mr. CASGRAIN asked:: 

Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	How many times were Prince Edward Island mails conveyed by train to and from Sackville and Cape Tornientine, during the winter of 1904 and what were the exact dates ?
2.	What amount was paid for each trip ?
3.	What was the rate for carrying mails on the Intercolonial Railway in 1903, and is it the same now ?
4.	What is the present rate for special trains
carrying mails on the Intercolonial Railway, and was it the same in 1903 ?	.
5.	How many trips were made by stage for carrying mails between Sackville and Cape Tor-mentine ? What were the dates of the several trips, and the prices paid for each, during the winter of 1904 ?


Mr. OSLER.: "


REPORT PRESENTED-
[Stage Direction]
DeP
Report of the Inland Revenue
>art III.-Hon. L. P. Brodeur (Jll° inland Revenue).
INQUIRY FOR RETUl^- ^ir
Mr.   T.@: sider the enormous value which these great seaports on the Atlantic coast have for this country ? Do they stop to consider the enormous amounts of money which have been spent by other countries to construct artificial seaports when we have them naturally ? When the maritime province members put forward their first fight for the extension of this road to those provinces, I am glad to say that we had the assistance of very many of the hon. gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House ; but afterwards these hon. gentlemen turned completely on their tracks, and they have since opposed us with all their might and main. I understand that their object in supporting us in the first instance was this. They thought that if the government compelled the Grand Trunk Pacific to have its terminal point in the maritime provinces, it would kill the whole scheme. I say we of the maritime provinces had the right to expect, and iVe did expect to receive the full support of the representatives of the maritime provinces who sit on the other side of the House, and we were disappointed when we found them seceding from the position which they had taken. Especially had we the right to expect the hearty co-operation of the hon. leader of the opposition, who represents the city of Halifax, a constituency which is more 'interested than any other in the whole Dominion in the construction of this road. I was disappointed, Sir, that we did not receive that assistance. I was disappointed when he told this House the other day that he would go down to the province of New Brunswick and would have surveys made there, anil that if a line of railway could be obtained, be was willing that it should be constructed, if thereby the maritime provinces could get a better ' fighting chance.' That is not sufficient for us, Mr. Speaker. We have a right to the same chances down there that the people have in other parts of the Dominion, and I am glad to bear testimony that from all the gentlemen on this side of the House, be they from British Columbia or the great west or Ontario or Quebec or the maritime provinces, we have received the full measure of support and recognition of our rights.
Now, Sir, when this contract was first brought down during the last session, the m was a measure of disappointment visible upon the countenances of my hon. friends opposite. That disappointment was occasioned by the fact that the contract was so much more favourable to the Dominion than they had anticipated, that they could scarcely believe their ears when it was read to them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Mr. WADE.: Well, I do not want to harrow the feelings of these hon. gentlemen, but I fear I cannot help it. It always troubles them to hear the truth, and they cannot keep still when they are affected.


Fletcher Bath Wade: section, not to exceed $30,000 per mile. The limit is removed from the latter. That is, if the mountain section costs more than $40,000 per mile then the government is obliged to guarantee more than that amount. I think that this is reasonable ; I think it is fair that the government should guarantee the full three-quarters of the cost, and _ it was scarcely necessary that any discrimination should be made in this connection. The next clause provides that the government may implement the amount of their guarantee to offset the uncertainty of the money market at the time the bonds are placed upon. it. That is to say if when the bonds are placed on the market when they are worth only 90 cents on the dollar, the government undertakes to guarantee bonds to a sufficient amount to produce three-fourths of the cost of the road. That I submit is reasonable and fair.
There is a further concession here which should not cause very much trouble to any of us, that is the provision that the government will not take action in the way of foreclosing or taking possession of the road unless and until the company is in default in the payment of their interest, which is not provided for, for the period of five years. In other words we give the company just that much further time to get fully and completely upon their feet and to get their business into working order. I uo not think that is unreasonable. We must remember that this company has not only to build its line of railway from Moncton to the Pacific ocean, before it can commence to do anything like a reasonable amount of business, but that it must also reach out with branches hither and yon, must complete its steamboat service and do very many other things. I do not think tne time we are allowing them in which to get fully under headway is unreasonable, and when we withhold our hands for five years after this interest becomes due it is a reasonable provision. Closely connected with this company and with its future success as the government and people of Canada are, it would not be wise on the part of the government to exact any conditions which would have the effect of injuring the company or to refuse to give any concessions which would have the effect of benefiting them. Let them give every assistance to the company that they reasonably can without loss or injury to the country ; in doing that they will strengthen the hands of the company and in strengthening the hands of the company they will enable them to go forward and accomplish a greater amount of good for the Dominion of Canada, and make it more certain that the company will carry out their obligations. The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) took very strong exception to the seventh paragraph of this agreement. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) did not refer to it in his address.


Fletcher Bath Wade: 
Mr. IIAGGART.: Would you challenge a statement issued by the Grand Trunk authorities themselves ?	_


Fletcher Bath Wade: A statement made by the Grand Trunk authorities themselves will


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no ; take - it hack.


Fletcher Bath Wade: transportation of goods through Canadian channels. The rcmpany accepts the aict on^ inese conditions, ana agrees that all freight originating on the line of the railway, or its oraiiches. not specifically routed otherwise by the shipper, shall, when destined for points m Canada be carried entirely upon Canadian territory, or between Canadian inland ports, and tnat the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports drj.ii via United States ports, and that all such traffic, not specifically routed otherwise* by the shipper, shall be carried to Canadian ocean ports.
Now, I make bold to say that no stronger provision could be framed by any parliament. There is only one class of freight that is not included in that, and that is the freight that is routed by the shipper. And, Sir, would any man undertake to ask this parliament to pass an Act which would say to the shipper : You must ship your products by a certain line. Why, it would be ' such an infringement upon the rights of the subject that it would not be tolerated for one moment, and would be execrated from one end of the Dominion to the other. This was one of the very points which was brought up in the railway committee in order to influence the western vote, and we said distinctly :	We do not ask for any
condition of this sort; we do not ask to put any limitations upon 'the right of tine western shipper to ship his goods in any way he pleases ; we want the company to take the goods, if they are unrouted, through Canadian ports, but the shipper in the west can do with his produce as he sees fit. And gentlemen on the other side of the House sneered because we suggested that we might trust somewhat to the patriotism of the people of the west. Well, Sir, I do nor think that the people of the west are deserving of that sneer ; I believe that the people of the west are as anxious to build up this Canada of ours as the people of any portion of Canada. I believe that, if anything, they are a little more patriotic than perhaps we in the older provinces are ; and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you can imagine a Canadian so base at heart, and so inconsiderate of the interests of his country, that if he can ship his grain to Liverpool via St. John or Halifax for exactly the same cost to him that he can ship it via Portland, he will refuse to ship through a Canadian port ? I have an entirely different opinion of the people of the west from the opinion which the gentlemen opposite entertain, and I believe that my opinion of them will be justified by the results.
Jm addition to that which I have already read, there is a clause by which the Grand Trunk agree that^so far as they possibly can influence the shipping of grain via a Canadian port, they will do so, and there is still another clause which compels the company to put on steamships, and which says :


Fletcher Bath Wade: provides that a railway company cannot put its schedule of rates into operation until it is approved by the government ? Is it not thereby under the control of the government ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: The only railway that I know of over whose rates either this parliament or the legislatures of the different provinces have not absolute and complete control, is the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. SPROULE.: That is not an answer to the question I put.


Fletcher Bath Wade: 
John Graham Haggart: 
Fletcher Bath Wade: 
John Graham Haggart: 
Fletcher Bath Wade: 
Mr. MONK.: What is the date of that extract ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: 
Mr. FIELDING.: Except the Canadian Pacific Railway subsidy.	.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes, that is always excepted. He forgets that Mackenzie & Mann s road was built across the prairie section, the rich and productive section, while this road is to be built from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and the fat section is to help our the lean. Surely he should be able to see that. Now I do not know that there is any need for me to continue much longer.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Go on.


Fletcher Bath Wade: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: 

of the other provinces, for its construction. It reaches up to the north into a region of which we know very little. It avoids the great cities, except the city of Quebec, and if it is only going to be a transportation route in winter, of what avail will it be to that city. I have always advocated that there should be a bridge across the St. Lawrence at Quebec. I believe that as the two shores of the St. Lawrence were joined at Montreal, so they should be joined at Quebec ; but I never did advocate that the credit of the country should be pledged to the extent of $6,000,000, for a bridge which originally was to cost only $4,000,000. And if after all this expenditure, the statement of the Minister of the Interior is correct, that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would only be a transportation route in winter, then the city of Quebec will not derive any extraordinary profit from it. Let me point out, that the Valley of Ottawa, the Valley of the Lievre and the Valley of the Rouge, are not touched by this railway, although we know that they contain millions of acres of land awaiting development and settlement. And yet the hon. member for .Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is as indifferent as the other supporters of the government, to the sacrifice of the interests of his constituency involved in the fact that this railway does not develop the fertile and unsettled portions of his county. The fertile country to the north of Montreal which sadly lacks railway facilities, is not benefited by this railway, and the Valley of the St. Maurice is merely touched by it. In fact, outside of the city of Quebec, that portion of our province which is to be taxed for the construction of this railway, is not benefited by it as a transportation route, to any appreciable extent. Compare this project with a railroad connecting ocean to ocean, that would come down through the known and inhabited parts of the province of Ontario and would pass from end to end through the province of Quebec ; so that whilst it would serve the advantage which we all have in view, of a national transcontinental line, it would also serve the interests of the great centres of the province of Quebec and the inhabited districts which it would traverse.
It has been viewed also in our province as a method of colonization ; and as such, I would recall to the House the nature of the protest which I made last year, when we considered the agreement made by the government in the first place. What I stated last year is even truer this year. We in the province of Quebec at the present moment are anxious to develop the immense tracts of land which we have there, lands as to whose agricultural resources there is no doubt whatever, but which lack railway facilities. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the other members who represent the province of Quebec, know perfectly well that in the Mr. MONK.
eastern part of the province, in the county of my hon. friend the Solicitor General (M [DOT] Lemieux) we have a country as large a England itself. My hon. friend knows tn we have there immense tracts of ferd land, and the only thing that prevents t development of those lands is the lack railway communication.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then to the eastern extension, as at first projected, my right hon. friend added the extension of the Grand Trunk Pacific as far as Moncton. All this was done in a hurry. We know to-day that the ex-Minster of Railways (Mr. Blair), was not consulted with regard to these changes. He said so last session when he gave his explanation to the House. He then said that the project had been matured, that the scheme had received its final sanction, without any previous consultation with him. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that what the Minister of Railways of that day called a hybrid scheme, concocted to satisfy both the promoters of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the demands of politicians should have received, but an indifferent approval even from the provinces supposed to be benefited. With regard to the Grand Trunk Company itself, it is evident to-day that it never at any time looked upon the eastern section as anything else but a political burden, which it was most desirous to get rid of if possible. There is no doubt that in the province of Quebec grave doubts began to exist, and were even formulated, regarding the sincerity of the government in promising to build the easten section. In a paper which

is not unfavourable to my bon. friends opposite, appeared not many months ago, an article which was significant, stating that if in spite of the arguments in favour of the eastern extension, the government should be influenced to abandon the eastern division, then those who favoured that extension of the province of Quebec would be likely to remember that abandonment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my hon. friend name the paper ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is ' La Presse, ' a paper which has a very large circulation in the province of Quebec, a paper which has always been in favour of the scheme, and which stated at the end of the article that if, as some people pretend, the government was not sincere and the eastern extension would be practically abandoned, then those who had held out this hope to the people and had favoured the project of the eastern extension would call the government to a strict account. Probably my hon. friend remembers that article.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I remember having read the article, but I would like to know the date.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know the date.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Has the hon. gentleman changed his opinion since then ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I remember the article.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Another indication, which I think throws a great deal of light upon the disposition and the policy of the government in regard to the extension of the eastern section to Quebec and the maritime provinces, is their total lack of action since the last session. That has already been insisted upon. At the beginning of this session I asked whether any surveys had been proposed and whether anything whatever had been done in regard to the eastern section, and we found out that nothing had been done. Whereas, on the one hand, the promoters of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the government have been busy to the last degree in bringing the agreement to its finished form in regard to the western sections, nothing whatever has been done as far as the eastern extension is concerned. Sir Rivers-Wilson, president of the company, does not even refer to it in his speech to the shareholders of the company. He makes no reference whatever to the eastern extension, does not point it out as an advantage or a disadvantage in connection with the operation of the new railway which the Grand Trunk Company is promoting. There is very great significance in what was pointed out' by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), that at the meeting of shareholders a memorandum, called an official memorandum, was circulated among the shareholders. Whether it came from the government or the directors of the company we do not know, but it referred to the


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Wilfrid Laurier: The ment has no knowledge of such a men* dum,	absolutely none.	je0d


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has my right hon. made	any inquiries ?	^Sir	WILFRID LAURIER.	No ; bU)Upt'hon. friend (Mr. Monk) says we are ^ ey to give explanations. AVe cannot ,e sfi planation of a thing of which we ^jo-knowledge. We never heard of such a randum, and I do not believe in tn ence	of such a memorandum either.	^


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Wilfrid Laurier: No ; stated was that there had been randum.	ort o'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the description given by my hon. friend.


Mr MONK.: Does my hon. friend assent to that description ? Does he agree that it passes' where it can be of no use to anybody ? It seems to me that we have enough before us to show us as sensible men, with what took place at the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway in London, that the concessions which the promoters of this railway have demanded and have obtained, with the absolute in-*action of the government since the last session, with no statement whatever from the right hon. gentleman as to what they intended to do at the present moment, when the time has arrived for tracing that line- it seems to me, I say, that we have before us enough to justify a grave suspicion as to what the real project of the government is, and what they intend to do as to that eastern extension. For my own part I entertain no doubt whatever that, apart from the extension to Winnipeg, which is over the most difficult, the most costly, the least remunerative part of that line, and which the government no doubt intend to build, the rest of the construction will be indefinitely postponed. I think we are entitled to have some authoritative declaration from the government on that point.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I was very thankful to you for leaving the chair a few minutes before six o'clock because I had a great desire, when I took the floor of the House, to limit my observations to the view which I think most of us in the province of Quebec would take on this important question, and not to go over the ground which has been so ably covered already by those who have spoken before me. My hon. friend from Annapolis envied my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) in so far as he was a director of the Canadian Pacific Railtvay Company, probably for the same reason that I envy my hon. friend for West Toronto myself. We would all like to be in that position, but, there is another advantage which is that it permits a man of such great experience and knowledge of financial transactions to criticise more clearly than we ordinary laymen can an agreement of this kind. My hon. friend from West Toronto has clone so with sncli great aptness that I am very desirous of not going over the ground that he has covered already, It has taken me a great deal of time to reach the conclusions which he probably reached in one quarter of that time. What I wish particularly to show to the House is that we have just cause for alarm n the older provinces at the aspect of this


William Stevens Fielding: I can give the answer at once-the deposit has been made in cash.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does tlie receipt state that it is to be handed over to the government without interest after six months' notice V Is the cash actually in the Bank of Montreal at Montreal ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is ; it is so certified by the manager of the Bank of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My attention was attracted to this by what was said by the member for Annapolis, and by tlie fact that the deposit receipt is not in the usual form. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been told that a national transcontinental line would pass through the province of Ontario, creating a new Ontario, and that it would create in our own province of Quebec, a new Quebec. From what has occurred since last session, I do not-believe that that is going to be accomplished. I do not think that the eastern 1 section is going to be built. It may be built in tlie distant future, but I do not infer that it is the intention of the government to build it simultaneously with the other section, and to make a really national transcontinental road. My hon. friend from Annapolis has spoken of the opposition which the original proposition to construct the Canadian Pacific Railway met with in this House. Well, it must be obvious to everybody that the opposition which is offered to this scheme Is not the same kind of opposition in any sense. The Liberal party opposed the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, alleging that it was a wanton waste of money, and that the road was not necessary. At the present time none of us' say that we should not open up the great west. We are agreed in principle that we must have a transcontinental road, but we differ as to the means. AVe are prepared to incur the expenditure, we are prepared to make every sacrifice necessary for the development of that important part of our national domain which we have in the west; but in the province of Quebec, and in the older provinces, upon whose credit this scheme is to be carried out. we think we are entitled to say that we want a truly national road ; a national Canadian route, and not a route that will carry the vast trade of the west past our doors and down through the United States into Portland. It has been said on the other side of the House,
Oil


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John an"aS ville).: 
Mr.  W. B.@: 
Mr. McCREARY.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Northrup) to say, speaking for the opposition, that they would have endorsed the application of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to build a railway from North Bay to the Pacific coast north of Lake Winnipeg ? That was the original proposition of the Grand Trunk. Does the hon. gentleman speak for the Conservative party when he says he endorses that policy ?


Mr. NORTHRUP.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) has asked a fair question and I will give an answer. I do not of course profess to speak authoritatively for the opposition, but from the views X have heard expressed by dozens of members of the opposition, and speaking my own views, I have no hesitation in saying that X believe that every member of the opposition was in favour then, and is in favour now, of assisting the Grand Trunk Railway Company to build west from North Bay ; let them put their line wherever they like providing only that it is a reasonable distance from other lines.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Barton Northrup: The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) will see from the expression of assent which has greeted my statement, that I have not altogether misvoiced the opinions of the gentlemen with whom I have the honour to sit. Then the president goes on in his letter to the premier :
It has always seemed to me that the government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company, being in point of fact partners in the enterprise-the former actuated by considerations of national policy, the latter by the necessity for securing its share in the growing prosperity of the Northwest-the burden of financial liability should he shared between the 'two in as equable proportions as possible, out

give $45,000,000. So that in fifteen years, by simple interest alone, the amount due the first mortgagee would almost be fifty per cent above what it was originally, and his claim would be much greater. Whereas the second mortgagee would have either exactly the same claim as originally, because he would have collected the interest during the interval, or a lesser claim or possibly would have been paid in full. Therefore when the receiver steps in, the Grand Trunk Railway will have succeeded in having its liability reduced or wiped out altogether by getting its bonds paid in the interval and in any event it is on an equal footing with the government as regards the division of the net profits. Why is it, when the head of the firm asked for a change in the financial conditions, that the government, which has no pecuniary interests in the outcome of the road, should allow its position to be lowered to that of a second mortgagee, while the Grand Trunk Railway, which has so much to take out of the enterprise, should be given the position of first mortgagee ?
What is the Grand Trunk doing ? A great deal has been said of the desirability of carrying out the contract, because it is going to secure trade for Canadian ports. I know that this question of securing trade for Canadian ports, that this is a dangerous subject, for it is one on which one is apt to be misunderstood. Perhaps there was never a truer remark, or one more thoroughly misunderstood, than the famous remark of Dr. Johnson, that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Although everybody knew that no more patriotic man ever lived than Dr. Johnson, those opposed to him chose to apply that remark in a different way altogether to that which he intended. The idea he intended to convey was that patriotism is so great a virtue, that a scoundrel, who had none in his composition, would try to cover up his rascalities by assuming the appearance of that virtue. In like manner there is a great assumption of virtue and a great deal of nonsense spoken about bringing traffic to Canadian ports, and many attempts are made to deceive the people in connection with that question. I am as anxious as any one to see the traffic of the country carried through Canadian ports, but that question like every other must be considered in connection with its surroundings. I am not so anxiousi to see wheat shipped to Halifax or St. John as to make our farmers in the west pay five cents or ten cents a bushel more to obtain that privilege. I think the true patriotic Canadian spirit is to apply our best energies to the task of so cheapening transportation that we can ship our western products through our Canadian ports at lower rates than, or at least at rates equally as low as those at which they can be shipped through foreign ports. But if it turns out that we cannot do either, our Mr. NORTHRUP.
products will seek those other ports,

do not let us abandon the idea. Let us
do

people are ignored and all the rights are given to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ? Surely it is enough to make one feel, as X said before, that Sir Rivers-Wilson well understood with whom he was dealing, when he said it was a partnership between the company and the government of Canada.
And now, I shall -only say _ one word in conclusion. The hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). speaking a day or two ago. wound up his speech very eloquently by explaining the position of the Liberal party. These, Sir, are his closing words :
I have to give my liou. friend (Mr>
R. L. Borden) his answer upon that point, and I have to say that, so far from drawing back, so far from hesitating in connection with this enterprise, this government desires it to be understood that the Liberal party of Canada pledges its political existence on the carrying out of this enterprise.
That is as true as u great many statements that have been made. Is there a gentleman here who does not remember that last session we challenged the hon. gentlemen opposite to stake their political existence, and go to the people who supply the money for the construction of the railway, who will pay the freights upon it and who, of all people, have a right to be heard ? We challenged hon. gentlemen opposite to go before them, we submitted an amendment to the effect that no action should he taken until the people had an opportunity of speaking, and the solid majority voted us down, the contract of which they were so proud, and which was so absolutely final, was passed, but afterwards fell through, and the other party to it comes back with demands even more extraordinary than could have been dreamed of a year ago. Where was the government then, and where was the Liberal party V The Liberal party could not make up its mind for some time whether it would dare to face the people or whether it would creep back to the House. Finally it decided not to face the people and crept back to the House. To-night I again challenge the government to dissolve this House as soon as they see fit; not to pass this iniquitous measure, but to go to the people, who have never given a mandate for the passage of such legislation. The people of Canada were appealed to on a dozen different grounds. In voting they were influenced by free trade or protectionist sentiment, by religious or racial or other reasons. We again ask the government to appeal to the people of this country, who have never given ~ them a mandate to pass such legislation. We challenge them to appeal to the people, and on behalf of the people we say that we are prepared to meet them before the electors, and if the people of Canada decide to pass such legislation, we will humbly bow and assist in the passage of that legislation and in making it as perfect as possible. But we will never consent to the passage of such legislation until the people whom Mr. NORTHRUP.
we represent and who are so vitally interes ed in this legislation have a chance to spea [DOT]
Mr. BENJAMIN RUSSELL moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned-
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House jonrned at 10.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April S,