Mr. BARKER.

nut from any rights which they have under their original contract. That is all I have in view in respect to this Bill. It seems to me that we have the right under the original contract to take possession of the bridge and we are not going any farther really than in the declaration contained in this clause of the Bill. If we had attempted to go farther it would seem to me to be fair that notice should be given to the parties interested who have no rights in my judgment beyond the rights which are given to them by the original contract, and I claim that their rights are stopped by reason of what has occurred in the years which have elapsed and by reason of the condition which prevails at the present time.

Mr. HAGGART.

Does the hon. minister not see that this is the position in reference to the matter ? He is taking over a property on which the government have a mortgage. The moment he takes over the property all interest payable to the government ceases. The government may have the user of the property and may exercise it for the fifty years. At the expiration of that time those having an equity in the property could come to the government with such original amount as they owed and the interest accrued up to date and take over the property at any time ?

Air. EMAIERSON.

The original contract contemplates notice.

Mr. BARKER.

Why not give that ?

We will naturally follow out the terms of the original contract, and give them notice and entirely foreclose, but it would be manifestly unfair for us by a stroke of the pen at this moment to preclude them from their undoubted privilege to have that notice.

Mr. BARKER.

I would suggest then to the hon. gentleman that he should add to this clause a provision to the effect that unless the bridge company within twelve months pay what is due to His Majesty their rights to pay the mortgage should be foreclosed. The objection to the clause as it stands now is this : You are going to get into possession of the property as mortgagees and for years to come you are liable to these people to aeeunt for all you have been receiving and expending upon it. Whether there is the one or the other party in power at the time, these people may come four or five years hence to the government with a pitiful story asking for a large sum of money.

Mr. EAIMERSON.

What does the hon. gentleman suggest ?

Mr. BARKER.

I would suggest this : Unless the Bridge Company within twelve months from the passing of this Act shall pay to His Majesty the money due, all the mortgage rights and equities of the company shall stand foreclosed.

Sir WILF RID LAURIER.

We will take this question into consideration, and in the meantime let the committee rise.

Mr. EMMERSON.

I am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Barker). It is in accordance with my own view and we might just as well dispose of the matter now. The suggestion of the hon. gentleman is worthy of acceptance, and I will draft an amendment to that effect.

Mr. FOWLER.

I do not know that that is quite fair to the bridge company. I think we should proceed in the ordinary way by formal proceedings for foreclosure. Why treat this differently from any other business transaction?

Mr. EMMERSON.

I suppose you are now pleading on behalf of the profession,

Mr. FOWLER.

I am pleading on behalf of the law as it exists.

Mr. EMMERSON.

Mr. FOWLER.

You practically declare by Act of parliament that this property is foreclosed.

Mr. EMMERSON.

They have a year.

Mr. FOWLER.

But you have no proceedings to take. That is a peculiar way of doing business.

Mr. EMMERSON.

It is a much more favourable provision than the court would recognize under the terms of the original mortgage, and I do not think it can be claimed that the company is in any way placed in a false position with respect to the matter.

Mr. FOWLER.

That may or may not be, but you are shutting these people out from having a chance to be heard. This may be all right in this case, but it is a very dangerous precedent to establish.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

If my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) had more confidence in us he would leave us to the ordinary recourse of the law under which we may give notice or not, but he binds us to give twelve months notice.