Mr. MEIGHEN:

Nothing about honourable in 1914 ! I think my hon. friend would do what is in the interest of the country, and I do not think it would be in the interest of the country to confiscate.

Mr. MACDONALD:

This is what my hon. friend said:

The idea ot that is that we are at this time making the interested parties and all stockholders parties to this contract, and we say to them: We now and, here bind you that should the day of default come you shall not appeal to the Parliament of Canada on the ground of your road being confiscated in any way whatever, but you here and now leave the Parliament of this country free from any such ques-

tion and untrammelled in every way to deal with the property of the Canadian Northern as it may be advised an the interests of the people of this country.

Could anything be more absolute?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

-Nothing more true.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Well, you are not

doing it.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is what we are doing. The Parliament of Canada is free and untrammelled and can do what it deems fit in the interest of Canada, and I stand, in the name of Canada to say it is not in the interest of Canada, and it is not fitting to confiscate the property of any man. It is not in the interest of Canada and it is not fitting, at the bidding of whomsoever, corporation or otherwise, to confiscate the property of any man.

Mr. MACDONALD:

You said in 1914: we make it absolute that neither the company nor any one interested in it can come here in the event of default and say: " You are confiscating our property without compensation," because it is all settled.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is what I said, that is what 1 say to-day. As between us and -them, they could not. But the general interest of Canada does not call for it, and the circumstances of the case do not call for it. If my hon. friend believes that the legislation of that time, as it stood at the third reading-and it stood at the third reading just as it is now-if it provided that upon default there should be confiscation, nothing more or less, why did he support an amendment that, instead of confiscation, there should be a submission of the *stock to arbitration? Why did he support that amendment if it was provided that the people of Canada could get the property for nothing? It is because he did not believe it and does not believe it now.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Does my hon. friend mean to say that his statement was not a direct intimation to the country that the country was getting an absolute right to the equity of redemption of Mackenzie and Mann in the Canadian Northern Railway?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

It got the right to deal with the equity of redemption as it saw fit. Parliament has not the absolute right to confiscate without the complaint of the party interested unless the party agreed to it. But because we then got the right to do it, that does not say that it is to our interest to do it or in the interest of the

people of Canada, and it does not say it is honourable to do it.

Mr. MACDONALD:

Do I understand my hon. friend to say that, now the Parliament of Canada has the right to confiscate and take this equity of redemption without payment to Mackenzie and Mann, notwithstanding that, it is in the interest of Canada that you should pay them?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

We have the power to do it undoubtedly, and I so intimated then and I so pronounce now, but it is not in the interest of Canada that we should do it. It is in the interest of Canada to pay for property that we take what that property is fairly worth.

Mr. MACDONALD:

We have paid for it already.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Then why did the hon. gentleman vote to arbitrate on it in 1914? We have perhaps the strongest tribunal which the personnel of this country can provide to determine the value of this stock. I know that the people of Ontario have confidence in the Chief Justice of Ontario, and that no agitation which hon. gentlemen may try to engender in this country will ever shake the confidence of that province in the Chief Justice. I believe the people of every other province of Canada have equal confidence that that Chief Justice will not submit the name of a third arbitrator or submit to the name of a third arbitrator who is not strong, true, capable and fair, and if they do not agree on a third arbitrator, then the Chief Justice of the Exchequer Court names the third arbitrator, so the people of this country are secure that there will be strong, capable, able men, who will be able to protect the interests of Canada when this goes to arbitration. What more do the people of Canada ask? We are told that the cities of Canada-the word was very indefinite

are becoming opposed1 to this legislation. I have heard of some talk in one city, but not in any other.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Where?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

In the city of Montreal.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

That is an important city.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

An important city it is true, but I have not heard of any dissatisfaction in any other, and I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite will be able to escape from the conscription issue in this country, in Montreal or in any other city, under the cover of this Bill.

Mr. DEVLIN:

Never mind conscription; we are discussing the Canadian Northern Railway.

Mr. GRAHAM:

When the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Bugsley) referred to the city of Montreal or to the cities of Canada, he undoubtedly had in mind the deliverance of certain leading men in Montreal. But these are men, as I look at some of the names, who are interested all over Canada; their investments are not confined to the city of Montreal.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

And they are mostly in favour of conscription too and good Tories, but disgusted at this.