Yes, the hon. gentleman is right. When confederation was entered into it was agreed that the Dominion of Canada was bound to subsidize these steamers to convey the mails between Prince Edward Island and the mainland winter and summer. What is the point of the hon. gentleman's question ? . It is senseless; it is useless.
and I would myself move such a motion ; but if, every time a Bill is defeated, we are to have a motion in the House to refer it back again and open up the whole question, I say the business of the House would be seriously interfered with. In this particular ease I do not think a good case has been made at all for referring the Bill back to the committee.
may very well be adopted by this House without any sacrifice of the principle or rule enunciated by the Prime Minister, and If he will give me his attention I will explain my reasons for thinking so. The Bill asks for two things ; it asks for a connection between Hudson Bay and Lake Superior, and it also asks for an extension of time for the construction of the other portion of the charter already possessed by the people who were before the committee, that is, an extension of time for constructing a road partly by water and partly rail from Hudson Bay along the Mackenzie river. That part of the Bill was not considered by the committee. All the committee considered was the granting of a charter for the connection between Hudson Bay and Lake Superior, and that the committee refused to entertain. As I understand the motion of the hon. member for Alberta, he does not ask the committee to reconsider that question, the question which the committee really decided, but simply to grant the other portion of the Bill extending the time for the construction of the rest of the road already chartered. Therefore, in referring the Bill back to the committee, it is not sought for a moment to ask the committee to change its decision in order to reconsider that which it has already decided ; it is simply asking the committee to consider a question involved in the Bill which was not at all considered by the committee on the previous occasion.
Cash-particularly when it comes to apply to the necessities of everyday life. A man ought to pay cash for his groceries, his dry goods and things of that J sort. Another point is that those in busi-j ness who supply commodities to civil serI vants know perfectly well that the salaries of those officers are not attachable, and they trust to the debtor's honour and his sense of justice for the payment of the debt. I i think it is far better that that feeling should | be encouraged and that honour should be ' the basis of credit rather than a mere formality which will be probably found more or less unpractical. Another reason why I | oppose this resolution is that it is a sort of paternal legislation, which ought not to be favoured. Legislation that looks to minor interests of that sort ought not to be brought to this parliament, but parliament ought to give its attention to matters of greater necessity and import, leaving aside this paternal legislation, of which, unfortunately, we already have too much.