1904-04-06

[Stage Direction]
.„r0uats
Bill (No. 28) respecting the Tenu®8 >{r. Railway Company.-Mr. Malouin U-T Talbot.	ladt*1'*
Bill (No. 29) to incorporate the CM-pf Credit, Indemnity and Guaranty G -Mr. Guthrie-by Mr. Holmes.

tioil*1	respecting the Guelph Junc-
Slr. Holn'egay ®omPany

Mr. Guthrie-by
SI) to incorporate the Guelph and Bill t RaIlway Company.-Mr. Holmes, and T ,1^1°'	to incorporate the Walkerton
<lerSon CKn°w Railway Company.-Mr. Hen-
Vietoyi^0, ^ respecting the Vancouver, tion p a ai'B Eastern Railway and Naviga-0OiPany.-Mr. Morrison.
GRanij trunk PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
At
^auof^RTHY moved for leave to in-TruU|. pHl!!. (No. 34) respecting the Grand Mr aci^c Railway Company.
(M>, iu^p^ART. Will the hon. gentleman the p>jjj aarthy) explain what the object of
Pose ^'jP^RTHY. it is simply for the pur-!h the nv,a"ng tFe necessary arrangements tthich j„caarter carrying out the proposal oie T,.„r, n°w before the House in regard to I\tot ntinental Railway, tibie l°U agreed to, and Bill read the first

[Stage Direction]
^RANSP0RTATI0N of fresh meat, j jj1 c°OWAN-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
v,^6 govetr,i^y °f the steamships subsidized b succpT^V paving cold storage chamber! ,°5s tjj slul in transporting fresh mea ert' so (A*antic during the past season ? d-it ' the nii at-were Ble names of the steam tes of „o-iant*iy carried ; and the ports an It sailinp- 1
.	. '"in (.1 Ll
. Ron 8aiIing ? ' hre).
«fipeultUr^DN2.Y .FISHER (Minister
. '^uiento ; We have no record of an 'ay steam Jii meat during the last season uPs sailing from Montreal.
Rr tRLOTt^°wn railway station.
*n
T h0^EPIJRGEY asked :
Vfavtlle bru^p!.1^, hton and teams were employ Vision ~ni°nv. ^°r fllling in hole near ra htttrv day „fl c"arlottetown, P.E.I., betwe
2. Whaclusive ?brUary and 16th day of Fe
, 3. ' 1 Qlt,
Wprn \\
3	Aan(i \vhn? f e Wases paid for
*lt<,?ut of what£°r teams P°r diem ?
°tt fi,. and ®1,,, appropriation was this mon
4	nil ttork i „ 7, exPenditure has taken pis
MJ^en * '° date ?
Phrpose	work commenced, and i
t{. .Iott. u	the work intended ?
V'^'Ws and' nBMMERSON (Minister °-n 'the8
men
'he
*8 men1 Ca«als)
'he busv. a , 5C teams were employ het^itway g. for filling in hole in Ifith i*'11 (the n?P nt Charlottetown, P.E llay of plth rtaJ' of February a obrunry, inclusive.
2.	The men were paid $1 a day cutting brush, and the teams including drivers were paid 50 cents a load.
3.	The money was taken out of the appropriation. ' To increased accommodation at Charlottetown,' and an expenditure of $1,363 bas taken place on this wo^k to date.
4.	The work was commenced on the 11th of February and was for the purpose of making a fill on the propefty recently purchased on which it is proposed to extend sidings for increased accommodation required at Charlottetown.

Mr. BRODER asked :: 1.	How many pounds of butter and cheese, respectively, were exported from Canada in each of the years from 1898 to 1903, both years inclusive ?
2.	How many pounds of such butter and cheese, respectively, were exported in each of said years in cold storage ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.
Year ended June 30.	Lbs. butter	Lbs. cheese.1898	11,253,787	196,703,3231899	20,139,195	189,827,8391900	25,259,737	185,984,430-1901	16,335,528	195,926,3971902	27,855,978	200,946,4011903	34,128,944	229,099,9252. The following	statement	gives the
number of packages of butter carried in cold storage from the port of Montreal during the seasons of navigation in the years named :
Season of navigation.	Packages.
1898		 209,172
1899		 429,734
1900		 227,863
1901		 410,893
1902		 525,735
1903		 [DOT] [DOT]	335,395
The following statement gives the number of boxes of cheese carried in cold storage and in cooled air from the port of Montreal during the seasons of navigation, in the years named :
Season of navigation. In cold *In cooled storage. air.
1898	
5,514	boxes.1899	
1,406	"1900	1901	.56,500	"	23,269	boxes.1902	
7,127	"	80,337	"1903	
43,800	"
* The ' cooled air ' service did not go into
peration until late in 1901.
It will he observed that the foregoing tatements do not give the net weight of tie butter and cheese carried in cold stow ge each year, but merely the number of nckages. ' The department has no means f ascertaining the weight of the cold stow ge shipments. It is only from the poit

of Montreal that cold storage ships sail, as in the winter season cold storage is not required.


*BINDER TWINE AND BARBED WIRE.
Mr. E. JJ. SMITH asked :: 1.	What amount of binder twine was made in Canada in the years 1891, 1896, and 1901 ?
2.	What amount of barbed wire was made in Canada in 1891, 1896, and 1901 ?
3.	What amount of each was imported in each of the years named ?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: I regret that I have not the answers to the first two questions.
3. The quantity of binder twine imported into Canada during the years named was as follows :
Lbs.
Fiscal year 1891	 221,757
"	1896	
3,023,896"	1901	
9,674,268
The quantity of barbed wire imported into
Canada during the said three years was :
Lbs.
Fiscal year 1891	 88,158
"	1896	
429,544"	1901	14,253,500


THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.
Mr. TOLTON asked :: What benefit have the farmers of Canada received, financially or otherwise, for the following expenditure, as shown in the Auditor General's Report, on pages D-10 and D-22, for 1903	,
Sundries.
Travelling expenses, Hon. S. A. Fisher..? 335 95 Cab-hire, Hon. S. A. Fisher	 32 00
Osaka, Japan, Exhibition.
Travelling expenses, Hon. S. A. Fisher.. 1,514 57 Transport expense, per C. P. Ry. Co., to Japan and return, Hon. S. A.
Fisher	 475 92


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: The item $335.95 for travelling expenses is not correct. According to the Auditor General's Report, this sum should be $206.93. The sum $335.98 includes the travelling expenses of the deputy, $8.75 ; the private secretary, $109.95 ; and Mr. Jackson, $10.35.
The benefit which the farmers of Canada have received for the very moderate expenditure mentioned in the question, is that under the able administration of Mr. Fisher, the Department of Agriculture has been of more service to the farming community than at any time since its creation, and that by the active work of Mr. Fisher the farmers of Canada have had made available to them services of profit which they never had before.


Mr. FISHER.: 


MARCONI STATION AT GLACE BAY-'
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Is the Marconi wireless telegraph station at Table Head, Glace Bay, N.S., in operatio ^
2.	If not, has any reason been furnished ^ the government why it is not in operation
3.	How much money has been contributed
the government to aid in the introduction ot Marconi system into Canada, and in the er tion of structures for that purpose ?	,


Hon. R. PREFONTAINE (Minister 0 Marine and Fisheries) :: 
MR. YOUNG, HOMESTEAD INSPECTOR-
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (MiuisteI* the Interior) :: 
MR. JONASSON, HOMESTEAD
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (5l,D the Interior) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	30th June, 1903.
3.	No.
7 93


CHEESE-COOLING EXPENDITURE.
[Stage Direction]
BE AIN asked :
c°nne^?-at ha.s been the total expenditure in IVoodstn? wit51 tlle cheese-cooling room at ^ctaii^^0ck' Ontario, up to the first March, 1904, Ss as follows
3.	cost °f site for curing room ?
4.	p>0 cost of construction of buildings ?
5.	Eor cost of machinery, fittings, &c. ?
6.	pOT. cost °f cheese purchased ?
7.	p0 cost of hauling cheese ?
traveii; eost °f salaries of officials, labour,
8.	p'lug expenses, &c. ?
?®lephon OOS*" cifeese boxes, chemicals, light, ^cidental's storage, freight, and all other
c*iees^°^ "a*1011 has been received for sale of
cheese*?'V much has been received for curing
«5w^DNBY fisher (Minister of Ag-Ond tho V As answers to this question J'UiQe ® foliowing three questions in the pylori [DOT]tbe l10n- member for Leeds (Mr. tvorij yr)lnvolv& a considerable amount of I must a a vet'y large number of figures, for retiias^ these lion, gentlemen to move SaSe r,f vIls' and I will facilitate the pas-c their motions.
pISHlNG
* Lancaster asked:

[Stage Direction]
Mr,
|JatUeJag tj16 rental for the fishing rigiits in n?r' uoder i grauted to Arch. McNee, of Wind-ho ^ishpi-ieaSe from the Department of Marine ,®a Paid un<ier the 13th November, 1902, year 1903 7
,1 f0r e rental for the same rights been If So lae year 1904 ?
H0t) ' )y whom w^re the rentals paid ? ^fiturof °NEY FISHER (Minister of Ag
Hire). I- Yes.
3 res.
Ar<*ibald McNee.
jr, EXpORTATION 11' E. D

[Stage Direction]
smith asked :
On tn0lllPartm gov®rnment inspector examined the « outw *1Us *n whicli apples were stored W, fe'lowino.' v°yage from Canadian ports, on n, 'an. '"8 vessels -
Tunisbi vessels :-Ionian, Parisian, O11-Lait„ 1ester Vn ' Peruvian* Bavarian, Pretorian, Mo TErie jt ty- Manchester Shipper, Ulunda, Can-^he ' ni®ta>
Kensington, Mount Tem-2	J 1 tnplain, Southwork, Montcalm,
Jti ** Ua,t
aporajj stem of mechanical ventilation was
ric','thrmYn-NEY FIE
in*t ,	uiet
uPon each
vessel, if any ?
E Yes,
*).
MSIIER (Minister of Agfa'' The (
' the i\V,;uian was fitted with Sirocco Vo„P.Per anchester City and Manchester ed with Gibb's patent 0 electric fans. The Pretorver

ian. Kensington, Southwork, Canada, Ontarian, and Montcalm had cooled air compartments. All the other vessels named in tne first question had only the ordinary system of cowl ventilation.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: 1.	Has the government, or have any of the departments, data regarding claims for flooded lands along Sturgeon Lake, in Verulam Township ?
2.	What persons have put in claims for damage ?
3.	Have these claims been examined into ?
4.	What report has been made upon them ?
5.	Will the claims he paid this year ?
Hon. it. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).
1.	Have data for ascertaining if damages are caused by Trent canal works in the township of Verulam.
2.	The corporation of the. township of Verulam, through Mr. R. J. McLaughlin, IC.C., of Lindsay.
3.	No, they have been referred to Mr. R. B. Rogers, the superintending engineer of the Trent canal, for report.
4.	No report has as yet been received.
5.	Until Mr. Rogers' report is received cannot say what action may be taken.


MEMBER INTRODUCED.
John H.: Sinclair, Esq., member for the electoral district of Guysborough, introduced by the Hon. W. S. Fielding and Mr. A. Johnston.


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
The thirty-sixth annual report of the Department of Fisheries-Hon. Raymond Pr<5-fontaine.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, ' that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, for the House to go into committee to consider a certain resolution concerning the ratification of the agreement between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, dated the 8th day of March, 1904 ; ' and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that I shall express a sentiment in accordance with the views of both sides of the House when I say that at this stage of the discussion of the question which occupied so long a time during last session, and which is the main business outside of the ordinary routine of the present session, it will be well for us as far ns possible to confine our attention to those prints that are really in issue, and to leave aside those ge eral features of the discussion which occu

pied so much time in the former debate. I shall not therefore follow my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition in the wealth of quotation with which he adorned his address. No one could listen to my hon. friend without being impressed with the ingenuity and the apparently great satisfaction with which he indulged in dialectical subtleties drawn from declarations by members on this side of the House, by Mr. Hays, by representatives of the Grand Trunk Kailway Company, and by others who have spoken on this question. One could not help either, feeling, that if my hon. friend had been deprived of the opportunity of quoting from those) speeches, and from the confidential documents of our friend the chairman of the Railway Commission, that his address might have been very much shortened, and that the last half hour, which was devoted to the constructive part of the subject-to the work of informing us what his actual views were upon the important subject before us-would have been in fact all that he would have found necessary to place before us.
My hon. friend referred with some force to a remark made by the Minister of Finance at the early part of this session, in which he referred to the state of the money market ; and this was one of the criticisms made by the hon. leader of the opposition as an effective reply to the position of the government, but which in fact did not prove what it was intended to prove, and did not show that the position of the government was in any way open to criticism in connection with the amendment which has been made to the contract providing that the government should have liberty to implement the guarantee of bonds. It had been explained by the Prime Minister that the reason of this was that there was a possibility that owing to the state of the money market the bonds might not sell at par ; and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance's remark was quoted for the purpose of showing that he had stated that in his opinion the money market was getting better instead of worse. Now, the real facts are known, or can be known, to any person who takes the trouble to inform himself on the subject, if he has not already done so. The real fact is that at the time this contract was framed, at least at the time when we began to frame it, about the 1st of July last or thereabouts, it was our information and the general belief that Canadian government bonds bearing interest at 3 per cent would sell at par, or perhaps a little better than par, in the money markets of the world. I hffYe no doubt that opinion was well founded at that time. But a combination of circumstances had been operating in the money markets of Great Britain and of the world, which culminated in the latter part of last year in a state of the money market which was described to me by a prominent flnan-


Clifford Sifton: 

i


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 
Clifford Sifton: 
Mr. HAGGART.: My hon. friend talks of two securities on the rolling stock. Cannot the seller to the railway company make the conditions of sale and take a security on the rolling stock which will be prior to any other security ?


Clifford Sifton: We had that up last year at considerable length, and if my hon. friend will look at section 35 (a) of the contract he will find :
35. (a) A mortgage which shall be a first charge upon the railway undertaking, equipment and property, tolls, rights and franchises of the company, including all equipment and property to be thereafter acquired by the company .... to secure the payment of the said issue of first jnortgago bonds guaranteed by the government.
They have to put an equipment of twenty million dollars upon this road ; and this Act requires that they shall give the government a first mortgage. They cannot

give the government a first mortgage if j they only borrow the equipment, or only buy it under a lien note in which the property does not pass. If my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) will discuss the matter with lawyers upon his own side of the House, ne will have no difficulty in convincing himself.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Minister of the Interior say that they would not be. satisfied by giving to the government a first charge upon their interest in the rolling stock ?


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Not at all.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Justice gave that opinion last year.


Clifford Sifton: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) puts that point in the form of a question and not in the form of an assertion, because I doubt that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) would make the assertion as a lawyer; that they could give us a first mortgage upon a leasehold property, upon a property which they did not have the ownership of. The Minister of Justice discussed the subject at length last session, and he cited at length the opinion of the counsel who prepared the contract for the government, and to whom this point was specifically and particularly referred ; and counsel gave the unqualified opinion that there could be no possible doubt upon the question, and that it could not be debated. Under these clauses of the contract there are two mortgages to be given upon the rolling stock. The government therefore, having two mortgages upon the rolling stock, a third mortgage would not be a very good security upon which to borrow money. Having therefore no power to charge up the payment of the principal to working expenditure, there is absolutely no security whatever for the borrowing of money upon which the rolling stock could be supplied.
I	may say, Mr. Speaker, that in so far as the question of the charging the principal of rolling stock bonds to working expense is concerned, that was a point that required very careful consideration. I do not make a statement on that point as a lawyer, because it is not my business In this House to act as legal adviser to the government; but I make the statement after having referred that matter to the Minister of Justice, and after having referred it to Mr. Shepley and to Mr. Chrysler the counsel for the governmet in the preparation of the contract, and I hold the written opinions of Mr. Chrysler and Mr. Shepley, as well as the opinion of my hon., friend the Minister of Justice : that there is no possible doubt about the question ; that there is no possibility of this rolling stock being charged up to working expenditure under the provisions in this contract.


Clifford Sifton: 
John Graham Haggart: 
Clifford Sifton: I say footed and emphatic way
tiF
erally careful of what he says, ^ 0( ^ sirous of misleading the House, ing a position which is absoiut gtat^bjoP tirely untenable, according to t ^es of reputable counsel to whova had been submitted.	toucl1 *


John Graham Haggart: 
Clifford Sifton: I never was elected to parliament, Mr. Speaker, by supporting a tiling that I thought was humbug, and I do not desire to be. 1 know just as well as I know I am standing here that the proposition to take government money and build lines of railway all through the Northwest is an impracticable and absurd proposition, and that the lion gentleman (air. R. L. Borden), if he were in power to-morrow, could not carry it out; that we could not carry it out ; that nobody could carry it out. Therefore, I do not propose to stand in this House and give countenance to an idea, simply because I think that with some people it might be temporarily popular.
I have extended my remarks, Sir, to a much greater length than I had intended. Last night the leader of the opposition, in making as strong a presentation of his case as possible, extended to us an invitation to draw back and to hesitate in the carrying out of this great enterprise to which we have put our hands. I have to give my hon. 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.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Clifford Sifton: Yes ; and if we have any weak-kneed brethren in the Liberal party, let them understand that so far as the government is concerned, and I think so far as the gentlemen behind me are concerned, we have not any doubt upon the subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Clifford Sifton: We have inaugurated this enterprise. We have, we think, exercised all the care that we could in connection with the various difficult and embarrassing ahd troublesome questions that necessarily arise in such an enterprise; but we have no doubt of the necessity, and we have no doubt of the value, of this enterprise to the people of Canada.
[DOT]lust one word in conclusion. If you will turn for one instant to the map and look at the position in which Canada finds herself : if you will think what is going on to the south of us ; if you will consider that lines of railway are being run from the Gulf of Mexico north for nine hundred, and one thousand, and twelve hundred miles, for the purpose of carrying the products of the northwestern states down to the Gulf of Mexico and thence to the markets of Europe; if you will consider that the Erie canal is being deepened, and that every possible facility for transportation southward, not northward, is being, given by the great resources of the people to the south of us : if you consider all this, surely it will be clear that every possible thing that the peo-


Clifford Sifton: 
Mr. SI FT  ON@: The government and parliament will be governed by the terms of Mr. HACGART
the contract and not by what the president of the Grand Trunk Railway says.


John Graham Haggart: 
Clifford Sifton: 
John Graham Haggart: 
Clifford Sifton: That is their busine they have to do it under the contract- ^


John Graham Haggart: It is not in the c
tract,
. alter


Mr. OSLER.: The government mi%a
the contract next year.


John Graham Haggart: 
Clifford Sifton: 
Mr. TISDALE.: That' is without rolling
stock.


Mr HAGGART.: No ; in that there is an allowance of $3,000 per mile for rolling stock. But the gradients are, m man>
cases, 90 feet per mile going north and from 50 to 00 feet per mile going south. I venture to say that the cost of the road from the interprovincial boundary-that is, from the end of the prairie section-to Lake Nipis-sing will be as great as that of the Canadian Pacific from the interprovincial boundary toward Port Arthur. I have stated before that some parts of that road cost $60,000 per mile to grade. It is through a country just such as my hon. friend describes-he uses the very words I used-a country with knobs of granite interspersed here and there with immense muskegs. It is not a difficult country as regards gradients, yet it is one of the most difficult countries on earth for railway building-a lacustrine country with granite ridges.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Graham Haggart: Where are they to get! the money in the ' meantime to proceed with the undertaking ? Is that to be furnished by the government ?
Mr. Hays continued :
-and then after that eight years have rolled by, you have seven years yet on the mountain section, a part on which there seems to be some doubt. There can be not the slightest doubt as to what the returns will be from the prairie section, but on the mountain section you have seven years without any claim at all, three years after that only a claim on what is earned, making, therefore, before the mountain section becomes anything of a burden on the railway, eighteen ye,ars.
That is the liability of (lie Grand Trunk Railway Company in reference to the matter. In criticising the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the hon. Minister of the Interior, referring to the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, from Montreal to the Georgian Bay and if necessary to Winnipeg, and to the western section of the country, said that the evidence to be found in this House is that my hon. friend was bitterly opposed to the extension of the road to Montreal. My hon. friend never did anything of the kind. What he did oppose was a had bargain which was made by the government with the Drummond County Railway Company and with the Grand Trunk Railway Company in order to get Into the city of Montreal. He never opposed the extension of the In ter colon i il Railway to Georgian Bay. The hon. minister stated also that my leader need not be opposed to the conditions made with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, because the General Railway Act makes provision in reference to the tolls and rates that are to be charged by all railways in the country, that the control of rates has



been given to the railway commission ami that it would be useless to embody such a provision in the agreement made with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. But in the same breath he said that this government had acted differently on another occasion, that when they had the opportunity they made a bargain in reference to the Crow's Nest Pass railway, fixing the freight rates. If it were a work of supererogation in reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific, why embody this provision in the bargain with the Crow's Nest Railway Company ? It is true that we have control over freight rates. It is true that we have the right to expropriate railways. We have the general power of confiscation, of taking them absolutely without remuneration. The parliament of Canada is invested with these powers, but we have never exercised them except on reasonable grounds. We could not take into consideration the $150,000,000 given by the government of Canada for the purpose of building this road and fixing the freight rates, nor could the commission do it. This is a gift from the people of Canada under the conditions embodied in the contract, and the fixing of rates and tolls must take into consideration, not the gift of the people of Canada of $150,000,000, but the actual value of the undertaking itself. Therefore, the condition as proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was a perfectly proper one to be embodied in this Bill. What are we doing ? We are giving $150,000,000 for the purpose of completing this line. The parties who are the beneficiaries only give $15,000,000. We make no conditions as to freight rates or anything else. The hon. Minister of the Interior says that there is no necessity for it, that the board of railway commissioners, presided over by the best railway authority in Canada, will fix the rates nolens volens on the line of the Grand Trunk Railway. No necessity for embodying it in the contract ? There is just as much necessity for embody, jng it in this contract as there was for embodying it in the contract for the construction of the Crow's Nest Railway. Then it is proposed to alter our position as to our security for the money that we advance on the prairie and western sections of the road. The reason given by the hon. Minister of the Interior, is that we want to allay the apprehension of the stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and show to the world the confidence of the people <,f this country in this undertaking. These are the reasons given by the hon. gentleman for changing the securities. They may be patent reajsonsf. They may ,be j-estsons which influenced the government of this country, but fancy the parties to an arrangement of that kind, business men, asserting these as reasons for the purpose of modifying the security and giving to ( tlier securities an equality with them.


John Graham Haggart: 
Mr.  E. B.@: That is, getting into the Northwest.
-we caused a Bill to be introduced into the Canadian parliament for securing a charter of incorporation for the creation of a company with an independent organization, but in close connection with and under the control of the Grand Trunk Company for the purpose of building a lino of railway from a point of junction on the Grand Trunk line, passing through the most fertile districts of the Northwest and terminating at a port on the Pacific coast.
So, the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company tells his shareholders that his company caused the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill to be Introduced into this House. He said he was in negotiation with the government for it eighteen months ago. The Grand Trunk were at the back of the Bill. Through a dummy, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, they carried on negotiations with this government. That is the statement of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to his shareholders, and I presume that it. Is correct. He says also :
When I addressed them

The shareholders,
-in the month of April last year, it might reasonably be expected that such a scheme might be carried through without engaging in any way the credit of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Company.
Now, Sir, I appeal to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Finance and to every member of the government, if they did not, in the House last year, state that this scheme was backed by the Grand Tiunk,


Mr. BENNETT.: No mouth organs.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is evident, because, ns my hon. friend from East Simicoe (Mr. Bennett), says, there are no mouth organs in this business. I commend and highly compliment the government upon the decision they have arrived at, that none of tlieir supporters are to get up and attempt to *justify tliis bargain.
Some lion, members. Oh, oh.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We hope they will cluing >
tlieir minds, because tlio more this contract is attempted to be justified, the more its hideous colour will be disclosed. Let us take tlie contrast between the speech delivered by the right lion. Prime Minister this session and the .speech which lie delivered lust year. Why liis speech last vear carried us all off our feet ! There was


Mr. BARKER.: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: That is the Grand Trunk Railway caused a Bill to be introduced.
We caused a Bill to be introduced into the Canadian parliament for securing a charter of incorporation for the creation of a company with an independent organization, but in close connection with and under the control of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, for the purpose of building a line of railway from a point of junction at or on the Grand Trunk line, passing through the most fertile districts of	the Northwest and terminating at a port on the Pacific coast. Under the natural impression that a scheme of this nature would' commend itself to the approval, and would obtain the support and encouragement of the government and parliament of Canada, so liberally accorded to other railway enterprises. I ventured to suggest to the shareholders, when I addressed them in the month of April last year, that it might reasonably be expected that such a scheme must be carried through without in any way engaging the credit of the Grand Trunk Company shareholders.
Now, Mr. Prime Minister, what have you to say to the statement that I think was made by yourself and by every member of the government, that the Grand Trunk was behind your scheme body and bones.


William Humphrey Bennett: Of it and in it.
.Mr. OSLER. Yes, of it and in it. The president of the Grand Trunk Company in addressing the shareholders last month states, that that scheme which he negotiated with this government, according to his idea, did not commit the credit of the Grand Trunk shareholders to one dollar.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: That is not what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) read. Sir Rivers-Wilson says that when he introduced it it was of that character.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Exactly ; he refers to the scheme that was carried through last year.


William Mulock: No.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, I will read it again.
When I addressed them-in the month of April last year it must reasonably be expected that such a scheme must ho carried through without engaging in any way


William Mulock: Yes.
Mr. OSLER, Surely ' in any way ' means that it would not engage their credit to even the extent of one dollar.


William Mulock: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) draw any distinction between Sir Rivers-Wilson's statement of the case in the month of April, 1903, and the Act passed by this parliament towards the close of the year 1903, creating the contract ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Let me read on.
Such was my conviction at the time. (A voice : I hope it is so now). Such was my conviction at the timb founded upon resonable data, and in view of the proceedings to which I nave

alluded, I must confess that when I made that suggestion I appear to have been somewhat over sanguine.


William Mulock: Hear, hear.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That was after he had his negotiations with the government. Ale does not say that the governement objected to that at all ; he does not say that the government wanted to impose the obligation of a dollar on the Grand Trunk shareholders ; but he says :
I appear to have been somewhat sanguine, not sufficiently considering, perhaps, the weight of political opposition which the scheme was" destined to encounter.
He was not considering that the opposition-


William Mulock: Not ' the ' opposition-political opposition;


Edmund Boyd Osler: Political opposition is the opposition in this House, and if it had not been for the Conservative opposition, you might have opened the treasury doors to Mr. Hays and the president of the Grand Trunk, and every one of the ministers would have apparently gone down on their knees and said : Please gentlemen if there is anything more that you have not got, take it, and we will endorse, your note for anything else you may require. But the Conservative opposition checkmated the Grand Trunk president's idea that he was going to get this big plum without one shilling of liability, and he had to go back to his shareholders and say :
It has been accordingly found Impossible to carry the measure through the Canadian parliament without imposing some limited obligation on the Grand Trunk Company ; not by any means however as I think I shall satisfy you-


Mr. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.: Have you got any more of the books from which you are reading ?	>


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes, I shall be glad to supply the members of the government with a verbatim report of the meeting of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk, and I think it will do them good. They apparently are ignorant of the scheme they are endorsing and committing this country to.
Our original idea was to build from a point on the Grand Trunk Railway to the Pacific coast. The intention was that the point of junction should be at or in the neighbourhood of North Bay. It was made, however, by the government a condition of the grant of the charter of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company that the line should be extended eastward from North Bay to Quebec into the city of Moncton, in New Brunswick. ... As a result, however, of the negotiations with the government, another Bill was introduced by the government itself for ensuring the construction of the contemplated line from New Brunswick to the Pacific in joint partnership between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I deny it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I appeal to the Prime Minister, if it is not so how can he inform this House that he has allowed six months to go by and now comes here and tells us that the government have no more information with regard to that country than they had when we left here six months ago ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I deny the statement of the hon. gentleman absolutely in every particular.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What statement ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The statement just made by the hon. gentleman that the Grand Trunk had reports of surveys so bad that we would not let them put those reports in. They have not had the section east of Abitibl surveyed yet and we have no reports from them.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Of course, I accept the statement of the hon. gentleman. But as a business man I cannot understand how he can make such a statement. Last year we were assured that this was an all-important matter, a matter that could not wait, and now the Prime Minister tells us that they have not taken the first steps to ascertain whether the country is good or bad. That is not business. I think it quite justifies the opposition and the country in drawing the inference-in fact, it is the only possible inference-that the government have no intention of building that road. There is no excuse that can be valid as coming from a government that took the position this government did six months ago in regard to this railway. Instead of coming down with any new information, they say : We give you the account of that country by an enthusiastic missionary, two hundred years ago, and we are going to build a railway on his report.
I do not often talk long, but I have a text here that I could speak on for two or three days-but I am not going to. I want now to take up a question that was so eloquently handled by the Minister of the Interior, the question of the rolling stock. He made a statement here this evening in connection with the rolling stock, and the statement he made, with all earnestness and apparently in all sincerity, gives me a key to understand the reason of this scheme. It means that the men who have gone into this scheme are totally ignorant of what it involves. Now the Grand Trunk general manager states distinctly that the $15,000,000 of rolling stock contracted for is to bo supplied by a rolling stock trust. The Minister of the


S59 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Interior, and I think the Minister of Justice, scouted the idea that they could put in $15,000,000 worth of rolling stock and that it would not belong to the railway company. Now let me tell you that this Grand Trunk Pacific have arranged, or are arranging, to supply this $15,000,000 of rolling stock through a rolling stock trust company, which leases that rolling stock to the railway company. If they gave it to the railway company and it became their property, 'and the railway company gave their obligation for it, then the position taken by the Minister of the Interior and by the Minister of Justice would be correct. It would not be good security as against the bondholders. That rolling stock is leased, not sold but leased to the railway company, and on every car and on every engine so leased there' is a plate:	This car is the
property of this or that rolling stock company, or of this or that trust company. The railway company as a rule pays 20 per cent down to the company that leases them that rolling stock. They buy it as a man buys property in instalments. The property remains the property of the men who built it and leased it to the company. Month by month as a rule, during periods running from five to fifteen years, the railway company pays those instalments to the owners, and at the end of the period when all is paid for, the rolling stock becomes the property of the railway company. But until that is paid the railway company does not own the stock, the bondholders of the company do not own it and have no lien upon it until it is paid, for the owners of that rolling stock-all earmarked, mind you, not to the Grand Trunk eastern division, but to the men who supply the rolling stock-lease it to the railway company, and when it is all paid, a deed is given on the last payment. Now let me tell you that the courts in the United States and the courts in England have held that the payments under a rolling stock lease, under those conditions, form a part of the working expenses of the railway, unless the railway has rolling stock in excess of the requirements of the operation of the road. That is quite right and proper, because if you take the rolling stock away from the road the road is able to earn so much less. It is like taking away the tools from a mechanic, he cannot make his living and pay his debts.
Mr. WADE.: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him in what case that was so decided ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I will leave that to my hon. friend in front of me to answer.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Just give me the case in which that decision was made.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: 

80S
of Canada lost $800,000 on four articles of export, and the government have taken no step, in any shape or way, to remedy that evil and to provide that men who ship Canadian produce through Canadian channels shall get rates as low as can be got in shipping through foreign ports. But they are prepared to throw away $150,000,000 of this country's money to enable a railway company to increase the shipments of Canadian products, not through our own ports, but through the foreign port of Portland.


Mr.  F. B.@: WADE moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
conveying said mails by stage ?	,	«
7. Were tenders invited for this servic [DOT]	.-.,
Hon.   S@: Thursday, April 7' 1904.