1917-08-30

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Who is the Administrator of Yukon Territory?
2.	When was he appointed, what is his salary, and what amount is paid for living allowance?
3.	How much has he received for each since the date of his appointment?


Mr. ROCHE:: ,
1.	G. N. Williams.
2.	First appointed 9th October, 1915, acting until 9th June, 1916. Re-appointed 13th October, 1916, and is still acting. Salary, $500 per month. He does not receive any living allowance.
3.	From 9th October, 1915, to 9th June, 1916, $4,020.97. From 13th October, 1916, to 31st July, 1917, $4,806.45. Total, $8,827.42.


ENLISTMENT OF VOLUNTEERS AT MOOSEJAW.
Mr. KNOWLES:: .
1.	Is there any arrangement by which volunteers may enlist in Moosejaw, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, before whom may they be attested?
3.	How long has the present arrangement been in effect in Moosejaw?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Before a justice of the peace.
3.	Always; but, in addition thereto, there were recruiting officers at this point so long as the results warranted it.


THE JAMES SIMMONDS CO.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Has the James Simmonds Co., Ltd., Halifax, any contract with the Militia Department for the supply of any goods?
2.	If so, what is the date of the contract?
3.	What is the amount involved?
4.	What character of goods have been supplied?
5.	Who were the president, general manager and secretary-treasurer of this company, respectively?
6.	Have any goods been purchased from this company other than under special contract?
7.	If so, when, and for what amount?
8. Is Lieut.-Col. R. B. Simmonds of tho 66th Princess Louise Fusiliers interested in this company?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1. No.

2, 3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5.	The department is not informed.
6.	Yes. Hardware for engineer services.
7.	Since April 1st, aggregating two thousand five hundred and fifty dollars for engineer services, one hundred and ten dollars for ordnance services, twenty-two dollars and fifty cents for barrack services.
8.	The department is not informed.


MARCONI STATION AT LOUISBURG.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Has Marconi wireless station at Louis-burg, N.S., been closed, and, if so, at what date?
2.	Are the censors who were stationed there employed anywhere else, and if not, do they still receive their salary as censors?
3.	Is it the intention of the Department of Militia to keep at that wireless station the soldiers who were there?
4.	What is the number of officers and soldiers at that station?
5.	Is, or has, W. W. McVicar been one of the censors employed at that station? What is his salary and the date of his appointment?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: 1.	On 4th August, 1917, the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company was ordered to cease to transmit traffic.
2.	The services of the present censorship staff will be dispensed with on the 1st September, when the office will be abolished. The censors will receive pay during this time (4th August to 1st September), as their services are necessary in winding up the business.
3.	Under consideration.
4.	The necessary guards as recommended by the General Officer Commanding for the protection of the station.
5.	W. K. McVicar was appointed decoding clerk on 25th June, 1917. He received $2.50 per diem and 75 cents per diem living allowance. His employment terminates with the closing of the station.


IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS AT QUEBEC AND MONTREAL.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Is it not a fact that the great majority of the immigrants arriving at the ports of Quebec and Montreal speak only the English language?
2.	How many immigration officials are employed at the said ports, and how many of said officials are able to converse freely in the English language ?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Twenty-seven officials at Montreal. All converse freely in English.
2. Thirty-two officials at Quebec. All but eight converse freely in English, and of

these eight four are sufficiently competent to understand all questions addressed to them in English.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many additional buildings and offices have been rented by the various departments of the Government in the city of Ottawa during the calendar years 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917?
2.	What are the names of the lessors, the length of the lease and the respective rentals of said buildings?
3.	What department in each case is occupying said premises?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many officers and men are attached to the Dental Corps in the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick military districts?
2.	What are their names and rank?
3.	What are the salaries and allowances of each of them per month?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What are the names and rank of the different chaplains in the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick military districts?
2.	What are the salaries and allowances paid to each of them per month?



' PAY OF VOLUNTEERS OPERATING TRAINS IN FRANCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (St. John, N.B.):: I would like to take advantage of the presence of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp) and also of my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane), to call attention to what I think is a very important matter, and to base a question upon it. I have before me a letter, part of which is as follows:
On January 17th, 1917, the St. John and other Canadian papers published with big headlines Mr. Guteltus' circular to employees of the Canadian Government Railway, asking for volunteers to operate trains in France, taking supplies and munitions to trenches. Among other conditions it stated: "And with the further understanding that they will receive wages made up of military pay supplemented by railway pay equal to' their present pay", etc. The required number were quickly secured, briefly drilled, sailed for England March 1st, and after delay of about a fortnight went to France, and of course are there now.
My information is that instead of the * promise made by Mr. Gutelius in his circular being carried out, these men are only receiving $34 per month, instead of in many cases $90 per month, which would be the amount of their railway pay. I think the ministers will agree with me that there is nothing more important than to keep faith with those who go to the front,
and nothing so calculated to interfere with recruiting as a failure to keep such a promise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Pugsley: I now ask a question, and, if I am out of order, the Speaker will call my attention to the fact. I would like [DOT] to know whether those statements are true, and whether or not the promise made by Mr. Gutelius has been carried out.


Mr. COCHRANE:: So far as I am aware, the railway has carried out every promise it made. If my hon. friend will put his question on the Order Paper, and will give the facts, I will take it up.



CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir THOMAS WHITE (Minister of Finance):: Under Rule 17B I beg to move, seconded by Hon. Mr. Hazen:
That the debate on the Third Reading of Bill No. 125, An Act providing for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company shall nqt be further adjourned.
The motion was carried on the following division:

Messieurs:
Armstrong (Lamb ton),	Lewis,
Armstrong (York, O.), McLean	
Arthurs,	(Queens1, P.E.I.),
Ball,	McLeod,
Barnard,	Merner,
Bellemare,	Middlebro,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Morphy,
Best,	Nicholson,
Borden (Sir Robert),	Rainville,
Boulay,	Robidoux,
Bowman,	Roche,
Boyce,	Schaffner,
Boys,	Scott,
Brabazon,	Sexsmith,
Burnham,	Shepherd,
Burrell,	Smith,
Clark (Bruce),	Stanfield,
Clark (Red Deer),	Steele,
Cochrane,	Stevens,
Crothers,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Currie,	Stewart ( Lunenburg ),
Donaldson,	Sutherland,
Edwards,	Taylor,
Elliot,	Thompsqn (Yukon),
Foster (Sir George),	Thomson (Qu'Appelle),
Girard,	Thornton,
Glass,	Turriff,
Hanna,	Walker,
Hartt,	Wallace,
Hazen,	Webster,
Henderson,	Weichel,
Hughes (Sir Sam),	White (Sir Thomas),
Lalor,	Wright.-65.



NAYS. Messieurs:
Achim,	Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Barrette, *	Lemieux,
Bourassa,	Macdonald,
Bureau,	McCoig,
Cardin,*	McKenzie,
Carvell,	Marcile (Bagot),
Copp,	Martin,
Delisle,	Michaud,
Douglas,	Murphy,
Fortier,	Nesbitt,
Gauthier	Oliver,
(St. Hyacinthe),	Pacaud,
Gauvreau,	Pardee,
German,	Power,
Graham,	Proulx,
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.), Pugsley,	
Kyte,	Ross,
Lachance,	Seguin,
Dafortune,	Sinclair,
Lanctot,	Truax,
Lapointe	Turgeon,
(Kamouraska), Lapointe	Verville.-43.
(Montreal, St. James), PAIRS.	
Messieurs:	
Alguire,	McMillan,
Bradbury,	Cruise,
Chabot,	Beland,
Carrick,	McCraney,
Clements,	Knowles,
Cockshutt,	Charlton, '
Cromwell,	Tobin,
Davidson,	Carroll,
Descarries,	Demers,
Doherty,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Forget,	Bickerdike,
Fripp,	Devlin,
Gauthier (Gasp6),	Ethier,
Green, .	Buchanan,
Jameson,	Guthrie,
Kemp,	Robb,
McCurdy,	Maclean, A. K.,
Marshall,	Neely,
Meighen,	Loggie,
Morris,	Boivin,
Morrison,	Molloy,
Munson,	Boyer,
Nickle,	Kay,
Northrup,	MacNutt,
Rogers,	Papineau,
Thoburn,	McCrea,
Tremain,	Chisholm,
White (Renfrew),	White (Victoria),
Wilson.	Wilson.


Mr. CARROLL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson); otherwise I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. NEELY:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Marshall); otherwise I would have voted against the motion. ,


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: I was paired with the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb); otherwise I would havie voted for the motion.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-
[Sir Thomas White.!
cil); otherwise I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MUNSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Boyer); otherwise I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BRADBURY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruiee); otherwise I would have voted for the motion.
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Thomas White for the third reading of Bill No. 125, providing for the acquisition by His Majesty of the capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, continued from August 29, 1917.


Mt. SPEAKER:: 
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I fear that under the baneful influence of the Government in office our institutions are becoming gradually Americanized, the use of the gavel in this House being a somewhat novel proceeding with us, but one which is common with our neighbours to the south of us. Whether the result will be a good thing for Canadian institutions or not I do not know, but certainly the introduction of this novel method of stopping debate accords well with the nefarious measure it is being applied to. We are here, Sir, dealing with the most serious question, as faT as the financial interests of Canada are concerned, that ha6 been before this Parliament for a long period of years. At an earlier period we heard a great deal about the tremendous obligations imposed upon this country by the Canadian Pacific Railway proposition. Although that proposition was a very great one, it is not comparable in the slightest degree, from the standpoint of the amount of the obligation which is being imposed upon the country, with this one which is being forced and crushed through this House without the slightest regard for the consequences. It is undoubted that the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) is induced to take this course because he has some facts to conceal, and be-



JO, 1917

[Stage Direction]
cause he is unwilling, or unable, to give to the Canadian people the information which they are entitled to receive before a measure having such tremendous consequences to the country passes through this House.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) accuses a minister of deliberately concealing facts and availing himself of the rules of the House for the purpose of so doing, he is going beyond the rules of debate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have a right to say that, as ah explanation of the reason why this closure is being applied, tjie Minister of Finance is unwilling to give the House the information that the House has a right to have.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Under our rules, the hon. member must take his seat. The second statement of the hon. member is not quite so objectionable as the former one, but still I think that both of his statements exceed the proper decorum of debate.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My second statement was an exact repetition of the first one. I have no desire to transgress the ordinary rules of debate but I have a right to say to the House and the country what I deem to be the correct explanation of why this measure is being forced through-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; so long as the language of an hon. member is parliamentary.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I submit that my language is quite parliamentary in every particular. I was not suggesting motives. I was stating the reason why the Minister of Finance was using this novel method of forcing through this measure, and I have a right to do that.
We are discussing to-day the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) which declares that before this country is finally and positively saddled with this enormous liability of $650,000,000, together with whatever amount the arbitrators may choose to award for the stock which the Canadian people are supposed to get under this agreement, they should come back and submit to Parliament the question of whether or not that money should be paid. In view of the enormous liability, in view of the consequences which it will have for all time in the future upon this country from the financial point of view, such a reasonable proposition as that of my hon. friend from St. John ought to be accepted by this or any other government. When that proposition was made, what was the answer given by the right hon. the Prime
324i
Minister (Sir Robert Borden) last night? He told us that we should not think in this country of confiscating any person's property. Why did he not say so in 1914? When in 1914 he brought down the legislation by which he proposed to give the Canadian Northern Railway Company $45,000,000, he and his Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) said to the House and the country: Pass this legislation and we will have the right to confiscate. If it is wrong to-day it was wrong in 1914. The Solicitor General on that day, dealing with that measure, deliberately and solemnly announced to Parliament that the effect of it was that:
We now 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.
After that notice was given to Parliament in 1914 and the legislation was passed upon that understanding, what right has the Prime Minister to come to us to-day and tell us that we should hesitate about confiscation.
I have seen properties in which men have invested deliberately taken away, legislation passed in this House which was confiscation beyond all question, and when the Government pledged itself three years ago that it had the right to confiscate and could use that right and it would not cost the Canadian people five cents to get all the equity in this road, why should we have all these paltry excuses put forward to-day as reasons why they cannot confiscate when they have a right to? Then we hear that the Government had all the information necessary, that it had Mr. Bell's audit of the Canadian Northern accounts, that it had reports by Auditor Bell and reports of the Drayton-Acworth Commission and the report of Mr. Loomis. Why did not the members of this House have that information? Of what use is it to this Parliament, or to the people, if the Government have information which they decline to give out so that we may form a judgment? Let me give one or two illustrations of information so far withheld and without which this House is saddling this country with this enormous liability. The Finance Minister has not told Parliament, and apparently is not going to, the amount for which this stock is pledged with the pledgees, and this is information which the House has a right to receive. In addition to that, let me remind the Finance Minister that there are $25,000,000 of income convertible stock outstanding, and that at the time that stock, was issued and sold in Great Britain, aa

we are told it was, $25,000,000 of the common stock of the company was deposited with the National Trust Company as security, so that if the holders of the income stock desired common stock they could obtain it at any time up to the year 1919. That stock is in the hands of the National Trust Company. Has the minister told the House if any arrangement or understanding has been made with the holders of the income convertible stock in existence as to whether they will, before 1919, exercise their right to take that stock, which is now in the hands of the trustees?


William Thomas White: That stock is not covered by this agreement at all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, will
you take notice of any interruptions?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will give the ihon. gentleman full advantage of any interruptions,


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then we are told
with great gusto by hon. gentlemen opposite that they are getting absolute title to all the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway and of the subsidiary companies. And yet the Finance Minister, as you will find from Hansard of August 17, brought down a return in regard to certain subsidiary companies which showed that this Government and the Canadian people will not, as a result of this Bill, get all the stock of the subsidiary companies. There is outstanding $5,947,100 of that stock held by people outside, that being made up of $2,405,400 stock of the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company; $2,000 stock of the Central Ontario Railway Company; $2,940,000 of the Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway Company; $75,000 of the Halifax and Southwestern Railway Company; $500 of the Irondale, Bancroft and Ottawa Railway Company; $521,200 of the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company; and $3,000 of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company. That stock will not become the property of the Canadian people. But what will be the result? It will be that [DOT]unpaid dividends on stock guaranteed by the Canadian Northern in connection with the issue of debentures of these companies must be met. This stock is held by outside holders, and the result will be that some people, whose names are not known, whose names the Minister of Finance will not give to the House, will come into possession of stock which will be rendered valuable and be able to earn dividends, and in the case of debentures, receive their back dividends which have not been paid by the Canadian North-

ern Railway Company. Should we not know something about that amount. Is six million dollars approximately, so inordinately small a sum that nobody needs care about it? Surely in this time, when people are being taxed in every possible way, $6,000,000 cannot be disregarded. Yet hon. gentlemen are asking us to go it absolutely blind in regard to that matter, to pay no attention, whatever to it, and they give no information. Not only that, but all over this country there are coal companies, there are lumber companies, the stock of which has been held by the holders of the Canadian Northern railway stock. I venture to say that if you had >a correct statement of the stock pledged with the Canadian Bank of Commerce, it would be found that a large number of companies in which these gentlemen are personally interested have had their stock pledged by the holders with the Canadian Bank of Commerce, and that the argument will be *made to the arbitrators by the pledgees, whose indebtedness we do not know, that the value of the common stock of the Canadian Northern railway in the hands of Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann was very much greater by reason of the fact that it made valuable the stock in these coal and lumber companies a'll over the country, and on that account additional value should be given to the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway, and it should be assessed at a higher rate. But we have no information with regard to it, the House and! the country are told to go it blind, to shoulder this liability, to assume all these charges. For what purpose? Not because of any proposition of Government ownership.. The Prime Minister last night talked fantastically about some system of co-operative management of railways, with glittering generalities, absolutely evading any statement of principle as to what the intention was, and the House is asked to accept *that beautiful reason as a justification of the assumption of this enormous liability, imperilling the financial position of this [DOT]country. I venture to predict that the Finance Minister, inside of six months, will be unable to sell the securities of Canada except at a figure so disgracefully low that every Canadian will hang his head in shame, and the cause of the' depreciation of our securities will be this infamous bargain which is being forced through the House to-day by the hon. gentleman. The Prime Minister tells us of all the information that the Government has yet, he is	carefully concealing it from

the House. I have indicated one or two items in regard to which we should have had information. I cannot, in the short time within which I am compelled to limit my remarks, deal with every one of these questions, but I have indicated some of them.
Then he told us what a terrible thing it would be for Canada if this enterprise was compelled to go into the hands of a receiver. Why, said the Prime Minister last night; you would have to appoint seven receivers; you would have to have seven courts at work and seven sets of lawyers; you would have conflicts as to earnings; you would have the road broken up into fragments, and seven different receiverships. I was astounded at the Prime Minister venturing to make that statement in the House. He is too good a lawyer, as I know from my association with him at the bar of my province, not to be aware that if he' was speaking from a legal standpoint and not from a political standpoint he would not have made that statement. Does he not know that, under the Exchequer Court Act of this country, it is open for this Government or for any creditor of the Canadian Northern Railway, in respect of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and each and every one of these companies which were mentioned in the schedule of the Act of 1914 as being railways declared to be for the general advantage of Canada- to go to the Exchequer Court and have one receiver appointed covering the control over every one of these railways. I make that statement and the right hon. gentleman cannot dispute it. I have the words of the Exchequer Court Act under my hand and I can quote them to the House to show that the judge of the Exchequer Court has power to appoint receivers whose power to deal with this question will be adequate and ample to cover the control of all of these railways.
The legislation of 1914 expressly declared that the subsidiary companies which up to that time had not been declared to be railways for the general advantage of Canada, should come under federal authority, and they were so placed, and they still are there. Therefore, why does the Prime Minister talk about seven receiverships, seven courts of law, and seven sets of lawyers, in the face of that fact when, so far as the interests of this country are concerned, through the judge of the Exchequer Court one receiver could be appointed, with all the ample powers which attach to a receiver, who could deal with this whole problem,
and during the time of stress and financial difficulty and uncertainty could keep that railway in operation and in such condition that we would be able to deal with it later on, when proper investigation wae had. But this is the reason, forsooth, why we cannot do anything except what the Government asks. Then my right hon. friend the Prime Minister told us they were following the Drayton-Aoworth report in three particulars. My right hon. friend should have told the House wherein he was not following the Drayton-Acworth report, and if he had done so, he would have found a good many instances other than the scanty three which he had to conjure up as some justification for his statement. There is not a line in the Drayton-Acworth report that recommends giving a cent of money to Maekenr zie and Mann. On the contrary they eay it is not "for value received," because there was no value in it. There might be a disposition made of a certain quantity of stock which should remain here, but no money w.as to be paid, and yet my right hon friend (Sir Robert Borden,) made an attempt to lead the country to believe that the Drayton-Acworth report recommended that Parliament should recognize the right of Mackenzie and Mann to be paid in cash. There is not a line of that report that warrants that statement, and it cannot be justified. Why my right hon. friend should have made that statement I am at a loss to understand, in view of the fact that the Drayton-Acworth report told us this stock was not worth a dollar, and not a dollar ehould be paid for it, yet Parliament is seriously asked to provide for an arbitration, and if the arbitrators are unanimous there is no appeal, and whether the arbitrators are unanimous or not we cannot in this Parliament exercise our discretion or our judgment in regard to it no matter what the state of-Canada may be financially six months from now. In other words, we, or our successors in this Parliament, will be tied hand and foot from this moment, and will be unable to do anything to relieve this country from the enormous liability that is being imposed on it. And, forsooth, the Finance Minister tells us about this professional arbitrator at Toronto, this wonderful gentlemen, Sir William Meredith, about whom no person could make any remark, who will be sure to give a verdict in favour of the Government. That was the position the Finance Minister took. Sir William Meredith either is earning his money as Chief Justice of Ontario, or he ia not earning it. I am glad to notice that

a Conservative senator has introduced a measure which I am told has been passed in the Senate, which provides that in the case of judges like Sir William Meredith, who receive very big fees, the amount of these fees shall be deducted from the salary which the country is expected to pay them. Either Chief Justice Meredith is performing his duty as Chief Justice of Ontario, or he is not. If he is performing his duty to the full he has no business going into matters of this kind; and, in view of the fact that he is the professional arbitrator of the Conservative Government of Ontario and of this Government, he is not an appointee to whom the country can give carte blanche and say: Take this question into consideration, and Parliament will never have the right to control it in any way. What the Prime Minister was attempting to talk about in regard to the co-operative management of these roads, I was unable to conceive last night, and after reading Hansard this morning I was unable to understand it. Was he telling us that hereafter the country was going to finance the whole three railways of the country? If that is the proposition we ought to know it, but the whole thing is in such a position of blissful uncertainty, with no information, that the country is being told to take it blind. Just one word, Mr. Speaker, before 1 close-as you are compelling me to close -in regard to this allegation that this House has had an opportunity to consider this matter. Let me give the dates. On August 2nd, the Minister of Finance made a statement about the railways. Then he said nothing for five days. On August 7th, he moved a resolution in regard to this matter, and the House went into committee on the 7th and 8th August. On the 9th August the first reading was given to the Bill pro forma. My hon. friend then sat down and said nothing. My time is up, but let me complete this sentence.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have given the hon. gentleman two extra minutes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was interrupted
twice. I want to finish-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman was interrupted once-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And once by yourself, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was compelled to call the hon. member to order; that was not my fault.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It should not count against me.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And there was one interruption by the hon. Minister of Finance for the fraction of a minute. I have given the hon. gentleman two extra minutes, and I cannot allow any more.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to complete my statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: However, if the Speaker rules I cannot complete the sen-ten c, then I cannot.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I gave the hon. gentleman two full minutes over the allotted time. Whether it is acceptable to hon. members or not, it is my idea to allow each .hon. member one minute extra in which to conclude his remarks, but at the end of that time I must ask hon. members to conclude.
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Mr. Speaker, it so happens that, on account of the circumstances in which the House is not interested, I could not be present during the greater part of the debate on this question, and this is the first opportunity I have had to intervene in it. As my time is limited, I cannot do more than touch on two or three of the points which are in issue. It is true that last evening my hon. friend the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) was kind enough to say that, so far as I was concerned, I might exceed the rules and take all the time I wanted. I am sorry to say to the Minister of Finance that I cannot even thank him for (this courtesy. It is recorded in the Great Book that King David and his companions were in the desert, suffering from thirst, and when some water was offered, the King, seeing that there was not enough for himself and his companions, would not touch it. I am in the same position today. There is not enough to go around the members of the Opposition, and I shall share with them the short ration of time allowed to each of us.
Therefore, I cannot do more than touch two or three points which were involved in this discussion, and the first to which I shall direct my attention will be to a statement made and repeated again and again from that side of the House by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), the first time he spoke, and repeated by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) on more than one occasion-almost every time he was on his feet, and he was on his feet several times- and by my hon. friend the Minister of

Finance (Sir Thomas White) who declined to accept an invitation tendered him to go to the city of Toronto to discuss this question. The statement was made and repeated, that all the members on this side of the House, including myself and the member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) had agreed at one time to pay $30,000,000 for the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway.
Sir, let me tell the whole story, because the story as presented by hon. gentlemen opposite has been only partly told. In 1914,
I need not remind the House, the Canadian Northern was practically insolvent; at all events, it could not meet its liabilities or pay its fixed charges, and under such conditions, it was, by law, insolvent. It came to this House for assistance, and the question arose how Parliament should deal with it. Three courses were open to us then as now. The company might go into liquidation, it might be temporarily assisted, or the Government might take it over. We did not then, any more than we do now, favour this company going into liquidation, and in this Tespect our policy is different from that of the United States where many companies that have been in difficulties similar to those of the Canadian Northern have been allowed to go into liquidation. If I had more time at my disposal I should like to speak for a few moments on the difference in policy between the United States and ourselves in that regard, but I pass on. The Government decided at that time that we should assist the company. It was represented to us that if we advanced the sum of $45,000,000, that amount would enable the company to settle all their claims, meet all their liabilities, and complete the enterprise and make it a going and prosperous concern. The Government took every possible mortgage they could upon the assets of the company, and it is well in this connection for me to recite the Act to show the extent of the mortgage that was taken by the Government at that time securing the advance of $45,000,000, and the methods provided for the collection of it. First of all, let me say that the stock was increased from $77,000,000 to $100,000,000, by a stroke of the legislative pen, to use the graphic phrase of my hon. friend from Calgary the other day. The Government took $40,000,000 of the stock, and a mortgage upon the balance, and the company bound itself to grant " a first, fixed and specific mortgage or charge upon the shares " of the company. It also undertook to
(b) grant a specific mortgage or charge upon the mortgage securities and shares of stock now or from time to time hereafter deposited with and specifically mortgaged under the Trust Deed of the 30th day of June, 1903.
Cc) grant fixed, specific and floating mortgages or charges upon the undertaking of the Canadian Nortliern and its properties, assets, rents and revenues, and its rights, powers and franchises present and future.
Nothing was omitted. Everything that the company had in the way of property was covered by the mortgage. Then it was stipulated, and to this the company agreed, that in the event of default the mortgage would be foreclosed and everything would be lost by the company, even their equity of redemption. So far we made no opposition to the proposition made at that time by the Government. We agreed that we should take a complete mortgage upon everything that the company thad, and that in the event of default the company should lose everything it had mortgaged. That was tihe covenant; it is there in the law. Nothing could be more ample or more efficient than the mortgage we then took. But that proposition of the government provided one remedy, and one remedy only. It provided for the Government recouping itself for the assistance it had given to the company, in the event of default taking place. But we were not content with that on, this side of tihe House, because no provision was made whereby the Government could take over the road in the event of it proving a going and prosperous concern. The Government provided for our taking over the road in the event of default, in which case the company would lose everything it had, but the Government made no provision whatever for acquiring the property if the company was able to meet its liabilities and become a going and prosperous concern. That was the difference between the policy of the Government, and our policy.
My hon. friend from St. John moved an amendment that in the event of the company becoming prosperous we should make provision to acquire, not from an insolvent but from a solvent company, the property of the road for the benefit of the
4 p.m. Canadian people. His amendment contained four different provisions. The provisions were that the stock should not be $100,000,000, but should be reduced to $30,000,000; that this stock should be placed in tihe hands of the Receiver General to be held by him in trust for His Majesty for the period of five years; that if during that period of five years the company discharged its liabilities to the Government, made all the interest payments on the money advanced, and carried out all


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: So far as I am personally concerned, I have no feeling against Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, in fact I have nothing but admiration for the courage and ability they have shown in building this road. They have not only shown courage and ability, but I think they have, perhaps, built the road as cheaply as any person else could have built it under the circumstances. No doubt they were limited to a great extent as they went along by lack of capital, and we all know what that means to any one who embarks upon an undertaking of this kind. The Secretary of State told us the other evening, and several other hon. gentlemen have told us-I think the Prime Minister also made the statement-that if we took this road over under the scheme put forward by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), it would mean confiscation. My right hon. leader has just spoken very clearly on that point, and has set forth my views, exactly. This canned possibly be conjured up as a case of confiscation. My hon. friend the present Secretary of State (Mr. Meighen)

said most explicitly and definitely, in 1914, that under no consideration were the owners of this road to come back for further assistance, and in the event of default they were not to raise the claim that we were confiscating their property. According to the Drayton-Acworth report, and according to Professor Swain's report, and taking over the liabilities of the road we are actually paying more than the road cost. Therefore, nobody can imagine we are confiscating the property. Altogether apart from that, the owners of the road made a bargain with us in 1914. They were notified then most clearly and definitely by the Solicitor General that if they failed in their enterprise and we took it over by foreclosure they must not, under any consideration, set up a claim that we were confiscating the road. Where two parties make an agreement, and one is not able to carry out his undertaking, if the other takes over the property under the agreement there is not, and there cannot be, any question of confiscation. If a man mortgages his property and fails to redeem it, if the mortgagee takes it over nobody ever dreams of confiscation. I have nothin** to say against the pledgees of this stock for doing the very best they can to get the highest price possible for the stock, and 1 have nothing to say against Mackenzie and Mann for doing the best they can to get the highest price possible for this stock. It is their right and their privilege as independent citizens to get all they can. At the same time, it is equally our right, as representatives of the people, to see that the interests of the country are guarded. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister waxed very indignant last night in regard to the resolution seconded by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) in 1914, the effects of which resolution have just been stated 'by my right hon. leader, and stated that we were opposed to arbitration.
I have not heard any one on this side of the House express opposition to the principle of arbitration. What we claim is that in this case there is nothing to arbitrate. That is the position we have taken right along. The other day in committee the Government saw fit to vote through the proposition that the value of this stock shall be left to arbitration. That being so, it is our duty to see that the interests of the country are fully guarded by this arbitration. Both sides of the House have an equal responsibility in this, My hon. friend the member for St. John moved a very simple resolution, and one which will absolutely 
guard the interests of the people. It is to the effect that the finding of this arbitration board must be subject to the approval of the award by Parliament. Nothing can be more simple than that, and. in my judgment nothing can more completely safeguard the interests of the people. My right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) said last night that the reason they were taking over the stock instead of taking over the road itself was because they were leaving the operation of the road under its present management, or leaving the corporate entity absolutely as it was. We have been told by the Premier and also by the Minister of Finance that they were going to put this road in such a position that it would not be under the Governor in Council, and therefore would not be subject to party influence. They have not as yet given us any indication as to how the board of management will be organized, or how it will be appointed. If it is appointed by the Governor in Council it certainly must be under the control of the Governor in Council. and must be under party influence. There is only one way to avoid that and that is to appoint them in the same way as judges are appointed so that they are responsible to Parliament only. The people will never be satisfied with a commission to manage this road, or the roads of this country, unless it is in an independent commission and is composed of capable men. As to the personnel of the .board of arbitration, I have nothing to say against Sir William Meredith personally but I would have been very much more satisfied had some hard-headed, capable business man been appointed by the Government as their arbitrator. This is a business proposition after all. If we are going to arbitrate as to the value of this stock, the arbitration should be before hard-headed, capable, business men who have had experience and not before some judge who has been taken away from his business connections for a number of years. He may be absolutely fair in his mind and he may be capable but his business for years has had to do with proceedings in court. I have always been opposed to the appointment of judges on arbitration boards. Judges as a rule have been removed for years from intercourse with the business of the country. I have never been able to find out why judges are constantly appointed to arbitration boards because previous to their appointment the judges were probably only very ordinary so'icitors. There is no divine right by which they become more important after

they have got upon the bench than they were previously to going on the bench. For that reason I am opposed to that type of arbitrator.
I notice that the Minister of Finance has moved to strike out certain words and to omit certain clauses at the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) which I think improves the Bill in some ways. But, why he should strike out the words " on their own judgment " is something that I have not been able to realize.
I do not know whose judgment the commission will go by when they fix the amount of the award unless it is their own. They will hear evidence and all that sort of thing but why strike out the words " on their own judgment"? I do not know whose judgment they are going to leave it to, unless it is the judgment of the Governor in Council, or the Government, in that case, we should fix the amount now if there is going to be any amount. The .proper way would have been to have fixed the amount in this House if there was going to be any amount given.
I cannot understand why the Government, and especially the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State, should continually harp on the question of our confiscating this property. It is absurd to talk about confiscating a property when we are really paying more than the property is worth by assuming the liabilities and at the time carrying out the agreement which was entered into only three years ago.
Last night the Prime Minister discussed something that he has discussed here once or twice before, and that is a co-operative management of the railways. That would mean the taking over of all the railways. While I have not given it serious enough, or long enough, thought to enable me to conclude whether I am in favour of government ownership of railways entirely or not, that would be the only way in my judgment by which individual, or co-operative, control could be brought about.
The right hon. gentleman referred to the operation of railways in England. That may or may not be successful from the financial standpoint. The railways in England are in a very peculiar position. They have certainly operated the railways in England from the war standpoint excellently since the war commenced, but they had the advantage of the advice of all the best managers of railways in England, who joined together for the purpose of operating them during the war. That could only be done in this country, in my judgment, by
the Government assuming control of all the railways and appointing one managing commission. If we are successful in the attempt to operate this railway, something of the kind may be brought about in the future.
But, in the meantime, we are not supposed to be discussing that; the only question is whether it is wise to adopt this simple amendment of my hon. friend from St. John which absolutely protects the interests of the people. The Prime Minister said last night: What do you think of a proposal to appoint arbitrators with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court and then an appeal to Parliament? I have always thought that Parliament was supreme, was the high court of this country. Therefore, I do not see any danger, or any farce, m forcing the arbitration board, or even the Supreme Court of this country, to submit their finding to the Parliament of Canada. Not the slightest injustice could be done to any person by Parliament. Otherwise, we are not fit for our positions.
I do not see anything in the suggestion of my right hon. friend that it would be absurd to allow an appeal from the arbitration board, and from the Supreme Court, to this Parliament. These are only ordinary individuals that we have appointed to these positions ourselves, or who have been appointed by the Government which represents the country. I have no doubt that my time has expired. I will urge in sitting down that the Finance Minister and the Government reconsider the position they have assumed on this matter. It is a very simple question. All we want is the absolute protection of the interests of the people, and that is all this amendment asks. Why the Government should not accept it without any hesitation is something that I cannot comprehend.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would have risen immediately my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) sat down but I was not able to collect the references in time. I wish, with much respect, to say a few words in reply to his remarks, and also in reply to the remarks of my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).
It is some time since I have heard the right hon. gent'eman endeavour to reconcile the various positions he takes on any question. That was a custom of his in earlier days, but lately he has given it up. I freely acknowledge that when he does so

undertake no one can excel him at the task. He delivered this afternoon a very skilful, and indeed very able, effort in endeavouring to show thaJt the position to which he commits his party to-day is not exactly the opposite of that to which he committed the same party three years ago. The line he takes is this, he says: Three years ago you introduced legislation providing for the event of default; a bankrupt company approached Parliament and said: We cannot proceed without the assistance of this House; Parliament acquiesced in the request, and provided for only one event, provided for the event of default in later days on the part of the company, and provided that should such default take place, then we could foreclose the equity of redemption and it should become our property. He then went on to argue that we did not provide for the event of success, and that the purpose of his amendment to the third reading of the Bill at that time was to take care of that contingency and to see to it that, should the road succeed as a result of the assistance given, Parliament should have the right to take the property as the property of the people and to go in for Government ownership of a successful road. I wish first to aver that both his positions are incorrect. His statement is not a correct statement of what Parliament provided in the event of default, and his statement that the policy of the Opposition was to cover the contingency of success is likewise incorrect. We did provide for the event of default, and the provision for the event of default was not that, should default come, the equity of redemption should be, without conditions, foreclosed. Why did the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) leave out the whole terms of section 24? We provided thaJt if default should come Parliament should fix the terms and conditions, if any, upon which the equity of redemption should be valued. Now what is the meaning of "fix terms and conditions" if, under no circumstances, terms and conditions were to be fixed? The leader of the Opposition said they were satisfied with that clause. Now will you tell me what was the meaning of Parliament saying that terms and conditions would be fixed if, under no circumstances, terms and conditions should be fixed? He was satisfied with the clause, virtually assuming that there could be circumstances following default under which it would be proper to fix terms and conditions. Now,
I ask, under what circumstances could it be proper to fix terms and conditions following default, if not under the very cir-
j cumstances of to-day? We have been through three years of war. The difficulties the company is in to-day are difficulties that arose very largely from the war. I do not suppose their earnings have diminished by reason of the war, except that it has been impossible for them to complete their line owing to financial difficulties, and they have so not been able to get their full earnings. They have not been able to link up with Montreal or to get money out of securities which we have guaranteed. They have fallen short by many millions of dollars. Abnormal conditions have arisen so that the position today is surely exactly the condition upon which terms and conditions should be fixed and under which drastic measures should not be adopted, if there could be conditions in which drastic measures should be adopted. It is true there might be conditions under which we should fix those conditions. Those were referred to by the Prime Minister in one of his earlier addresses, namely where it was admitted that there was no equity of redemption to be valued, and, in the latter part of my right hon. friend's address, he himself admitted that if there was a real, substantial equity of redemption there, he himself would not confiscate it even now. Therefore it becomes a question: is there a real equity of redemption or is there not?
I said a moment ago that the leader of the Opposition was wrong as well when he intimated to Parliament that the purpose of his amendment to the Third Beading of the legislation of 1914 was to provide for the contingency of the road succeeding, to enable Parliament and the country to take over and operate a road that was successful in the hands of a private company. The right hon. leader of the Opposition was careful. It took him some days to think this reconciliation out. He was careful to read his amendment, and he was careful to read clause 24, but he was not so careful to read his own speech of that date. If he will read his speech he will find that the purpose of his amendment was not to provide for the road succeeding at all, but to provide another method of government ownership should the road fail. He laid down in his speech in the most explicit terms that for a successful road he would have nothing to do with government ownership. He was against it if a private company could succeed with the road. He wanted government ownership only if they had to keep coming back to Parliament for

further assistance. At page 4634 of the Hansard of 1914 the right hon. gentleman said:
But I have nothing to disclaim of what I said on that occasion.
That is on some previous occasion when he opposed government ownership.
Or upon any other occasion-that I never was favourable to the operation of railways by the Government. I do not say that there are not some countries more settled than we are in which this might not be a good policy. I did not say that this was a policy which might not be a good one in a country that is much more settled than ours; but in a new country such as this I thought that operation by company was preferable to operation by Government. Such was my view. I expressed it with perfect frankness and honesty to Parliament and the country at that time. With reference to the Transcontinental railway, in a country such as this, as between government operation and company operation, I favoured operation by a company.
Then later on he said:
I am not enamoured any more of government ownership than before, but if we have to make a choice to-day, and if the choice we have to make is between pouring more money into the coffers of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Government getting control of the road, I would rather get control of the road for the benefit and profit of the people of Canada. That is the view that I have to present to the House on the present occasion.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: So that he was not providing at all for the contingency of success, he was providing for the contingency of failure, and he said: If we have to keep on pouring more money into the road, let us not do it, but if a private company can succeed with it I am in favour of a private company keeping it, and not the Government of Canada. He was even more explicit on a previous day when he said:
If we could have had some assurance that this is the last call, and that they will not come back knocking at our doors again, there might he some reason to treat t.hem as they request.
That is the way the Bill was.
But we cannot have any such assurance. On the contrary, I think it is a matter of absolute certainty that, in view of the figures placed before us, in view of the undertaking ' which they have to carry out and of the conditions, they cannot complete that enterprise with the assistance of the $45,000,000 that is to he voted by this Parliament.
A matter of absolute certainty; he foresaw the failure of the road, and its coming back to Parliament again.
Therefore, he says, some new position has to be taken, and he proceeds ic argue what the position should be. He refers to the
previous amendment moved by the hon member for St. John and he said that amendment had two features; first to reduce the stock, and second to provide for taking over the road. He said the first was of no importance, and he put it aside, and he dealt with the provision for taking over the road, because, as he said, with the $45,000,000 assistance, in his judgment it was an absolute certainty the company would come back again. How is it then that he can argue to-day that in 1914 he had in mind the successful operation of the road, and1 that such was the contingency he was providing for by his amendment. It was the very opposite he was providing for, as expressed by his own words. He says again:	I never, while I was in power, as
Premier of Canada, confiscated the property of any man. I would not do so to-day. But he tells us that we are taking the property which has liabilities to the extent of $30,000,000 greater than its assets. Upon what can this Parliament assume, on any* principle of equity or honour, that that road which we are taking over has $30,000,000 of liabilities more than its assets. Did he ever while he was Prime Minister of Canada take the ex parte report of a commission, before whom the other party was never heard to determine the valuation of property this country expropriated? He never did. He provided for the Trancontinental railway. He expropriated property all the way [DOT] between coast and coast; he expropriated the property of Mackenzie and Mann, on the flats of the city of Winnipeg, amounting to almost $1,000,000, He did not provide in that case that, if Parliament was not satisfied with the determination of the courts of the land, the Supreme Court, being the final arbiter, Parliament should review and override, and act as a court of appeal over the Supreme Court. He never expropriated the property of any one while he was Prime Minister, unless on the report of a judicial tribunal, before whom the interested parties could be heard. Why does he now suggest doing the contrary? Why does he assume that, because the Drayton-Acworth report came to a conclusion without hearing the other party at all-a purely ex parte report-there was not surplus of assets over liabilities, and consequently that Parliament should assume there was not. If there is no surplus of assets over liabilities, we will have nothing to pay. All we ask Parliament to declare is that a properly constituted tribunal shall try the case, and if we are taking the property with $30,-

000,000 more liabilities than assets, that tribunal will so find. We are only asking Parliament to establish a tribunal before whom the parties can be heard, and the tribunal will determine whether or not the stock which we are taking, which represents the equity of redemption, has or has not a real substantial value. If it has no value they will so find, and if it has a value they will fix it. The ultimate tribunal under the Bill is the same as the ultimate tribunal under the Expropriation Act; it is the Supreme Court of Canada.
We have confidence in the tribunal to which we are going to appeal, and we will be bound by the decision of that tribunal. Referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt): It is true that the Parliament of Canada is the high court of the nation,but the functions of the Parliament of Canada are not judicial functions, they are legislative. When judicial functions are to be exercised, we establish tribunals and delegate to them judicial functions. We do so by this Bill, and we utilize the Supreme Court of this country, which is the ultimate tribunal in judicial dispute. If any wrong principle has been adopted, if anything is cited as a fact which is against the weight of evidence, it all comes before the Supreme Court of Canada, and they exercise their judgment in appeal oveT the tribunal of just such men as the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) thinks are best qualified to establish values. Now, then, where is the reason in this case to establish Parliament as a court of appeal over the Supreme Court, that did not exist in every other case of expropriation that we have ever heard of? If we are to make Parliament a court of appeal over the Supreme Court in this case, why do we not do it in proceedings under the Expropriation Act? Why not do it under every Act under which we expropriate? Why discriminate in this case? Is there any more reason to distrust the arbitrators and the Supreme Court of Canada, which reviews their findings, in the present case than in any other case? Why should they be deemed incompetent? Why should they be corrupt here, if they are not corrupt in other cases? Why should Parliament presume to assume judicial functions here, when they do not presume to assume such functions in any other case that has ever come before them.


Mr. PARDEE:: It appears to me that the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Meighen), who has just finished replying to the hon. leader

of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), has taken the most extraordinary ground. We have seen a good many political somersaults turned in one way or another, but surely the Secretary of State does not think he can cover up his own somersault, in the case of the Canadian Northern Bill now before the House and the Canadian Northern legislation of 1914, by simply saying in an offhand way that he has seen the leader of the Opposition try to justify himself many times, but never so unsuccessfully as to-day. Let me quote his own words. He said: It is some time since the hon. leader of the Opposition attempted to justify his various positions.
Well, surely, even from the Secretary of State's own argument, the leader of the Opposition has not taken any more positions on the Canadian Northern railway question than have the Secretary of State (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). And may I add here, in parenthesis, the last part of the argument of the Secretary of State implies that he has practically no [DOT] faith in the commission appointed to make the Drayton-Acworth report. He asks: Is it right, or would anybody think of taking the obiter dictum of two or three men who are appointed, without having the right to go to some higher place, to have it confirmed or otherwise? .
If the Secretary of State says that to-day I ask him: did he at the time, or did the Government at the time they appointed that commission, have faith that the Government would act on the report of the Drayton-Acworth Commission? If they did, why not take that course? If they did not, why does the Government not tell us candidly that the Drayton-Acworth-Smith Commission started out on a fishing expedition, to see what they could find, and that the Government was going to consider their attitude after the commission reported. The Secretary of State makes a strong argument in his own mind, and refers to section 24 of the Act of 1914, which says:
If authorized by the Parliament of Canada the Governor In Council may, on such terms and conditions as Parliament may prescribe,-
And then he goes on to argue that the terms and conditions to-day are extraordinary in regard to the taking over of this road by the Government. I think the House and the country will agree with me that the terms and conditions of the taking over of this road at the present time are most extraordinary-extraordinary in view

of the legislation of 1914, which expressly provided in section 24 that, if further default were made, the Government would have the right to take over that equity of redemption by foreclosure, and close the whole transaction, and thus the people of the country would become the owners of that road.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance tell us that it would not be right for the Government to take over the road without paying the company for the equity of redemption. How in Heaven's name they can say that, when their own commissioners have told them that the liabilities against the road are greater than its assets, I do not know. Where is the equity of redemption? There is nothing there to arbitrate about, absolutely nothing.
The whole trend1 of section 24 leads us to one conclusion, and one conclusion only, and that is that the understanding in 1914 between Mackenzie and Mann and the Government was this:	Mackenzie and Mann
said1: " Give us $45,000,000. Throw around the advance whatever safeguards you like, we don't care how drastic they may be. This $45,000,000 will tide us over and put us on our feet. We shall never have to come back to Parliament for assistance again, and consequently we will enter into this hard and fast bargain; that if we do come back to Parliament for assistance you may, willy nilly, take over the road under section 24." That was the understanding when the legislation was passed in 1914. The Finance Minister said in his heart at that time:	" Here we are at the end of this
long Canadian Northern haul. We will make no two bites at a cherry, but will give them $45,000,000 now, and if they ever come back again we will off with their heads without a word." The Finance Minister gave credit for the framing of that Act to the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) who was its father. The Finance Minister, speaking of that Act, said:
TVhat security have we? I have seen a good deal of financing in my time, and I know something- of law although my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) does not think so, and I want to say this:	I have never seen as
effectual a means of entering into possession of a property upon which a mortgage is held as has been devised by the Solicitor General in connection with this transaction.
The Act was the Solicitor General's haby, and he was proud of it then.


Wilfrid Laurier: He repudiates his child to-day.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: To-day he wishes it had
another parent.


William Thomas White: You are not going to "take off my hat."


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, that paragraph has been quoted so often that the minister will be completely bald if his hat is taken off any more. You can't get away from the fact that that statement of the Minister of Finance was to be read into section 24, and he thereby said: "The Government through its able Solicitor General has so surrounded this agreement with safeguards that in case of default the people of this country, if they desire, can take over the road without the payment of another single coppeT." Again, in 1914, the Minister of Finance said:
I was dealing with the question of remedy upon default, and was pointing out that we have a much better control than would be afforded by the security of a majority or all the stock of the Canadian Northern.
He was again, referring to section 24, the section upon which the Government was going to act. If at no other time, the minister, in those very words, which appear in Hansard, notified Mackenzie and Mann then and there that that was the intention of the Government. I submit that when a contract has- been entered into in good faith betwen two parties and when neither party will be prejudiced 'by the carrying out of the -contract, after full notice has been given and under conditions which make chicanery absolutely impossible, there is only one thing to do-more especially in this ease where the contract is not between private individuals, for the Government are acting for the people of the whole Dominion of Canada and have no right to change the terms of the contract entered into between the people and Mackenzie and Mann -and that is to carry out the contract.
To my mind there is no justification whatever for this Bill. I am always willing to do the fair thing. I am always willing to see money paid by a private individual or by a government for money's worth. But when somebody tells me that in this case we are confiscating property in which Mackenzie and Mann have an equity of redemption, in view of the fact that the Government's commissioners have said that the liabilities against the road are greater than its assets, I want somebody to tell me where this mythical equity of redemption is and why the people of Canada should pay a single dollar for it.
Besides -all that, I believe the people of this country think that Mackenzie and Mann have done moderately well out of

the Dominion of Canada and its 5 p.m. component parts. Gather into one big pail what Mackenzie and Mann have milked from our different municipalities, counties, and provinces, and from the Dominion as a whole, and I do not think there is a man in this House who would not say that Mackenzie and Mann have received from the people of Canada everything to which they are entitled. They have not been able to make the road a success. That is unfortunate for them, 'but it is not our fault; and they have no right, simply because interested persons desire this Government to do certain things in regard to the stock, to ask this Parliament to pay for stock that. is absolutely worthless.
In conclusion, I wish to say a few words as to the Government passing this measure by applying the closure. Outside of the war this is perhaps the biggest question which the people of Canada have ever had to consider. A question involving the assuming of liabilities to the amount of $600,000,000 will surely stand all the light of day and all the consideration hon. members of this House can give it. This measure, until closure was applied, had been under discussion for about eight days only, and I say eight days is none too much for this House to consider a transaction involving an increase in our national debt to an amount never dreamed of by any person in this country. The Secretary of State, discussing the amendment of the hon. member for St. John, asks whether the right hon. leader of the Opposition had ever asked Parliament to ratify the purchase of a property involving an expenditure of $1,000,000 in Winnipeg, or some other amount somewhere else. I ask you, Sir, whether this transaction involving hundreds of millions of dollars is on an equal footing with million-dollar transactions that took place under the right hon. leader of the Opposition? It is a horse of entirely different colour. You cannot treat the two things alike.
Perhaps the principle is the same, but the principle is absolutely swallowed up in the enormous sum of money for which the people of Canada will become liable in this case. Therefore, I say that, so far as foreclosure is concerned, the Government seem to be.in an extraordinarily great hurry to rush the measure through this House without having given all the information which we on this side desire, and to put it upon the statute book before the light of day has been properly turned upon it.


Mr. PACAUD (Megantio):: I want to avail myself of this last opportunity in OTder to protest strenuously against this unfair measure which a moribund Government are endeavouring to force upon the people of this country.
I will say further that their attitude is not based upon -any fair or reasonable ground, and had we not been used for six years to this regime always prone to offend common sense, we would have much more cause to wonder now.
The discussion raised by the Bill submitted by the Government has thrown a new light upon certain clear, plain and concrete facts, wnich have served as a justification for the strenuous opposition of lion, members, from this side of the House and have enabled us to understand the resentment of the people in presence of the sad exhibition the Government are making of themselves. In fact, it is hardly conceivable that such a measure as we are now debating could have been laid before this Parliament.
This measure is invidious and iniquitous. Indeed what does the Government proposal amount to? It is intended to acquire the stock of the Canadian Northern now in the hands of holders so that the country may own this stock and in order to have those shares valued, to make out the amount the Canadian people shall be called upon to pay to Mackenzie and Mann and their confederates, it is intended to appoint arbitrators -who' shall determine without appeal the amount we shall have to put up in this transaction. Upon their *award, without any interference from, this Parliament, the present Government shall pay unscrupulously, unhesitatingly out of the public treasury to a few favourites of this regime a sum amounting to $60,000,000 in their estimation.
The members on this side of the House recriminated. They shall protest to the last. They say to fhe Governmeht: You have the unquestionable right to get hold of this stock, to lay your hands upon that railway and the holders cannot claim a cent. Consequently, it is useless to appoint arbitrators for making the valuation of the stock, and when we consider that in this transaction we are assuming an indebtedness of $400,000,000, evidently the contention of the Government that, in so doing, they would unjustly confiscate private property, is an absurd contention -which is not. worth considering.
Mr. Speaker, our proposal is unassailable. We are confronted by a contract which

clearly provides under section 24 that .should the Canadian. Northern make default in paying the interest on the sums then granted by this Government-and nobody would deny that that contingency has materialized long .ago. and that the company has actually defaulted-the Government would be ipso facto, entitled to get hold of that stock and to lay their .hande upon that railway, without any special process of law and without being bound to pay .a cent to .anybody for this stock.
Section 22 of that Act throws still .more vivid light upon the intentions of the Government and shows that they intended to provide against that default on the part of the company, by pointing out the meane the Government .should resort to in order to operate the railway in case the contingencies anticipated by article 24 came to pass.
To-day, Mr. Speaker, the anticipations of the Government in 1914 have materialized. The 'Canadian Northern company have defaulted and relying upon that statute, we say to the Government: do not thus throw away $60,000,000 of the people's money; do not be so generous with the funds of others so as to favour a few millionaires from Toronto.
We are not alone to take that position. The opposition to this, measure is not confined to the opponents of the Government.
We have seen influential financiers of the city of Montreal most strongly protesting against this Government proposal. We have had the opportunity of reading their protest which has been published by several newpapers of this country. These gentlemen are friends of the Government. But before being partisans, they are enlightened and well informed citizens who before all wish to save the country from the hands of those who seem intent, cost what it will, to push it into ruin and bankruptcy. These gentlemen have read this Act of 1914, .and to .add to this rather conclusive evidence, they remembered the Drayton-Acworth report which states that the Canadian, Northern stock has. no actual value. Nevertheless, and in spite of all that, the Government w.ho>
preach economy to the people without ever practising it themselves, dare throw this 1914 Act to the wastebasket and, in order to again favour Messrs. Mann et al who have by their millions put the hon. gentlemen, into power, conceive the odious design of saddling once more the people- and that, without any necessity-with a
new burden of $60,000,000. Mr. Speaker, in times of peace .such a, policy would have been a blunder, but in war times, it is a crime.
>Do we realize, Mr. .Speaker, what that transaction is going to cost to the country? The member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) lias given us fabulous figures, almost incredible figures. This railroad acquisition will cost us $650,000,000, and our national debt, with this amount .added to it, now reaches a total of. $2,250,000,000. The meaning and the scope of these figures may be better understood, when we recall the fact that this war is costing us presently almost $1,000,000 per day.
Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this country are now sufficiently taxed by the ever-increasing expenses of the war without adding to them this new burden? Why not follow the system, adopted by the United States .and put the Canadian Northern in the hands of a receiver? That policy has been a .success in the United States, w.hy should it not succeed in Canada? Whatever be the case, let us consider the fact that, for the past three years, this Government has stated before this House and before the country, that our only preoccupation should be to win the war. The people have not recriminated; they have borne the tax without a murmur, even though the indirect tax is being increased .and the direct tax imposed. The Government are preaching economy to the people, should they not set the example, should they not practise what they preach unto others? Do they pretend that, by taking $650,000,000 to buy a. railroad they will thereby make our participation to the war more effective? Our national credit, Mr. Speaker, is affected by this legislation.
Quite recently we borrowed in the United States the sum of $100,000,000 and. we .had to pay over 8 per cent interest on that amount. Our credit, therefore, is not what it used to be. If we mean to take an active and really efficient participation in this war, we must above all keep our credit in good .shape. Please tell me, Mr. Speaker, when this proposal shall be known abroad, .in all its details, when our bankers shall .have weighed and analyzed what the Government are doing and intend to do, will they he very anxious to lend more money to this Government, and if they do so, what kind of a rate will they demand?
The members of this House are asked to endorse and approve, on behalf of the people, a measure without knowing the


William F. Carroll: There are a few observations I wish to make upon the legislation now before the House. I shall he as brief as possible. The Canadian Northern Railway Company has been a source of discussion in this House for the past eight -or ten years, and since my advent to Parliament f have found that on several occasions the Canadian Northern people have come to the Government for financial assistance. In the session of 1914 the Government practically gave $45,000,000 to the company to help them out of their then financial straits. If the Government did not actually hand over the money to the company, it recommended their bonds to the public, and endorsed and guaranteed those bonds. Under that legislation the Governor in Council through action taken by this Parliament was entitled to foreclose the mortgage in the event of default. At anofther session since 1914, the same Canadian Northern railway came to this Government and got over $15,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada, notwithstanding the fact that they had defaulted their mortgage and the Government was entitled to foreclose that mortgage under the statutory agreement of 1914. The handing over of this $15,000,000 did not look to me as good business, in view of the fact that the Canadian Northern railway were then in default as regards their agreement of 1914. Matters are a good deal worse to-day. It was not good business for us to give $15,000,000 since 1914 to the Canadian Northern, in view of the statute of 1914, and it

is still worse business for this Government to place now before arbitrators the question as to whether or not Mackenzie and Mann have any equity in this road. If any hon. gentleman in this Chamber held a mortgage of $10,000 on property which is worth, say, $50,000, and set a limit within which the money must be paid over with interest, if the terms of the mortgage are not met, it is his right as a business man to foreclose the mortgage and put the property up for sale, and if there is any equity left-if the property sells for more than the amount of the mortgage plus interest and expenses, the difference is handed over to the mortgagor. That is the way business is conducted in this country, and that is a sound business method.


Mr. MORPHY:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? If 9,000 miles of a railway system like the Canadian Northern were put up for sale at the present time, where would my hon. friend get his purchaser?


William F. Carroll: It does not make any difference whether this year is a year of stress, or whether last year was a year of stress, or whether the year in which the Canadian Northern railway made default under the statute of 1914 was a year of stress. We have not any law prohibiting us from foreclosing mortgages.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But where would the hon. gentleman get a purchaser?


William F. Carroll: Let the Government purchase under the statute. I daresay there would be competition in the purchasing of the road. There are railway institutions in this country which would run the road up to at least the value of its construction and equipment at the time of the sale. However, that is not the question. When the Canadian Northern railway came to this Parliament in 1914 for assistance they agreed to the terms of the statute of 1914, and it would be good business for this Government to foreclose that mortgage on default. Instead of doing that, the Government handed out $15,000,000 more of the people's money, and now they are placing the matter in the hands of arbitrators to say whether or not- there is any equity. That is not the way business is carried on in this country in regard to mortgages, and my contention is that the Government should follow the course followed by ordinary business men in dealing with mortgages or securities. What are the arbitrators going to arbitrate? Last year this Government appointed a commission known as
325}
the Drayton-Acworth Commission to report on the general standing of our Canadian railways. This commission made a report, and made certain recommendations. The Prime Minister told us last night that the Government was following the recommendations of the Drayton-Acworth report in many instances. There is, however, one particular instance in which that report is not being followed. I think I am correct in saying that the Drayton-Acworth Commission found that the $60,000,000 of stock held by Mackenzie, Mann and Company, and pledged with certain financial institutions, was absolutely worthless. The Government is not following the finding of the Drayton-Acworth Commission in this respect, and there is no reason given as to why it is not being followed. The commission reported that the stock was worthless, yet we are now to appoint arbitrators, who will cost this country a considerable amount of money, and the question which is to be put to those arbitrators is, how much is this $60,000,000 of stock worth, and have Mackenzie, Mann and Company any equity in the road? I do not see why the Government is willing to follow the Drayton-Acworth report in one or two or three instances, and not follow it right through. If they follow it in some instances, but not in others, I think the amendment which was moved last evening by the hon. member for St. John should have received more consideration than it did from the Government. The chairman of the arbitrating committee is a gentleman of whom I know nothing, except that he is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario. I have not a word to say against him, but I do not think he is a gentleman who would be likely to know very much about the finances of railways, the cost of railway construction, or the various other questions that will arise in this arbitration. I consider if we wanted to give Mackenzie, Mann and Company a fair deal-and that is the proposition put forth by the Government-a committee of this House, consisting of men who have been interested in railways, railway finances and railway construction for a number of years, would be the best arbitrators to deal with the matter, If I were called upon to appoint a board of arbitrators, I would name the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) as chairman of the board. He has been interested for many years in railway legislation and railway finances, and to a large extent in railway construction. I am not saying

this with the idea of paying a compliment to the hon. gentleman, but I say in all sincerity that this is a question to be dealt with by the people of Canada, through their representatives, and it should not be turned over to a tribunal in regard to wihich they have nothing to say, and which is in no way responsible to the people.
' Much has been said as to public ownership. There are hon. members on both sides of the House who are opposed to the Government ownership of public utilities. I take the ground that if this country is going to acquire the ownership of railways and operate them as public utilities it should take over every line of railway and operate it. I do not believe that the Government should compete in railway operation with private concerns. We know instances in which the public ownership of utilities has worked out very well. In the western states almost all the public utilities are owned and controlled by civic government. In Saskatoon, in Edmonton, and I am not sure about Calgary, the street railways are owned, controlled and operated by the civic corporations. They do not allow private concerns to compete with them. The same is true in the East gs 4te&rds waterworks, lighting utilities and all that. In most of our eastern cities and towns they are owned and controlled by the civic authorities. But, the authorities in each, town have complete control of utilities in that town. Our civic authorities are making a success of public ownership. There is no competition. There are no companies operating gas works, waterworks and street railways in these towns and cities. The principle underlying government ownership is that if a civic, provincial or federal government undertakes to own, control and operate public utilities, it should own, operate and control every bit of those public utilities within its jurisdiction. I think that is a sound principle and that is the principle underlying the Government ownership of .public utilities.
There is another reason why I oppose the passage of this Bill. On the 7th October, 1916, the term of Parliament was extended by unanimous consent for one year. While nothing was -said as to the kind of legislation that should be introduced, after the extension was granted, the principal reason why the extension was given was that this country could more readily carry on the big undertaking that was in everybody's mind at that time-the war. It was well understood, although it was not expressed and did not form a part of the Bill, that
TMr. Carroll.]
there should be no contentious legislation introduced while the term of this Parliament was extended. I am not urging that this Parliament has not the right to pass any legislation coming within its federal jurisdiction. It has power to pass this legislation just the same as it would have had in 1912 or 1913. But, in view of the fact that the extension was given wholly and solely for the purpose of enabling the people to concentrate their minds and energies on the winning of the war, the question of public ownership, which is really involved- in this legislation, should not be brought before this House, contentious as it is, and should certainly not be put through by means of the closure.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: What is the nature of the legislation which the hon. gentleman would propose in place of the legislation that is now before the House?


William F. Carroll: I have already outlined that fairly well. I said in the first place that if anything were needed to be done in a hurry we have the method provided by our statute of 1914. But there is not so much hurry with regard to this matter but that it could wait and be made an issue in the election which will no doubt come within a very short time. I do not think there is such need for haste at the present time as to make it necessary to put it through a Parliament that was extended only for the purpose of winning the war. *But, I was going to deal with the question of putting this Bill through Parliament by the closure. There is no doubt in the world as to the power of the Government to do so. But the Government are doing a thing which will rebound as a stone rebounds and hurt them for the re-'mainder of their lives.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Their lives will be short.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend says that their lives will be short. I hope he means their political lives because I have no reason to hope that any hon. gentleman, on the other side of the House will not live to the good old age of a hundred. The conscription measure was brought down some time ago. I took a certain stand on that measure. The Government were in a hurry to pass the law. I would not have minded the Government putting into effect this gag, or closure, on the question of conscription having regard to what they said on that occasion, that they were in a hurry to get the Bill through, if the reason to get it through in a hurry was that our soldiers

at the front were in dire need of reserves. But in this case there is no reason why this question could not have remained in abeyance until after the election so that the question would be squarely put to the people as to whether or not the forthcoming government should introduce what I conceive to be the government ownership of our railways. I do not think the people will look upon this as a business proposition.
I cannot conceive how they can. I know the Minister of Finance is a business man, everybody recognizes that fact, but I do not understand how he can justify himself before the people in extending not only relief to the Canadian Northern railway to the extent of $45,000,000 under the statute of 1914, then further aid to the extent of $15,000,000 and now in giving them an opportunity perhaps of getting $50,000,000 for stock which, according to the report of the Drayton-Aeworth commission is not worth one dollar. Talk about confiscation! Hon. gentlemen say that if they foreclosed the mortgage, or brought into effect the statute of 1914, it would be confiscation. Is it any more confiscation than it would be if a man foreclosed a mortgage for $10,000 on a property worth $40,000? Do you not think that Mackenzie and Mann, or the Bank of Commerce, or the other financial interests who are behind this company, would get ample justice if they were to go to the Canadian Pacific Railway and get the Canadian Pacific Railway to place a fair price on this road either through a sheriff's sale or the foreclosure of a mortgage.
It is done every day. Every business man in this country who loans money on property forecloses mortgages. The people know he has a right to do so; it is a business custom of this country; and no man will say that he is confiscating his neighbour's property because he forecloses under his mortgage. That neighbour goes into business, he takes his $10,000, and he knows when he signs the mortgage that if he does not pay under its terms it will likely be foreclosed. He knows also that he has a chance of redeeming that mortgage, that some friend may buy the property, and if there is anything over the $10,000 he hopes to get it.
I was going to say something with regard to the present operation of railways in Eng-and, but I shall not have time. There is one safeguard which I think should be placed in this legislation, and that is to have a definite provision that it is the value of this railway when Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann put their money into it or when
it was completed that is to be determined. There is no doubt that the present legislation will have in some degree enhanced the value of the stock held by Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann, which has been declared valueless, and some'provision should be placed in this Bill to guard against that. I think also that Mackenzie and Mann will attempt to prove to these arbitrators that if they put $10,000,000 into this road in 1914, the present value of that investment, owing to the enhanced cost'of everything in the railway, will be at present $20,000,000; and that if they put in $60,000,000 it will be worth $120,000,000. I think there should be some safeguard in that respect.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I believe in government ownership, and I am in favour of this Government taking over the Canadian Northern railway.
I voted for limitation of this discussion because I believe the country has heard all it wants to hear of this matter. I believe the people are convinced that Mackenzie *and Mann have got all they deserve from the people of Canada, and very much more than they deserve, and if this House discusses this question for the next two or three months, you will not make any difference in the opinion of the people of Canada-they will still be convinced that Mackenzie and Mann have got all they deserve, and a great deal more than they deserve. Therefore, I will merely say I am in favour of the amendment under discussion and I shall vote for it.
At six o'clock the House took recess:
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. ARTHUR B. OOPP (Westmorland); In a short statement made to the House just prior to recess, my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson) gave as a reason for supporting this measure that he was in favour of government ownership and operation of public utilities. He also gave as a reason for voting for the closure, as he did this afternoon, that the reputation of the Canadian Northern railway, or Mackenzie and Mann, was so nefarious that he thought it was a shame for the people to hear any mo-re about it. I am opposed to this measure principally on the ground that I am opposed to government ownership. I am in a somewhat different position from many members of the House on this question, because it has not been my privilege, or good fortune or whatever it may be

termed, to have anything to do with the Canadian Northern legislation until this present occasion. I realize, as every honourable gentleman must realize, that this is one of the most serious and most important questions ever brought before Parliament, at least during my short period, and I believe I am not exaggerating when I say one of the most important in the fifty years of Confederation. I do not feel that I should be doing justice to myself and my constituency having listened to the arguments on either side, if I did not express my views. Realizing the importance of this question, I have taken occasion to read Hansard and the different statutes regarding this company passed by this Parliament, in order to work out in my own mind what my duty was and what the duty of Parliament was to the people in this matter. We must realize that we are face to face with a most unfortunate financial position in the Dominion of Canada. In spite of that fact, the Government brings before this House a measure which, judging from the figures given by hon. gentlemen who have addressed this House-the correctness of which figures I have no reason to doubt- will place an added burden on the people of Canada of upwards of $650,000,000. They proceed with this Bill, in spite of the fact that during the past three years we have been face to face with a great crisis in this country, and have been obliged to go to practically all the money markets of the world to which we can go to borrow money for the carrying on of the war.
It is, therefore, a serious step for Parliament to place this further burden upon the shoulders of the people. It has been said that we should not for one moment think of the suggestion that this railway system should go into the hands of a receiver, because it would ruin the credit of Canada. I do not assume to speak as an expert in matters of this kind, but I have taken occasion to read carefully a very informative address delivered in this Parliament before I had the pleasure of a seat in this Chamber, in 1914, by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett), who laid before this House and this country a statement of facts which, if true-and I have no reason to doubt the truth of the statement made at that time-must cause us all to consider seriously what is the duty of Parliament at the present time. That address was followed by another address, by the hon. member from Kingston (Mr. Nickle), who also took a very strong ground

against the operation of this railway by the Government, declaring that it was absolutely unbusinesslike in every way for this Parliament to assume further responsibility in regard to the financing of this corporation. I may be asked what I think of the proposal to operate this railway under government control, and those who ask the question may well point to remarks I have made in this House and elsewhere in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial as a government railway. I claim that there is no fair comparison between the operation of the Intercolonial by the Government and the operation of this road, which has five or six times the mileage of the Intercolonial. At the time of Confederation, the building and operation of the Interclonial became a moral contract on the shoulders of any government managing the affairs of the Dominion. But I am not blind to the fact that there are very many strong arguments to be used against government operation, and I am aware that the Intercolonial itself is cited as a warning against that policy. I cannot but believe that the operation of the Canadian Northern Railway system, if undertaken by the Government, will impose a very great burden and -a direct liability upon the people, first in the necessary assumption by the country of responsibility for the financing the system and second in the operation of the railway. Unless a very great improvement is made in regard to the influences that politicians may have in the operation, it will be very difficult, indeed, for the Government to conduct the business of that railway in such a way as to realize the glowing picture painted by the Prime Minister in his address last evening of what some people hope for as a result of this legislation. I have tried to obtain information by listening to the questions which have been asked of the Government, and I am bound to say that I have been unable to see any willingness on the part of the Government to give even very necessary information in regard to this very important measure.
Question after question has been put to the Minister of Finance to find out who is demanding this legislation, and who is to benefit by it, but he has given no good and sufficient reason why this measure should be crystallized into law at this session of Parliament. My hon. friend from Calgary made it quite clear in 1914 that the $100,000,000 of Canadian Northern stock in the hands of Mackenzie and Mann -was absolutely without value, which statement was also

corroborated by 'the hon. member far Kingston; it was nothing but water, he said. Unless some adequate explanation is given by the Government, I say that the people of this country will view with deep-rooted suspicion the appointment of a Board of Arbitrators to determine the value of this stock. They will suspect that the Government have been urged to act by some interests behind Mackenzie and Mann, who have money invested in this great enterprise.
Why should the minister feel it necessary to introduce the closure at this early stage of the discussion, to press this measure through Parliament? My experience in this House has not been long enough for me to say just how long discussion should proceed on a measure of this magnitude before closure can properly be applied, if indeed, it is proper to apply it at any time. It has been applied only once before in this House, and that was on the Naval Bill introduced by the present Government. I have taken occasion during the last few minutes to look through. Hansard, and I can >see that thus Canadian Northern railway measure was discussed in the House on eight separate days before closure was applied. The resolution was introduced on August 7, when it was discussed for three and a half hours. On the 8th O'f August the resolution was again under consideration for four and a half hours. Then the first reading was given to the Bill, and on the 14th of August the second reading was moved, and five hours was spent in discussion that day. On the 15th the discussion lasted six and a half hours; on the 16th, when the Bill was given its second reading, two and a half hours. On the 17th the House went into committee on the Bill for two hours, on the 23rd for four hours, and on the 27th for seven hours, when notice was given that closure would be applied.
So that this measure, which the people of this country are vitally interested in, and on which they are anxious for information, was under dispussion for only thirty-five hours before closure was applied and public discussion throttled, fully one-half of which time was occupied by Government speakers. Taking seven hours a day, only five days were allowed to hon. gentlemen to discuss this very important measure. Then closure was applied, and it was impossible for the people of this country to get the information they were seeking with regard to this transaction.
In his memorable speech in 1914, the hon. member for Calgary not only gave us a great deal of information, but prophesied
what would happen in the future, and many of his prophecies are coming true. For one thing, he said it would not be very long before this company would be back again asking Parliament for aid. Let me read what he said in this connection:
I appeal to every man in this House and say that if he will take the time to read the history of the operations of Mackenzie and Mann from that time till now, he will find nothing but a long trail of parliamentary corruption, of lobbying, of degradation of parliamentary institutions, of the lowering of the morale of public life, and the degrading of those standards by which public life should be truly measured. Both sides of the House have been to blame. Look to the statute books for the aid that has been given to this company.
Mark what follows:
Just a few days before a general election, one party proposes and the other acquiesces. They are bound to ask a few questions in order that the contribution to party funds may be large enough.
The hon. member for Calgary says that just a few days before a general election, when each party thought the contributions to party funds were large enough, it was the custom to press railway legislation through Parliament. My hon. friend accused the Opposition of that day of making a feint at opposition and then- letting the legislation slip through. What does he think to-day, when he sees the gag being applied because the Opposition are determined to expose this nefarious proposition to the people?
My time is nearly up, and I must conclude. I maintain that the legislation of 1914 gave Parliament ample authority to take over the Canadian Northern in case of default, without paying Mackenzie and Mann or any interests behind them a single dollar, and I say that if the Government want to take over this road they should do so by means of the provisions of the law of 1914. What did the Minister of Finance say at that time, when he not only took off his hat to the Solicitor General, but turned round and looked behind him and said: "Wonder of wonders! Oh, Lord, where did I find him?"
He told the people then that the Government were carefully safeguarding their interests. If his words meant anything, they meant that if the Canadian Northern Railway Company or any of its subsidiary companies defaulted the Government would take over the road. It is, therefore, only fair and right that the Government, as the trustees of the people of the country, should, when they are confronted with a proposition such as faces us at the present

time, look after the interests of the people and take over this road, irrespective of what Mackenzie and Mann may say, irrespective of what the Bank of Commerce may say, irrespective of what Sir Edmund Walker may say, irrespective of what any other gentlemen who axe financially interested in the Canadian Northern Railway Company may say.


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I miaxle a. few remarks on this question on the second reading, and since then I have taken no part in the discussion. I would not speak to-night were it not that some of my hon. friends opposite are apparently able to treat this matter with such extreme levity. When, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp), an exceedingly short time has been taken up in the discussion of this, the most important matter, excepting, of course, the war, that has come up before Parliament in my experience. I feel that the Government are showing undue haste and great solicitude to get this measure through when they are applying the closure under the circumstances. The rules of the House are there, however, the Government have the right to invoke their aid if they see fit and we have nothing to do but submit.
I cannot do much more to-night than restate some of the opinions which I hold on this matter. After having listened to the discussion which has been going on now for some days, I am afraid that my views are not shared, in their entirety, by very many hon. members on either side o'f the House, although I am happy to say that some hon. members are seeing the light as I see it. What is better than that is that very much of the public thought in Canada, as expressed in the newspapers is in line with my views. If this amendment is carried, perhaps there may be some means of getting aw'ay from the unfortunate position into which we are drifting by the enacting of this legislation. We were told in 1914, as has been referred to in this House many times, that the advance of $45,000,000 would be the last contribution which we should haye to make to the Canadian Northern. We were told that that would pay the bills and put that company on its feet financially, and that it would then take its place as one of the great transportation companies of Canada. We were told also that if they defaulted we had the power by this legislation, and that it would be the duty and pleasure of the Government, simply to foreclose the mortgage and take over the property. We would then own it, and that 
would be the end of the matter so far as the stockholders were concerned. But in 1916 they came back again, and we gave them another $15,000,000. They are "now again in financial troubles. I for one do not feel that, under present financial conditions, with the enormous amount of money which we are compelled to borrow, with the importance of keeping the financial reputation of the country at as high a mark as possible, we can afford to allow these bonds to go by default. Perhaps very few people, outside of members of Parliament and other men who are giving this matter considerable attention, realize the difficult position in which we are placed. We are the guarantors of $104,000,000 and our mortgages are not the first but the second and, in some cases, the third or the fourth mortgage. Ahead of our mortgages come $107,000,000 of provincial guarantees which, in some cases, are first mortgages and, in some cases, second mortgages. Then again, ahead of all those mortgages and coterminous with the provincial guarantees, come something like $150,000,000 of mortgage bonds. There is no doubt in the world that, if any of those default, and if we want to protect our $104,000,000 of guarantees, we must pay the default of those mortgages that come ahead of ours. It is, therefore, a reasonable proposition that we cannot allow the Canadian Northern to default. We are compelled to see them through in some way, and the question naturally arises, what is the best way in which to see them through? About two or three weeks ago, I stated that my way _ of seeing them through would be by putting up the smallest possible amount absolutely necessary to pay the present bills and then seeing if they could not carry the matter on until after the war, when we should know exactly where we stood financially and be able to decide upon the best course to pursue. I am sorry to say that I have not heard many hon. members who have agreed with me; in fact, I do not know that any person has agreed with me. I know, however, that is a good financial proposition. I am satisfied.' that the present owners or operators of this road, can carry this matter along much more cheaply than the Government can. I would not hand over to Mackenzie and Mann or to the Canadian Northern railway the money I propose to advance- it might be $18,000,000 or $20,000,000-but I would allow the Department of Finance to handle the money, and I would see that the concern were compelled to finance matters as carefully and prudently as they pos-

sibly could and that no more betterments than were absolutely neediedj should be provided. Many of us know-at least I know [DOT] what I can accomplish along that line when I am driven to retrench.


George Perry Graham: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have some friends who have managed to get along during that important period in their lives. But the Government are unwilling to carry out that proposition, although they admit that they are compelled to pay out the money just the same. Whether the sum be $20,000,000 or $22,000,000 ot $25,000,000 'that the Canadian Northern require, the Government agree that we must pay it. What is the difference between our advancing the money and taking over sufficient stock to give us control of the road, and advancing the same amount of money and taking over all the stock and becoming the owners of the road? If we could stop by paying the same amount of money, the matter would not be so bad, but when we become the owners of the road we are confronted with the curse of public ownership. I use a very strong term, but I use it intentionally and advisedly. While the Canadian Northern can get along for another year by paying, say, $20,000,000 of actual debts, the Government of this country, if they become the owners of the stock of the company, cannot get along with paying less than $40,000,000 or $50,000,000; I make the prophecy to-night that if this Bill goes through and the Government take over the Canadian Northern, we shall spend that amount of money during next year. We know we shall have to pay the debts in any case, and there will come enormous demands for improvements here and improvements there, more rolling stock and all sorts of things. This afternoon I was reading a return brought down regarding a small matter of public telephones in British Columbia . The first expenditure was the small amount of $4,000 or $5,000. That soon mounted up to $70,000 or $80,000, and we have in the Supplementary Estimates an appropriation for $50,000 or $75,000 more. The matter could not be otherwise. The very moment people in this country acquire a right to draw upon the public treasury for these public services they never know when to stop. My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp) referring to the great speech delivered by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) three years ago, has pointed out exactly what will happen. Just before every election there is a great demand and money
is paid out. The people may say: Well, you are painting a very dark picture; you are taking the ground that the Government of this country is not composed of responsible business men. I am not taking any such ground at all. I would trust the members of the present Government, or I would trust the members of any Government that might be formed, to look after these matters in a proper manner, if they were handling them as their own private business affairs. But when the public demand is pressed upon them, and there is a need for votes, and they are asked for money which is not their own money, they say: "Oh, well, this means so many votes, and it may carry a constituency; of course we have to surrender our ideas of business economy, and grant the money." We had an illustration one night last week:
I watched this House vote, in less than an hour, $25,000,000 on capital account for the Intercolonial. It went through just as if it was in the ordinary course of business, and so it was. There has not been a session of Parliament since I have been here that we have not been voting from five million to seven or eight million dollars to carry on the Intercolonial. We are piling up million after million on the Intercolonial, and it is not much better to-day than it was ten years ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is worse.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is true, this year we have a surplus in the operation of the. Intercolonial, but it is only a matter of accounts. They have been carrying on a system whereby one department charges up to another, and the result is a surplus-a book-keeping surplus. When the extraordinary business which has developed as a result of this war passes away, we shall come back again to our deficits. The idea of paying a dividend on the capital investment of the Intercolonial never dawned upon the mind of any one in Canada. It will be the same thing with the Canadian Northern. You will not only pay the interest, but you will pay the deficits. You will put in millions and tens of millions of dollars on capital account, and you will not get any better accommodation out of the road than you are getting at the present time; the people of Canada will not get any revenue out of it, and they will have to pay those enormous amounts of interest.
I do not know what actuated the minister in the beginning in taking the extraordinary course he has taken. There will be an arbitration as to the equity there may be in the
&148

stock. But we all know there is no equity in the stock as it stands to-day. I do not say there would not be a prospective equity. Somehow or other I am rather inclined to think there might be in the future. I am rather inclined to think that if the road were allowed to remain in the hands of the men who built it, and if they were allowed to manage it as a business proposition, there might be an equity in it. At the same time, we cannot take it and pay them for something which has not been earned, because, remember, the moment the Government of Canada gets hold of it there is no equity in it, and there never can be anything in it except debt, and debt, and more debt, capital and still more capital. Many of my friends from Ontario and the West have been captivated by this public operation fad. I want to point out to them that it is the greatest farce and fallacy that ever was brought forward in any country. It is useless to talk about the Government operating railways, or telephones, or electric light systems, or anything else as cheaply and economically as they can be operated by private enterprise. Such a thing is not reasonable. Some of my friends from the West believe that if they can get this road operated by the Government, in some magic way they will get better service and better results. Possibly they think they may get a reduction of rates. No greater fallacy was ever held out to anybody. They cannot beat the roads down below what is a reasonable business basis. Remember, you have another railway there, and you cannot cut the rates down below what is fair. No government in Canada can operate a railway system in the West and make it pay with any lower rates than are being charged by the Canadian Pacific to-day. If the Government carried on the road for the next ten years at the same rates as the Canadian Pacific are charging to-day, instead of paying a ten per cent dividend as the 'Canadian Pacific is paying, it would go behind fifteen per cent or twenty per cent every year. No man knows this better than my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) who has had the longest experience in this House, with one exception, and who has lived in the Maritime Provinces. He has seen all the bungling and all the mismanagement, he knows exactly the condition of affairs, and he knows that every word I say is the truth.
I am rather surprised that he has sat here as long as he has without raising his voice in opposition to the scheme. Of 
course, he may have been overmastered and overpowered by his colleagues. I know enough about governments to know that when the majority come to a decision they compel the minority to follow their lead. I can only conclude by appealing to my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to give his friends and colleagues the benefit of his experience, and try to prevent Canada from being drawn into a maelstrom of debt and mismanagement, as it inevitably must be by attempting to operate a great railway system under the control of the Government. I have only a minute more-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has five minutes more.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Arbitration has been
spoken of. I would like to know what on earth you are going to arbitrate. You are appointing three gentlemen to arbitrate the equity of this stock. How are they going to get their information? I do not want to say anything personal, but I do feel that we are starting ouj under very, very unfavourable circumstances when we have Sir William Meredith representing the Government. I had six weeks' experience with that gentleman, and while I do not want to refer to him, I can only say he is the last man in Canada I would choose to represent me in an arbitration between the Canadian Northern railway and the country. In any event, what is he going to do? Where will he get his evidence? How much better evidence and how much different evidence can he get than was obtained by the commission which spent nearly a year in investigating the cost of the great railway systems of this country. I have before me the report made by these three gentlemen, Sir Henry Drayton, Mr. Ac-worth, and Mr. Smith. I know Sir Henry Drayton personally, and I have the utmost confidence in him 'Yhile these gentlemen divided in their opinion as to what should be done in the future, they were unanimous in their conclusion as to the value of the Canadian Northern. They took it up from three points of view. First, they considered the cash investment. They reached the belief that there could not possibly have been as much cash invested in the road as the debt represented. Secondly, they regarded the matter from the standpoint of the physical basis, and they said it could be replaced for less money than the debt. Then they took it up from the point of view of a going concern, and said
i

that no purchaser would offer a sum amounting to the total of the liabilities of the road. At page 44 they say:
We conclude, therefore, that the shareholders of the company have no equity, either on the ground of cash put in, or on the ground of physical reproduction cost, or on the ground or the saleable value of their property as a going concern.
We know they had a staff of 40 or 50 engineers on the work. I know two of these gentlemen from the province of New Brunswick who were on it for nearly a year. They made a physical examination of every mile of the system. They examined the ties, the rails, the roadbed, the ballast, the stations, the drainage, and everything in connection with the line. Then they collaborated their notes and made this report, which says that the value is not there. How in the world is an arbitration board which we may appoint going to get evidence which these expert gentlemen failed to find? It seems to me that the whole thing is so absolutely nonsensical that it is not worth considering for a moment. They cannot do it. Those gentlemen spent a great deal of time collecting the information they required, and they found the value was not there. I do not want to impute motives, but I would feel very much freer upon this matter if the Minister of Finance would tell us how much money the Canadian Bank of Commerce has lent to Mackenzie and Mann on this stock.
I have tried to find out; we have all tried to find out but we have failed. We believe that Mackenzie and Mann, Limited, were the owners of $52,000,000 of the common stock and that it has been pledged to the Canadian Bank of Commerce as security for certain advances-how much we do not know, but the conclusion is borne in upon the mind of any man who thinks that unless this stock is given some value the Canadian Bank of Commerce may have trouble in getting repayment of their loan. I am not making a charge but I am saying that that is the inevitable conclusion that is forced upon my mind. If I thought it were only a matter of a few hundred thousand dollars I would feel differently about it. But I am afraid it is a matter of a few millions of dollars and my suspicions are increased a hundred fold. My time has expired under this beautiful gag law and I suppose we cannot go further. I shall vote for the amendment and if it carries we will at least have an opportunity of having this award back in Parliament and Parliament will have a chance of dealing with it again. I hope it will carry. I
hope something will be done to save this country not only from the expenditude of an enormous amount of money at the present time but from being plunged into a system of public ownership the end of which no man in Canada can possibly foresee.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT (Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the acquisition of this property by the Crown has been acceded to by hon. gentlemen opposite and therefore I presume it is not necessary to further discuss that feature of the question. When I was speaking the other afternoon I pointed out that the amendment then proposed, as the amendment now proposed, was based upon the principle that the country is to acquire this property. There are certain 'questions that have been settled during the progress of this debate. It has been said that we are acquiring shares and not assets. In support of that proposition, reference is had to certain documents which have 'been filed here. It is hardly necessary to say that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) himself refuted that argument when he stated that the reason why the Government had not taken over the shares without an arbitration was that the Drayton-Acworth report had overlooked the value of some lands which belonged to the company. As they are assets, it follows that the value of the shares is to be determined by the arbitrators on the basis of the value of the assets and not otherwise. Therefore, that argument is exploded. There is one other matter that has been settled and it is that the acquisition of this property by the Dominion Government on the basis now proposed releases the provinces from their entire responsibility as guarantors. It takes the burden that has been placed upon some of the provinces and distributes it upon them all. That argument has been controverted but it does not appear to have been very successfully controverted for this simple reason, that at the present moment the Canadian Northern Railway Company is the primary debtor and the provinces are the guarantors. It follows that, if there is default with respect to any of the obligations, the right as against the primary debtor must be exhausted and the primary debtor will be the 'Canadian Northern Railway Company owned by the people of Canada or the Crown in the right of all. It also follows that Tather than permit the exhaustion of the right against the primary debtor the Crown must inevitably assume


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friends will not be hear hearing in a moment. I pass to another point. I am asked to vote that the equity of redemption of the Mackenzie and Mann interests should be taken from them without the payment of any money. I am not going to repeat my argument with reference to that. It seems to me to be fundamental that any man who has something should receive payment for it if he can get it, and he should have the right to go to a tribunal to present his case to fix that value. I shall not labour that issue. But let me point this out. The Prime Minister said last evening that if we had a receivership for this enterprise there would be seven receiverships in seven provinces. In most of the provinces of Canada a moratorium now exists, and you
could not foreclose a mortgage if you wanted to.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Not in Quebec at least. Mr. R. B. BENNETT: There is no moratorium in Quebec?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the people of Quebec did not go to war and did not require any moratorium. I suppose that is the reason.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Quebec never guaranteed any Canadian Northern bonds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but it guaranteed some railways in Mercier's time that were heard of.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no moratorium in the Maritime Provinces either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear there is no moratorium in the Maritime Provinces. The question whether there is a moratorium in some of the provinces is not, however, the point I want to make. Neither New Brunswick nor Quebec has guaranteed Canadian Northern securities, but in the West, where this has been largely done, if you undertook to foreclose them, by virtue of the statutes in those provinces, an extension of time would be given probably until after the war. All that has been done, so far as this Parliament is concerned, is' to say that, by reason of the financial condition that exists in consequence of the war, these men should have the opportunity to present, if they have a claim, that claim to a tribunal properly constituted, to determine its value. I shall not argue that point further. That is the principle most men follow in private business, and it should apply here. I am told that a receivership would be destructive to the interests of this country, and no man would question that. I have always said that the proper manner to deal with this was by a statutory receivership. But my voice has been as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, and I have to accept the statement of the Minister of Finance that this is the only way in which this business can be done. Then, accepting the principles he has declared for and stated, I am going, as my last word upon this Bill, to direct attention to certain anomalies, certain facts with reAtion to it, and I shall prove conclusively to this House that the measure that we are passing to-night is absolutely useless for the purpose for which it is intended and that unless it is amended

in another chamber it -will have no value at all. For the purpose of placing myself upon record, I desire to indicate clearly and very briefly the various paragraphs and . what I would substitute for them.
You will observe that the Bill commences with authorizing an agreement between certain pledgees and owners of stock for the acquisition of 600,000 shares. The Minister of Finance has said that money must he paid to save the Canadian Northern railway. 'This road cannot go into the hands of a receiver, this road cannot default, I want to ask him to-night, and to ask the members of this House, what is going to happen if the Canadian Northern railway people do not sign the agreement. What is going to happen under the provisions of the Bill? The minister has not taken power to take all of the shares if they do not sign. He has taken power to take the difference between 500,000 and 600,000, which is 100,000; in other words, it is simply provided that after this legislation is passed he can, by Order in Council, acquire 100,000 shares. But we will have to pay the money for interest etc., or else the road goe3 into a receivership, and that the Minister of Finance says is not to be considered. Therefore, I submit that section 1 should he as follows.
1.	His Majesty may acquire the six hundred thousand (600,000) shares of the capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, having a par value of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) not now held by the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty, on such terms and conditions, not incons'stent with this Act and satisfactory to the Governor in Council, as may be set out in an agreement to be made between His Majesty and the owners, registered as such, on the stock or share registers of the said company, of not less than five hundred thousand (500,000) of the said shares, for a price to be determined by arbitration as hereinafter provided.
In other words, I submit that only the registered owners of the shares are interested. Nobody else, and any agreement arrived .at must he with men whose names are taken from the share registers, and people on the street or elsewhere in this country shall not be considered. That is my first submission. The second section of the Bill, I submit, should read as follows:
2.	(1) Upon the completion of the said agreement at least five hundred thousand of the said six hundred thousand shares shall be transferred and delivered# by the registered owners thereof to the Minister of Finance in trusty for His Majesty, and if there be any of the six hundred thousand shares not transferred and delivered as aforesaid, the Governor in Council may declare the said shares to be the [Mr. R. B. Bennett. 1
property of the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty, and the same shall thereupon become the property of His Majesty and shall be paid for pro rata with the shares so transferred.
Mark you that no provision has been made in this Bill as to when this transaction is to be completed. Suppose that these gentlemen keep putting off dealing with the matter until .after the maturity of the loans mentioned. I have provided for that as follows:
(2)	In the event of the said agreement not being executed and at least five hundred thousand of the six hundred thousand shares being transferred and delivered to the Minister of Finance in trust as aforesaid on or before the
;	 day of	 1917, the Governor
in Council may declare the whole of the said six hundred thousand shares to he the property of the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty, and the same shall thereupon become the property of His Majesty for a price to be determined by arbitration as hereinafter provided.
I now come to deal with the income convertible securities. This Bill has gone out of committee, and we have not dealt with these at all.


George Perry Graham: That is the $25,000,000?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
(3)	In the event of all or any of the holders of Income Charge Convertible Debenture Stock secured by trust deed made to the British Empire Trust Company Limited and the National Trust Company Limited, dated the 6th day of May, 1910, exercising the option granted to them by the said trust deed, of exchanging the said debenture stock, not exceeding in alt twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) for fully paid shares in the capital stock of the said company, the Governor in Council may when and so soon as the said exchange is effected and the said shares are issued, declare the same to be the property of the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty, and the same shall thereupon become the property of His Majesty and shall be paid for when transferred and delivered to the said minister at the same price per share as that fixed by arbitration for the one million (1,000,000) shares of the capital stock of the said company, as hereinafter provided.
(4)	The necessary qualification shares for directors may be transferred to or allowed to remain in their names by the Minister of Finance on such conditions as he may determine.
I conceive that to be very important. Why should 25,000,000 possible shares be outstanding, without provision being made for their acquisition? I deal with the next matter as follows:
3.	So soon as five hundred thousand of the said shares have been transferred or all of the said shares have been acquired as aforesaid, the Governor in Council may assist the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or any other

company included in the Canadian Northern system in paying and settling any indebtedness of such company or postponing the payment thereof on such terms as may be agreed upon, and for such purpose may make advances out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but not exceeding the sum of twenty-five millions of dollars ($25,000,000) during the current fiscal
year.	_
(2)	The Canadian Northern Railway Company and each other company comprising the Canadian Northern system shall from time to time do all such acts and things, make, issue and execute such agreements, obligations and securities in connection with the payment or settlement or postponement or payment of the said indebtedness as the Minister of Finance may from time to time require.
Now I proceed to the arbitration clauses.
I ask this House to look at the sections of this Bill. There is no Arbitration Act in Canada of universal application. There is an Arbitration Act in most if not all of the provinces, or at least in those provinces that have seen fit to pass legislation of that character, because it is a matter affecting property and civil rights. The old Dominion Arbitration Act was repealed when we substituted the Exchequer Court therefor. We must deal with the arbitration in some manner. Suppose Mackenzie and Mann ot the majority shareholders do not name an arbitrator, what happens? Is there any provision in the Bill for any arbitrator being appointed? Suppose they sit tight and do not sign the agreement, and let the short-date loans mature. This country must help them. They do not sign the agreement, and are in charge of the road, and what is going to happen? Every one knows that the submission to arbitration is the all-important thing, after you have constituted the board of arbitrators. First constitute your board; secondly, determine what your submission shall be. Therefore, I would enact as follows:
4.	(1) A Board of Arbitration consisting of three arbitrators to be appointed as hereafter provided, who shall select one of their number as chairman, and who shall preside at the sittings of the Board, is hereby constituted under the name and style of "The Canadian Northern Arbitrators." Such arbitrators shall have full power and authority to examine witnesses under oath, and for the purposes of this Act shall have, exercise and enjoy all the rights, powers and authoity conferred upon the Exchequer Court of Canada or a judge thereof by the Exchequer Court Act, being chapter one hundred and forty of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and the arbitration hereunder shall for the purpose of this Act be a cause or proceeding in the said court.
That constitutes my tribunal. Then,-
(2) The registrar of the Exchequer Court shall be the secretary of the said Board of Arbitrators.
Then.-
(3)	The Minister of Finance shall appoint one
of the said arbitrators and shall within five days after the completion of the said agreement notify the said registrar in writing of the name and address of the arbitrator so appointed.	,	, ,,
(4)	The majority of the said shareholders who may have executed the said agreement shall appoint one of the arbitrators and shall within five days after the completion of the' said agreement, notify the said registrar in, writing of the name and address of the arbitrator so appointed.
(5)	In the event of the majority of the shareholders who may have executed the said agreement failing within the time specified to notify the said Registrar of the appointment of an Arbitrator, or in the event of the agreement not being completed and the shares acquired by the Governor in Council, the Registrar in either such case shall forthwith certify in writing such fact to the Chief Judge of the Exchequer Court, who within five days from the date of the receipt of such notice shall notify the said Registrar in writing of the name and address of an Arbitrator who shall have and exercise the same power and authority as though he had been appointed by the majority of the said shareholders.
(6)	The said Registrar shall after the appointment of the said Arbitrators, notify each of them in writing of the said appointments and request them on or before a day therein named, but not less than five nor more than ten days from the date of the appointment of the last appointed Arbitrator, to appoint a third Arbitrator, and notify the said Registrar in writing of the name and address of the person so appointed.
(7)	In the event of the two said Arbitrators failing within the time specified to notify the said Registrar of the appointment of a third Arbitrator, the said Registrar shall further certify such fact to the Chief Judge of the Exchequer Court, who within five days from the day of the receipt of such notice shall notify the said Registrar in writing of the name ant) address of a third Arbitrator.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By my watch, I thought I had three minutes more. May I be permitted to conclude?


William Pugsley: By unanimous consent. '


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I hand in this paper, as the rest of my speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Unanimous consent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is contrary to the usual practice of the House.


George Perry Graham: Send it over here, and we will finish it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is only done in the case of ministers of the Crown, in exceptional cases, but never with a private member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall ask one of my hon. friends opposite to read it, com-

mencing at page 7. May I add that, instead of moving any amendment in relation to the measure, I will content myself with hoping that, in another chamber, the members will safeguard the interests of this country, when this matter comes before them.


William Thomas White: I desire to briefly deal with the several points mentioned by. the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett). My hon. friend has stated that the effect of this legislation will be to release the provinces from obligations under guarantees of Canadian Northern Railway Company's securities. But, Mr. Speaker, it is common ground on both sides of this House that this railway system is not to be allowed to go into the hands of a receiver. That being the position taken by both Government and Opposition members in this House, the question will never arise as to the provinces being liable upon their guarantees of these securities. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), who made to-night-as he always does-an interesting speech, put forward the proposition that the Dominion Government should continue, in the future as in the past, to make good the deficit the Canadian Northern might have from year to year, in order that it might continue to operate as a railway system. He did not suggest nor has any other hon. gentleman in this House so far as I know suggested-except the hon. gentleman from Calgary-that there should be a receivership. If there is no receivership, and if the Dominion Government, instead of taking over this system, is to make good each year the amount of deficit, no question can possibly arise as to the liability of the provinces, because the railway company will be able to pay the interest upon its securities, and consequently the provinces will not be called upon for payments under their guarantees. When hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear'' when the statement is made that some of the provinces will be released at the expense of other provinces, they overlook the fact that both the Prime Minister as representing this side and the leader of the Opposition as representing the other side have said that there must not be a receivership, and that this system must be continued as a solvent going concern. In that case no question at all can arise as to the liabilities of the provinces under those guarantees.
I pass to the next question. My hon. friend (Mr. R. B. Bennett), who is a good lawyer, made the statement that the effect of this legislation is to vest in the people 
of Canada all the assets and make them responsible for all the liabilities of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. As a proposition of law, I say that is not so.


William Pugsley: It is intended to be so.


William Thomas White: As a proposition of law, that is not so. The Government is acquiring the whole of the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, of which it now owns 40 per cent. I put forward this proposition. If it is to be the policy of this Government not to permit the Canadian Northern Railway system to go into default, the position will not be essentially different from what it is to-day; because to-day we hold 40 per cent of this stock, and we have given a $45,000,000 guarantee, which is junior to the securities which have been issued in the past, and consequently the Dominion Government, as a matter of practical business, and especially in view of the declarations of both parties in the House, would have to sustain this system-that is, to make good its deficit from year to year. The system is not to go into the hands of a receiver. Then, as a matter of law, the fact that the Dominion is acquiring all the stock of the company does not cause the assets of the Canadian Northern Railway Company to be vested in the Dominion, nor does it make the Dominion Government directly responsible for the liabilities of the railway system. That is a legal proposition from which no man in this House can dissent. Just to confirm that, the Drayton-Acworth report-and I have said we are following out the leading lines of that report-did not recommend that the Board of Dominion Railway Trustees should acquire the physical assets of the Canadian Northern, as has been suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite, but they suggested that those trustees should acquire the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. And on page 88 of their report they make this specific recommendation:
We recommend the transfer to the trustees of the common stocks of the Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific, subject to certain conditions and reservations made hereafter.
That is to say, they recommended that the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, not the physical assets of that company, should be vested in this board of trustees which they proposed

should be constituted. What further did they say?-and this is the reason why I am referring (to their report. Touching upon this question of liability, on, page 73 of their report, under the caption " Financial responsibility of the Government," the commissioners say:
We have recommended that the Government should assume responsibility towards the trustees, but not directly towards the present holders, for the interest on all the securities charged on the new combined system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is any more importance to be attached to that portion of their report than to the portion which overlooked the value of the lands?


William Thomas White: I have dealt with that before, and will deal with it again. In the meantime the point I make is that Messrs. Drayton and Acworth recommended that the board of Dominion trustees, representing the people of Canada, should acquire the stock just as we propose the Dominion Government should acquire the stock. Then they go on to say:
We have recommended that the Government should assume responsibility towards the trustees, but not directly towards the present holders, for the interest on all the securities charged on the new combined system.
What does that mean? It means that in the opinion of Messrs. Drayton and Acworth -and any lawyer knows that this is so-if you acquire the stock of a company you do not become directly liablfe to the creditors of that company, because a company is different from any or all its shareholders; that is, from a legal standpoint. It is however the intention of the Dominion Government to continue the system as a solvent and going concern. When hon. gentlemen talk of all the assets of the system being vested in the Dominion, apd of all the liabilities being directly assumed by the Dominion, I say they are making a misstatement, speaking from the legal standpoint.
My hon. friend speaks of the short-date loans of $98,000,000. He stated that those may be said to be liabilities, and he is correct in that; they are liabilities of the Canadian Northern Railway company. That has been admitted.
As far as construction and other contracts are concerned the railway department knows the situation accurately. The Dominion Government has full information with respect to the construction of the lines of the Canadian Northern Railway system. And I say further, that there has been placed before this House complete information as to the amount owing to contractors to-day, and
326	-v
as to the amount outstanding by way of liability on contracts undertaken. So the House has full information under those heads.
My hon. friend has referred to the Canadian Pacific Railway company. No one has greater admiration than I have for the Canadian Pacific Railway company, as a great transportation system* organized to the highest degree of efficiency. It is a wonderful organization, and is so regarded throughout the world. The point that was made in this House by the Prime Minister and by myself was	this-not	incriticism	of the	Canadian	PacificRailway	company,	buti in	dealingwith the question of what shall be done w'ith the Canadian Northern system:	If
you eliminate receivership, then there is only one of two destinies for the Canadian Northern Railway system, and there is no man in this House will gainsay that. It either must be taken over and operated by the Dominion Government, or taken over and operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway company. That is as far as I have gone, and I subscribe to that proposition to-night, because it is sound. There is no railway company in this country except the Canadian Pacific that is able to take over the Canadian Northern railway, which is the second greatest system in this country. The only alternative to the Dominion Government taking over the Canadian Northern railway, if it is to be saved from receivership, is that the Canadian Pacific take it over. I pass no opinion as to whether the Canadian Pacific would take it over or not, but am simply stating my opinion that if it is to be saved, it must be saved by either the Dominion Government or the Canadian Pacific. I go further than that and say, that even if the Canadian Northern Railway system went into the hands of a receiver, it could only be re-constituted by one of two organizations'-the Dominion Government or the Canadian Pacific Railway company. So that, no matter whether it goes into the hands of a receiver or is saved from receivership, you get back to one of two alternatives-: Either the Dominion Government takes it over or the Canadian Pacific takes it over. I shall say no more under that head.
As my hon. friend has referred to the manifesto issued by some prominent business men of Montreal, I desire to say this: This is a free country, and it is perfectly open to any gentlemen to issue any statements they desire to their fellow-citizens.



Certainly there is no objection on my part, and I should never have referred in any way to the statement made by these gentlemen in Montreal if my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) had not read it in the House as a part of his argument. That is how the matter was introduced into this House, and as it had been discussed in this debate it was open to me to deal with it, and in dealing with it, I passed no reflection at all on these gentlemen, as Hansard will show.
Now I come to my hon. friend's suggestion that there should be a statutory receivership. There is not much difference between a statutory receivership and any other receivership. A statutory receivership would be one in which by statute a receiver of the system was appointed. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that there is a moratorium in most of the provinces. But a moratorium does not pay the interest or the debts; it only defers payment of the interest and the debts, and if a moratorium were taken advantage of, instead of dealing with the matter from year to year, two or three years from now we should have to deal with a much worse situation, because there would be the indebtedness that had accumulated during the course of those years.
My hon. friend comes to the Bill, and when he was dealing with it I could not help thinking what a wonderful thing it is to be a lawyer. A lawyer can see more difficulties in a Bill, when he wants to, than any man of plain common sense can see,


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason you are a lawyer.


William Thomas White: I will take as good a lawyer as you can find on this side of the House, and as good a lawyer as you can find on that side of the House, and I will give the two of them the best Bill that can be drafted by the best lawyer outside, and I will guarantee that the two of them will raise more difficulties in connection with that Bill than could be raised by one hundred laymen, no matter how much they might try.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the cheap answer.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend says that Mackenzie and Mann may not sign the agreement. Let us see what that means. This agreement cannot go into effect until Mackenzie, Mann & Company,

as holders of five-sixths of the shares of the Canadian Northern Railway company, do sign the agreement, and if it does not come into effect what happens to Mackenzie, Mann & Company and to the Canadian Northern? What is the purpose of this Bill? It is to save this company from going into the hands of the receiver, by providing money and to take over the stock of the company. My hon. friend suggests that the great danger is that Mackenzie and Mann won't come in under this leg.slation. Well, I have heard Mackenzie and Mann called a great many names since I have had a seat in this Parliament, but never until to-night have I heard it imputed to them that they were suffering from insanity. If they do not come in under this Bill what happens to the Canadian Northern Railway company, and to the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway company which they hold?


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will save it.
Sir THOMAS WHITE- On the one hand, hon. gentlemen say that the road will go into the hands of a receiver if we do not give it assistance. We know that. On the other hand, my hon. friend says: Oh, you are incurring a great risk because they will not come in; they will not lodge their stock. If they do not lodge their stock the Dominion Government will not worry, because, in that case, there will not be any money advanced under this legislation. The responsibility will be that of the majority owners of the stock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not care.


William Thomas White: We do not need to v' v about Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann and Company not lodging their stock under the agreement. We come to the next bogey that is put up. My hon. friend says:	If they sit tight-well, if they sit
tight, the Dominion Government will also sit tight, and if they sit tight and do not brings in their stock, then the Minister of Finance will not pay out the money from the Consolidated Fund under section 4 of this Bill. He says that only-


An hon. MEMBER:: Time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I wish to say
that there are entirely too many interruptions from hon. members sitting in their
seats.
An hon. MEMiBER: The time is up.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I purpose adding not less than one more minute to the

minister's time for speaking because he has been interrupted so often.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend (Mr. R. B. Bennett) says that only the registered shareholders are interested. There is not so very much in this matter of holders of stock and pledgees. I pointed out. the other day-and every lawyer in this House knows-that if I am the pledgee of stock, I can make myself the registered owner by transferring my stock on the books of the company. When you are taking away stock from shareholders, you must not forget that those who have a limited interest by way of pledge also have the right to come in. If the word "pledgee " were eliminated entirely from the Bill, it would simply mean that the pledgees would transfer the stock into their own names and thus become the registered owners and be represented in the arbitration. There is nothing in this point that pledgees should not be mentioned. If pledgees were not mentioned, they would turn themselves into registered owners by transferring the stock into their own names on the books of the company.
My hon. friend says that there is income convertible debenture stock of $25,000,000.
I pointed out to this House that this agreement covers only the acquisition of $60,000,000. It does not cover the $25,000,000 at all, and it is not intended that it should cover it. My hon. friend, as I understand him, says that we should take away the $25,000,000 of stock which is held in trust for those debenture holders who have the right, if they so desire, within a certain time to convert their debentures into shares. He says that we should take away that right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nq, to pay for it at the same price.


William Thomas White: I say that we
should not pay for it at tne same price. Not only that, but the debenture holders who have right as creditors would never think of surrendering their shares for stock in this company in its present financial position. My hon. friend knows that perfectly well, and that is the reason why it is not necessary to provide in this agreement for the stock which is held in trust, if those parties should desire to come in. Take a company that is not earning within four or five million dollars of its bond interest every yeaT after paying its operating charges. Does my hon. friend mean
326i
to put forward seriously the view that debenture holders who are creditors of the road are going to convert their debentures for which they paid par into stock of a company like this? They are certainly not going to do that, and even if they decided to do it, there is nothing in this Bill that would give them the right to do so, because all we are dealing with is the $60,000,000 of stock in addition to the $40,000,000 of stock which we hold. My hon. friend says that the arbitration clauses are not workable.


William Pugsley: Time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Thomas White: All I have to say is that they are pretty complete. In the first place the Dominion Government will appoint an arbitrator; Mackenzie and Mann and the other shareholders and pledgees will appoint an arbitrator; and the two together will appoint a third arbitrator. If they do not agree, the judge of the Exchequer Court will appoint an arbitrator. You now have your arbitration constituted. It is not necessary that we should embody a whole arbitration Act in this section of the Bill to which my hon. friend has referred. There is no difficulty about three arbitrators with the powers they are given in thiB Bill. What are those powers? They are given the powers of determining the value of the stock, and they proceed in a summary way. What does that mean? I sit at the feet of the Gamaliel from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), who told me this two or three years ago-


William Pugsley: Time.


William Thomas White: -that a court which proceeds in a summary way was not a court that required formal pleadings. These arbitrators proceed in a summary way. They receive reports and statements authenticated in such way as they may decide and such evidence as they may deem necessary or helpful, examine witnesses under oath and hear parties by counsel or representatives, and the unanimous determination of the arbitrators shall be final.
From a common sense standpoint we have constituted a tribunal which can proceed in a summary, practical, business way to determine the value of those shares, and if they all agree, their determination is final, and if they do not all agree, there is a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, I am going to point this out to the House-


An hon. MEMBER:: Time.


William Thomas White: My time is not up yet. I want to point out-


An hon. MEMBER:: Time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


William Thomas White: Those shares are absolutely-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
William Thomas White: I probably deserve it.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Give him a taste of
the " gag " too.


William Thomas White: When those
shares are lodged with the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty, they are there irrevocably, so that no such questions as my hon. friend has raised are likely to give any trouble in connection with this transaction.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM:	Mr. Speaker, in the midst of this very serious discussion, if one sits on this side of the House, one cannot but be really amused at the plight in which members on the Government side have found themselves. Stringing up a beautiful rope with a noose on the end of it for the benefit of hon. members on this side, they find themselves dangling with their heels in the air at the end of their own rope. The Minister of Finance himself, anxious to tell the world that he has jammed this measure through by use of the closure, finds himself gagged.


William Thomas White: 'That is not correct. I have finished.
Mr. 'GRAHAM:	He did not accept the
gag very gracefully; it seemed to stick in his throat, but the gag was there, made by himself. It is not such a serious thing, you know, if you put up a good fight and are killed by somebody else, but it is a terrible thing to find yourself in such a state that you are committing suicide. The Minister of Finance, in his anxiety to prevent the rest of us from making a few observations, discovers all at once that he has fallen into his own trap and been caught. Perhaps next time he will be a little more careful and reasonable.


William Thomas White: I did not take all the time.


George Perry Graham: Well, the minister took
all the time that he thought he had and more than some of us thought he should have taken. He had, however, to stop before he was through, which is the effect of this measure which he put into operation by a motion last night, just twenty-four hours before he should have done so. The Bill would have gone through just the same without this gag, and the Finance Minister would be able to face the country and say, "The Opposition as well as the members of the Government had every opportunity to discuss this measure." I dare say that when he goes on the stump he will tell the people "I could have said a great deal more to squelch the man from Calgary, if I had not been stopped by the Speaker; I had arguments which I could have advanced, when I was choked off by my own resolution." Up to date, he has not replied to the hon. member for Calgary, and this argument of his goes to the country stillborn. I do not know what it might have been had it been allowed to develop. But the Finance Minister told us that lawyers may use a lot of words without saying much, and he proceeded to exemplify it. I want to take him up on that little technicality argument of his. I have not the disadvantage of being a lawyer-


William Thomas White: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: -but I have the authority of the Finance Minister for saying that I ought to be thankful. He has told us a lawyer can raise more bogeys in five minutes than a sensible man can think of, or something to that effect; and I admit with him, he being a lawyer, that that is so. I will tell you why-and in this I "appeal to Caesar," and away from the lawyers. The Finance Minister argued that although the people of Canada became the owners of the stock of the Canadian Northern, they were not the proprietors of the Canadian Northern. If, after taking this stock-and I am dealing with business men -the people of Canada are not the owners of the Canadian Northern, who are the owners?


An hon. MEMBER:: Mackenzie and Mann.


George Perry Graham: If that is not a legal technicality raised to becloud the issue, then I do not know what it is. I will put the reverse side. If the Government owns all the common stock of the Canadian Northern railway, is it not going to be liable

for the debts of the railway, and if not, who will be liable for them?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not Mackenzie and
Mann. '


George Perry Graham: After taking over the common stock, we cannot cast the physical property of this system adrift, saying it is of no value, no one owns it, and that no one will pay the debts of the concern.


William Thomas White: Who is liable now?


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, we may becloud it with -all the legal technicalities we like, but when this Bill passes, if it does pass, the people of Canada will own the Canadian Northern railway and will be liable for what the Canadian Northern owes. The Minister of Finance, as a lawyer can weave threads of technicalities around it, but that will not do away with the business fact that we shall own the Canadian Northern, and we shall owe the debts of the Canadian Northern. I wish to call attention to the fact that the closure is in use to-day in order to shorten up this debate because it did not proceed at sufficient length last night. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House were not responsible for the length of the discussion last night. After warning us that there would be closure to-day, the Prime Minister stepped in and took two hours, nearly the whole of the evening, in discussing this measure. After doing that, he became a party to shutting us off. He took two hours to repeat a speech he made the other day, and said that we should each be confined to twenty minutes. And they call that fairness in discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: British fair play.


George Perry Graham: Passing on from that the Prime Minister called attention to what he-as a lawyer, I suppose I may say- considered was a fair statement of the case. He said, why should Parliament endeavour to review the finding of a board of arbitration and of a judge of the Supreme Court? I say that is not a fair statement of the case. If those arbitrators are unanimous, the case never goes to the Supreme Court at all. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will be because one of the arbitrators disagrees with the others. When the Prime Minister endeavoured to make the country believe last night that we were proposing by this amendment to review the findings of the Supreme Court, he was in a measure misleading the people. The hon. member for Calgary and two or
three others, including myself, suggested a few days ago that there should be some provision in this Bill by which the Government might refuse the award of the arbitrators if that award was too great. The Government declined to amend the Bill in that respect, and, I submit, the amendment proposed now only says that, if in the judgment of Parliament the board of arbitrators have made an award which is too high, Parliament should have the right to review that judgment and reverse it if it sees fit.
Whom do we represent? We represent the people of Canada. We may sidestep this question as much as we like, and may becloud it with legal technicalities-saying for instance, that we will own the stock but will not own the railway, that we will have the assets but will not be liable for the debts-still we cannot get away from the fact that the people of Canada will hold us responsible for every dollar those arbitrators give for stock which the Government's own commission says is not worth a penny. We cannot escape from that responsibility, either through the Supreme Court or through the Board of Arbitration.
I did not rise to tempt closure, but I want to point o#t again that the Opposition is composed of good Samaritans. I find that not only did the Minister of Finance get into trouble over his own resolution, and have to stop before he was through, but another leading supporter of the Government, got into trouble also. My good friend from Calgary found himself in the midst of proposing a Bill to the House, when owing to the measure which he had supported and the action of the Finance Minister which he criticised, he was not able to put before the House his entire views concerning what ought to be in this Bill. I am opposed to closure, and I am prepared to do anything I can do to help the hon. gentleman in overcoming its provisions still keeping within the rules of the House. I am sorry for the hon. member for Calgary that he is in such company that they tied him up in this way, and I will try to get him out of the scrape. I purpose to read what he was choked off from reading through the action of the Finance Minister. I will place before the House the remaining clauses of the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Calgary as a substitute for the Bill we are now discussing. I do this because I think it is fair that the House should know my hon. friend's proposition in its entirety. I do it, further, because this Bill will go to the

Upper Chamber, and I believe the members of that House should have before them the counter proposition of my hon. friend from Calgary. And if it be better than that of the Minister of Finance, then, possibly, the Senate will accept this Bill and reject the one now before us. The new Bill could not be much worse than the one we have, and possibly it may be better. I shall begin reading where my hon. friend from Calgary left off.
(8) The said arbitrators shall as soon as practicable after the appointment of the third arbitrator, meet, organize and proceed with the arbitration in as expeditious a manner as possible.
5.	(1) The said arbitrators shall determine the value (if any) of the one million shares of the issue l capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, as represented by the value of the equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises particularly mentioned and described in the "Canadian Northern Guarantee Act, 1914."
(2)	In the event of the said arbitrators determining to ascertain the cost of the reproduction of the undertakings, plant, equipment, properties and assets of the Canadian Northern System, such cost of reproduction shall be ascertained on the basis of the prices, costs and wages prevailing before the outbreak of the present war.
(3)	The said arbitrators shall certify the sum to which each of the shareholders registered as such on the stock #r share registers of the said company shall be entitled, rateably and proportionately to the value (if any) fixed by them on the one million shares of the capital stock of the said company.
6.	The award of the said arbitrators shall be made in writing on or before the first day
of	 19. .. or such later date as any
two of the said arbitrators may by writing fix and determine, and shall forthwith be filed with the registrar of the Exchequer Court at Ottawa, and shall thereupon become a final judgment of the said court, and the practice of that court with respect to appeals therefrom shall apply thereto. Provided that in the event of the award being unanimous there shall be no appeal therefrom.
7.	If the said award is unanimous or no appeal is taken therefrom, the Minister of Finance shall pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada to the said several shareholders, the sums to which they may be entitled by the said award.


William Pugsley: Subject to the approval of Parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is not
there.


George Perry Graham: That amendment mentioned by my hon. friend from St. John probably will be put in the Bill, with the consent of the hon. member for Calgary, when it comes back from the Senate. I just rose to read this addition to the Bill which is proposed by the hon. member for Calgary. Just one word more before I respond to the gavel. The Minister of Fin-
[Mr, Graham.I
ance has referred on two occasions to-night to the limited amount borrowed on this stock as collateral. If the minister would just tell us what that amount is it would help us to an understanding of this question because, if it be small, it might make a great difference; but, if it be very large I can see why the pledgees are put in this Bill. It may be yet that the pledgees will become the registered stockholders and they will be sure to sign the agreement. There may be doubts as to what Mackenzie and Mann may do, but the pledgees themselves will be up before daylight to get their hands on that agreement if they have any right to sign it. I am not sure that Mackenzie and Mann will rush to sign the agreement. Before this agreement is made, if Mackenzie and Mann can find some other way out they may do so and never sign the agreement, but as to the pledgees, I agree with the Minister of Finance there will be no trouble at all; they will sign that agreement almost before it is drawn.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) I am not a lawyer and I am glad of it. We have had sufficient talk from the legal fraternity and it is about time that some other gentlemen took part in this debate. The hon. member for South Renfrew says that this is gag rule, but he must remember that thirty-five hours had already been spent on the measure previous to the bringing in of the closure.


George Perry Graham: That is hardly a million an hour.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Some twenty-five members spoke the other night and today we will listen to some twenty-five more. The hon. gentleman says he is very willing to help out the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and I 'have no doubt that hon. gentlemen opposite are very willing to help him. I think the speech of the hon. member for Calgary to-night was a most unfair and uncalled for criticism of the Minister of Finance in connection with this Bill. The Minister of Finance has dealt with the remarks of the member for Oalgary in such a manner that it would be folly for me to attempt to add to what he has said. But, there are a few things that I deem it my duty to call to the attention of the House. The hon. member for Calgary has referred to the construction accounts due to companies. If he had looked at the general balance sheet he would have found the following:

Due to other companies on construction	account	 $16,000,000
Current liabilities, bills payable,
pay-rolls		 18,000,000
Audited vouchers and other floating
liabilities		  11,000,000
That ought to be sufficient evidence that the Government had investigated that part of it, and it ought to have satisfied him that it covered his argument in that regard. Then we find that in many instances hon. gentlemen -seek to make mountains out of molehills. We should look at this as a great national question, one that is worthy of our best consideration! Instead of quibbling over words here and there, words uttered in 1914 especially, we should get down to the practical business proposition and see what this great public utility demands of the people of Canada. If you approach the subject in that spirit, I am sure that you will come to the conclusion that I have come to, that this is a great national project, the greatest that any country ever undertook at one time. It is a question that is worthy of our closest attention. In future years, I am satisfied, the members who sit in this House will fully realize and -appreciate the steps which are being taken by the Government in this measure and will consider them to have been in the best interest of our people.
Both parties -are practically united on the question of public ownership. They are both agreed that it is in the interest of the country that the people should own this road. In the early stages of the debate two hon. gentlemen proposed that the Government should pay over $20,000,000 and continue Mackenzie and Mann in the position which they now occupy. But to-day practically every one on both sides of this House is in favour of taking over the road, except the hon. member for Carlebon (Mr. Carvell). There are only two possible ways in- which this road can be taken over. The one is by the Government and the other by the Canadian Pacific railway. If we should allow it to go into the hands of a receiver if we should put it up at public auction, there is no question but that the Canadian Pacific railway would be able to bid a greater amount than even the Government would care to -put into it, with the result that the Canadian Pacific railway would own and have a monopoly on all the railways of this country. When you take into consideration that by the acquisition of this road, the people of Canada will own, control and operate 13,247 miles of railway, whereas the Canadian Pacific railway has only 12,900 miles, and when you Temember
that the Canadian Northern has the best grades and curves of any road on the continent, you cannot but appreciate the fact that this is a measure that is going t<rbe of great advantage to the people. But the Canadian Northern is in such a position that it cannot possibly pay its running expenses, interest charges and provide rolling stock and betterments.
I believe that it is in the interests of the people that it should be taken over and run by them. We do not perhaps appreciate to the full that the Canadian Northern railway has been a great colonizing road. It has been as great an element in the development of the Northwest as any other railroad, or even as great as any institution established by this Parliament. Owing to the opening up of this line of railway, tens of thousands of homesteaders are now settled along its right of way across the continent, and in addition to that, many important industries have been located in different parts of the country. There are along the line of the Canadian Northern railway 980 interior elevators. The road operates six steamships on our Great Lakes, and has five terminal elevators with a capacity of 10,000,000 bushels. The total elevator capacity in the west along its lines is 60,000,000 bushels. Thus this road is a splendid undertaking, and one that, I am sure, will receive the approval of the people of Canada. Within a few years we will take over the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Then the people of Canada will control and operate 19,000 miles of railway out of the 40,000 that are in operation in Canada. This will be a mighty factor in the development of our country.
There is a matter to which I wish to refer before taking my seat. The hon-. -member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) at page 4760 of Hansard said, referring to Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann:
And lastly, they have corrupted the public life of this country. They have corrupted it alike in the provinces and in the Dominion, and if the members on both sides of the House were to tell the tale of contributions that have been made to party funds, It would indeed be an enlightening and revealing story.
This statement has gone broadcast throughout the country, and I say most emphatically that nine-tenths of the members of this House-and I defy the member for Calgary to successfully contradict me - have neveT received -ny remuneration whatever from any of 'the railways. I have been a member of this House for the
516"!

last fourteen years and i have never been approached in any way as suggested by the member for Calgary by any representative of a railway or of any other corporation, and I think it ill becomes a member to try to belittle the standing of the members of this House by making any such statement. The member for Calgary was a member of the special committee on the Rail-10 p.m. way Act. He must know that the twenty-six men who took part in the work of that committee fulfilled their duties as faithfully as any men could do, and that they brought in advanced legislation for the general benefit and development of the country. Having been a member of the Railway Committee for the last fourteen years, I resent, in the strongest language I can bring to bear, any such statement as that made by the hon. member for Calgary as referring to myself, and I feel that I am voicing the sentiments of nine-tenths of the men in this Chamber when I say that not a man of them has ever been interested in anything such as he has suggested. I regret exceedingly that the hon. member should make such a statement. I feel that it was a reflection on the members of this House, and I for one did not wish to be seated and allow such a statement to go unchallenged.
I sincerely hope that the third reading of this Bill will be carried, as I am satisfied that it is legislation in the public interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a question of privilege. The observations I made some ten days ago I desire to repeat. I referred to contributions to party funds, and the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) knew that or else he is unable to understand the King's English. No reference was made to him, and if he so construed it he is making a very considerable draft upon his imagination.


Mr. COPP:: Too innocent.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is one way of putting it-referring to party funds. That is about as unfair a way as any other.
I want the hon. member for Calgary to know that he is not the only Simon-pure politician there is in this country at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not pretend to be.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is astonishing how some men are able to parade themselves in a manner to endeavour to show that all 
other men in public life are Teady to be bought or sold in connection with any of the transactions of this House. I repeat that I believe it is an unfair statement to make with regard to members of this House, and that nine-tenths of the members are a6 honest and open and above board a body of men as you can find in any walk of life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Very clever.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the long and vigorous addresses coming from the Government benches to-night. They are particularly interesting in view of the fact that we are charged with killing time and blocking the wheels of Parliament in getting Bills through. I wonder what hon.. gentlemen opposite are doing. Of course they may have a wonderful conception of time that we have not. It seems to me that the sun moves and the moon moves, particularly the moon when they are speaking just as well as when we on this side are speaking. I therefore take particular interest in watching their performances. I was more than usually interested in the performance of the Minister of Finance himself. He reminded me of the old saying that a man sometimes bites off more than he can chew; to-night the Minister of Finance found himself caught in his own net. He was certainly like Haman of old when he found himself dangling upon his own gallows. So much for the Minister of Finance. I must remind him of the declarations and opinions expressed by his. bosom and close friend and supporter, the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett). It appears to me that, according to the deliverance of that hon. gentleman, who has more than a national reputation as a corporation lawyer, and particularly a railway corporation lawyer, the legislation that is now before this House is in the position of the old Indian's gun. It wants a new lock, stock, and barrel.
The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett) has addressed the House. He is a lawyer of great repute. And the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) in surny days and balmy weather admits he himself is a lawyer but the profession of law is to him something like Abraham's wife,- somet mes she was his wife a d sometimes she was his sister. The Minister of Finance is a lawyer, and he is not a lawyer, just as

it suits him; to-night is one of the nights when Sarah is Abraham's sister;-the hon. gentleman is not a lawyer to-night. I have no reason to disagree with him when he says he is not a lawyer. I always thought his theoretical ideas in law were very good, but, it seems, when he comes down to the surgical part of law, operating, he finds himself somewhat at sea; at least, that is the conclusion reached by the hon. gentleman from Calgary (Mr. E. B. Bennett), and when that hon. gentleman undertakes to discuss corporation law, I must follow the example of the hon. Minister of Finance and uncover my head-"take off my hat" to him. Then in view of the exposition made by the hon. gentleman from Calgary, and the riddling which he gave this legislation, there is only one consolation for the Canadian people, and that is, when the new Government comes in, if an effort is made to enforce this Act should it be passed, we can very easily get out of it, because we can plead disability,-I think we can put forth the disability of infancy on the part of everybody who is handling this legislation as members and supporters of the Government.
We hear a great deal about this arbitration, and I want to deal seriously with this matter, as an important national question, as the ,hon. gentleman from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) wishes us to deal with it. He said that it was a great national question. I would be very glad indeed if the Government and the supporters of the Government would take that broad view of it and deal with it in that way; but it appears to me that the members of the Government and those supporting them think it is a tu'penny ha'penny matter not worthy of consideration-a matter that should be dealt with in twenty minutes and wiped off the slate, to be replaced with something else. I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman from East Lambton speaking in this Chamber. He has a style peculiarly his own. He doesn't remind me, of course, of Parliament, but he brings me back to the temple where righteousness rules and where we hear the evangelist hold forth. I am sure there is not a member in the House who, in season and out of season, stands to his guns for party purposes better than the gentleman from East Lambton. With all the graft, money and party patronage that the Conservative party have had in their hands in the elections which have been run in this country since the hon. gentleman became a politician, if he, who has been faithful in his service to the
Conservative party, got none of it, he has good ground to find fault. I must say that that is the great difficulty with governments handling money of this kind, the honest member never receives a fair share; and if there was ever a case where an arbitration should be established, and a full and thorough investigation made this is it.
1 would suggest that the hon. gentleman should put his case on paper, and submit it to this House, and I will vote with all my heart for an arbitration board to have an accounting in order that his just and full share of that money shall be paid to him, as was paid to the others. It is said that only one-tenth of the party gets it. It is all very well to go back to those old Jewish customs of a tenth, but it should spread wider in the party than one-tenth, and I think my hon. friend should get his share.
He said this should be a national Bill, and dealt with in a national way. My own conception of the measure is that it should not have originated in this branch of Parliament, but should have originated in the other Chamber, and should have gone through the hands of the Divorce Committee, because it is a Bill for the relief of Mackenzie and Mann. It being a Bill of that character, I am sure, no matter what else may be wrong about it; it began in the wrong chamber.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Who is the co-respondent?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose there would be quite a few of them. The management and shareholders of the Canadian Bank of Commerce might be co-respondents.
We have reason to complain of the meagre information that has been given to the House and the country in connection with this large transaction. It involves more money than any other piece of business that was ever before this House since I came here, about fourteen years ago, which was about the time the gentleman from East Lambton became a member of the House. I have followed the proceedings of the House very closely ever since, and apart from the big votes we passed for war	purposes,
this is the biggest transaction that has ever been before the House. We should certainly, when dealing with our own money, have all the facts before us. Why should there be any mystery or back-door business about the thing? Why do we not know all about it? We are told to go to arbitration about this question. We are going to arbitrate, and get into our own

possession some property belonging to somebody else. I never saw a case of that kind, except where one person had made an offer to the party owning the property, for him to accept or refuse. If we are going to expropriate this stock-because it is a species of expropriation-where is the record of the offer of the Minister of Finance to Mackenzie and Mann for it? If he were going to buy it, the proper way would be for him to say to Mackenzie and Mann, "Here, we are going to take this stock, and will give you so much for it." Of course if they refuse to accept the amount, the proper course would be for the Minister of Finance to say: "If you do not accept it, we will go to arbitration." There was not a word submitted to this House in regard to any offer and if there were negotiations we are in entire ignorance in regard to them. As a business proposition, something like that should have been done, and it was not business for the minister to go ot Mackenzie and Mann and say: "AVe are going to take this stock, and Ave are going to appoint a number of arbitrators who will deal with it, and I am not going to say what it^ is worth, and I do not know what you will ask for it, but we will put ourselves entirely in the hands of those men who are going to arbitrate."
I submit that such a transaction as this would never be put through by any ordinary business man without first finding out in some way what was the value of the stock and what Mackenzie and Mann were willing to take for it.
As to the . arbitration itself I submit that we have no knowledge at all as to what they would be willing to take for the stock, or that any effort was made to find that out. We have asked that the correspondence between the Government .and Mackenzie and Mann and the pledgees of this stock in reference to this transaction be laid on the table of the House, that we might know what were the negotiations that led up to this legislation. I do not know if there was any correspondence or not, but if there was, it certainly should be laid on the table so that every member of this House and the press of this country should be put into possession of the facts. We have no knowledge as to whether an offer was made; or as to the answer to that offer. I submit that if this was only a $100 transaction, if the Government was simply buying a horse, the slipshod manner in which the business is being done would be unworthy of the transaction. Then how much more unworthy, when the transaction 
involves something like $650,000,000 or $700,000,000 of the people's money.
Suppose we were to approach a tribunal to get at the proper value of this stock; what should we do, or where should we go? If a precedent is required the Government established one a year ago last May or June, when legislation was passed in this House for taking over the Quebec and Saguenay railway. We had the same conditions in the country then as we have now, and the same Government, the same Minister of Finance, and the same Minister of Railways. In that case the value of the property that was to be taken over was to be determined by a certain line of arbitration. I am using the word "arbitration" in this case as being synonomous with the method of obtaining the property. On that occasion the matter was submitted to a court that was particularly fitted to deal with questions of that kind. That was the proper course to take, and it is extraordinary, when a similar transaction arises, that the Governement should not acquire the Canadian Northern Railway property in the same way that they acquired the Quebec and Saguenay property. Why not follow the same procedure and go to the same court in both cases? Many years ago we had. in this country a standing committee of arbitration to deal with cases of this kind. I saw them for the last time in Cape Breton, I think, in 1887 or 1888, when they were sent down there to value the Tight of way of the Intercolonial which was being extended to the island of Cape Breton. That was before the days of the Exchequer Court. The Government of that day, and the people who were doing business in those days, found it convenient to do away with this whole business of arbitration, and the Government established the Exchequer Court. The old committee was disbanded, there being no further use for it. I wish to refer for a moment to section 19 of the Exchequer Court Act, chapter 140 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1900, which defines the jurisdiction of the Exchequer .Court and the subjects with which it was particularly appointed to deal:
The Exchequer Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in which demand is made or relief sought in respect of any matter which might, in England, be the subject of a suit or action against the Crown, and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms, it shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in which the land, goods or money of the subject are in the possession of the Crown, or in which the claim arises out of a contract entered into by or on behalf of the Crown.

So the Exchequer Court was created particularly for the purpose of dealing with casee of this kind. And when you have a court of that kind created for this specific purpose, it is beyond my comprehension why we do not avail ourselves of it, but try to create a court which must be far below the Exchequer Court in experience and capacity for dealing with such questions. In the arbitrator appointed by the Government we have, of course, an old jurist, and no doubt a very respectable man; but I have no knowledge, nor has anybody else here, of his having had any particular experience in dealing with the expropriation of any lands, property or stock. That does not come within the purview of the court over which he presides. On the other hand we have a court established for that purpose.
I see I have only one minute more, and it is a pretty hard proposition to deal with this matter when one is standing on the trapdoor and the black cap is going over his head. In that one minute I can only say that this is not the time to take over this road under public ownership, because we have not the money. According to the minister's statement the other day, we are paying out at least $30,000,000 a month on account of the war, which amounts to $360,000,000 in the year. That, together with the ordinary expenditure of this country to keep the wheels going, is such a load on the people of this country that we are not in a position to put ourselves under the obligation of $650,000,000 or $700,000,000 more. The time is not ripe, no matter what the merits of the case may be, and we should let the matter stand until a more suitable time. There are parts of this country where they have no railways at all, though this Government pledged itself two years ago to give extensions. If this transaction is to go through, farewell to any railway extension in that part of the country from which I come. I protest against this legislation, protest against its origin, the manner in which it has been brought forward. and everything connected with it. It was conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity. If I had only a few more moments at my disposal, I should like to see it buried, and the epitaph over it which its merits deserve.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.):: I have a suggestion to make arising out of the proposition of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) to pass an Act through this House known as the Daylight Saving Bill. As that distinguished colleague of the Minister of Finance did not succeed in getting that legislation through, notwithstanding it had the approval, I suppose, of the other members of the Government, I would suggest that the hour proposed to be saved by the minister's Bill be appropriated to the Minister of Finance, the member for East Lambton (J. E. Armstrong) and the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. R. B. Bennett), so that members on this side of the House may have that much extra time to discuss this measure in place of the time having been taken up by the hon. gentlemen I have named.
I do not wish this debate to close without expressing my views on the question of the public ownership of railways in Canada under present conditions. Public ownership of railways in Canada has been an exceedingly extravagant ownership under the present government. The results to the country of the operation of the Intercolonial railway, during the past five or six years, are not, I am sure, such as will produce any great enthusiasm among the people of this country for further government ownership of railways. The argument in favour of government ownership r: the Intercolonial, as respects that portion of Canada through which it passes, was that by reason of it being a government-owned railway the public would enjoy cheaper transporation rates than those enjoyed in other sections of Canada where the roads were owned by private corporations. The boon of reasonable railway rates was accorded to the people of the Maritime Provinces and of the Prov ince of Quebec up to a recent period, but since this government came into power there seems to have been a combine entered into by the Government, the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern railway, by which the rates of all these roads are brought up to the same level. As a matter of fact, although the Intercolonial is a government-owned road, those who have to make use of it in the Maritime Provinces enjoy no advantages whatever in the matter of rates at the present time. Freight rates have been largely increased by the Department of Railways within the last few weeks. So that in respect of rates nothing is to be gained by the general public by the public ownership of that railway. I am sure that if the Canadian Northern railway comes under the operation of the government the same con-

amount of money to be paid to the Quebec and Saguenay Railway company under the terms of the Act. I have here before me the decision of Mr. Justice Cassels, in which the following significant paragraph appears:
Crown counsel in their statement were of opinion that the two items of $500,000 and $794,869.58 should be taken as the cost up to that date, namely, July 1, 1898. I do not agree with that contention. I fail to see how it can ,be assumed without further proof that the proceeds of those interim bonds, namely $500,000, went into the construction of the railway.
Mr. Justice Cassels was investigating the amount of money that was put into the railway by the Quebec and Saguenay Railway Company, and it was determined by legislation that only such amount as was actually put into the construction of the railway should be paid by this Government when the road was taken over. Here was counsel for the Government admitting that two large items, amounting to $1,294,869.58, should be charged up against the Government of this country as part of the consideration to be paid to the railway. Mr. Justice Cassels was obliged to dissent from his argument, and -Strike out the sum of $1,294,869 which the lawyer for the Government agreed should be paid by the Government to the company. If instead of this matter being determined by Mr. Justice Cassels it was determined by two arbitrators under a provision that if they both agreed there should be no appeal, the taxpayers of this country would have lost $1,294,869 in respect of this transaction alone. The Government has refused to accept the arbitrament of Mr. Justice Cassels in this matter, preferring to have it adjusted by two arbitrators, one to be appointed by Mackenzie and Mann, and the other to be appointed by the Government. [DOT]If those two arbitrators should agree, there is to be no appeal to any higher court and no appeal to Parliament. No doubt the Government will be represented by counsel, but what guarantee have we that it may not be the same counsel as appeared before Mr. Justice Cassels in the investigation into the co$t of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway Company, and who considered it proper that the railway company should be awarded $1,294,869 to which Mr. Justice Cassels said they were not entitled? What guarantee have we under the present Bill that a very much larger sum will not be improperly paid by the taxpayers in respect of Mackenzie and Mann's alleged equity in the Canadian Northern railway? This is an argument which cannot be lightly 
turned aside. My hon. friend from St. John has provided a means whereby the people of the country will be absolutely protected against any collusion between Government counsel, the arbitrators and the interests to be benefited by this legislation. If the amendment is adopted, the public will be protected along the lines I have suggested; if the amendment is rejected, then there is no protection to the public, and whatever sum the arbitrators and the Government counsel decide to pay shall be paid out of the treasury of the country, and thene will be no recourse and no redress for the people of Canada. There is no reason why this amendment should not be adopted, unless that reason is in line with a predetermined effort on the part of the Government and the Mackenzie-Mann interests, that they shall be paid a sum of money whether they are legally entitled to it or not. There has been some talk of party funds which have been contributed by railway corporations in the past, and taking the language of the hon. member for Calgary as it stands in Hansard, I assume he had reference to the contributions of the Canadian Northern Railway -company. It has been a matter of corridor gossip around this House for the last two or three months, that certain party funds had been provided by this Government for the purpose of carrying on the coming election. I am not going to say that party funds are always illegitimate and always improper, but it has been said that certain party funds were collected by and under the control of the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers). That hon. gentleman has -gone out of the Cabinet, and it is stated that he has taken the money with him and that it is not now available for the purposes of his party.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman has exceeded his time.


George William Kyte: I did not get the notice of one minute before calling time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George William Kyte: It may be that the Canadian Northern Railway company will contribute to the election fund of the Conservative party out of the money proposed to be awarded to them under this legislation.


Hon. Mr. BUREAU (Three Rivers) (translation) :: 

asked for. In concluding I may be allowed to state that, in the discussion, previous to the. imposition of the gag rule, there are fifty pages of Hansard containing the opinion, of the Opposition members, while that of the Government covers sixty-nine and a half pages. '


Mr. ETHIER (Two Mountains) (translation) :: 
Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: All! here are a few who seem to know something about it, I should not be surprised if they were interested, ini the Toronto Street railway. And, it is also because Mackenzie and Mann have used these .millions, so obtained,, to invest them in Mexico, in the Argentine Republic and in Brazil, where they have hidden these .stocks under assumed names, in order to save themselves bankruptcy, a bankruptcy they now invoke and which they want to saddle on Canada under the protection of the present Government.

Were .an investigation made into the private pecuniary means of Mackenzie and Mann-of the Mann family alone, and, of the Mackenzie family, privately, what would we discover? Here are people who, twenty years ago, were not worth one cent, who were lobbying in the House of Commons in 1896 and previously; who were small common contractors and to-day they are archmillionaires. Where did they get their money, if it be not with the country's money they have stolen, which they have used for * their personal ends, and who again today want to be paid and repaid from the public treasury?
I was speaking, a few moments ago, upon the amendment of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and I asked the Government whether they were afraid of having Parliament ratify the arbitrators' award. The Government cannot be afraid of that arbitration award, for if it should not suit them,, they would only have to do as they did in order to whitewash Bob Rogers; they will only have to appoint new arbitrators to ratify the award; they will only have to contest that award and appoint other arbitrators to ratify as they please and to make a second award, just as the judges, McLeod and Tellier, have done to whitewash the black we call Bob Rogers; they woufd only have to do as they did in the case of the O'Connor investigation that is to say, appoint another judge of their caste, of their kind, of their opinion, to disprove the opinion of their own friends. It is an easy matter. Weathercocks are well known on the other side of the House, weathercocks exist since 1911. Before that, they were unknown. They change and turn round like the wind, and every one opposite is satisfied.
Mr. Speaker, I was amused to listen to the hon. member for Calgary (Mf. Bennett) denouncing so vehemently the transaction now before us. He is an excellent lawyer, he argues his case to perfection; but he can draw arguments contrary to the principle he lays down.
Hearing him, as we have done the other day, upon the Bill's second reading, we would have been led to believe that the conclusion of his premises would be a direct condemnation of the Act as submitted, just as he did in 1914. But no, Mr. Bennett is compliant, the hon. member for Calgary has a compliant temper; a versatility of judgment which the Hou.se has had the opportunity to appreciate. Be'ieving he was against Mackenzie and Mann, after he had

accused them, of robbery, of forgery, after he had charged them with dilapidating the public treasury, Mr. Bennett says: That is all true, but, anyway, they are my own creatures, they are creatures of the hon Solicitor General, they are creatures of the Government which I must support, they are creatures of the Government that appointed me head of the National Service, I have to earn my money, and I vote for Mackenzie and Mann.
Mr. GEORGE E. McCRANEY (Saskatoon) : Mr. Speaker, I have noticed during this debate that the Government are putting forth this measure as an acceptation on their part of the principle of government ownership and are claiming for the proposal all. the virtues which should belong to government ownership. I myself am in favour of government ownership as a genera] principle. But in the fourth year of an unfinished war; when we have yet no idea what our financial undertakings may have to be; when we have a national debt which has run well over one billion dollars; when we have been obliged to pay nearly eight per cent for the last loan on the New York market; and when we have in prospect in taking over the Canadian Northern railway, an expenditure for betterments of over $80,000,000, I would most strongly advise this Government to have nothing to do with any proposal of government ownership at this time. The pretended virtue, however, arises out of what is really a dire necessity. To me it looks like a pretty bad case of a mortgagee having to take over a security which he would not be disposed to take under any other circumstances. We have put a lot of money into the Canadian Northern railway, and as a system it is wrapped up with the national future of this country. But at this time to undertake its ownership and to raise money for carrying on its improvements seems to be very doubtful policy. The ownership of the Canadian Northern railway is so far from bringing any advantage to this country at this time that, instead of taking it on evefi terms we should be receiving a very large subsidy from Mackenzie and Mann for at this time having to assume the responsibilities of the system.
I shall not discuss in connection with this proposal the question of receivership or expropriation. The Act of 1914, it appears to me, gives an adequate remedy in the circumstances. The circumstances are not

circumstances of purchase; they are circumstances of foreclosure. If the Government, apart altogether from the liabilities under which they stand and as carrying out any scheme of national undertaking with this railway, were to come to Parliament, they would come here as a matter of purchasing title to the Canadian Northern railway and not of acting under terms of foreclosure. The terms of foreclosure are contained in section 24 of the Act of 1914, which has been read so often that I shall not repeat it; but the authority of the Act is not to be invoked except on conditions imposed by Parliament. Bearing in mind that the conditions are conditions of foreclosure, this Bill proposes that the conditions to be imposed by Parliament are the payment of money by the mortgagee to the mortgagor. I never heard of such a term or condition being imposed in foreclosure proceedings. The terms of foreclosure proceedings are a period given to the mortgagor to redeem, or a sale. I can quite believe that when this arrangement was made between the Government and the Canadian Northern railway in 1914, those very questions were considered. There was no purpose in giving to a concern of the magnitude of the Canadian Northern railway a provision of a few months in which they might reorganize their finances before being foreclosed. At any rate, if to-day it were thought desirable, that would be one of the terms to which this legislation might apply. Another term might be that there should be sale, but the policy of this Parliament is against sale to the only corporation that could buy the road. The legis-tion of 1914 contemplates circumstances which could arise under foreclosure, and we have to decide whether we should Act under that legislation at this time. The Finance Minister has pointed out to us, and I accept his argument, that it is desirable that Parliament, instead of using the Act of 1914, should acquire title through the stock certificates. To my mind the stock certificates are valueless to the stockholders, because with the liability which there is against the Canadian Northern railway they have no value to any person apart from the legislation which this Parliament is now putting through. The holders of those stock certificates, apart from the fact that this Parliament is likely to enact this legislation, cannot get one cent on the dollar for these certificates on the market.
I think that is the test of their value. But I accept the reason which the Finance
Minister gives, that it is desirable that we acquire the capital stock of the company rather than act under foreclosure, which gives us the physical properties of the company, apart from the capital stock. In going into that matter, or making any payment, I would act as a .mortgagee would act who had to take over a property he did not want to take and had to expend money on improvements, and I would consider what he could afford to give the mortgagor for title rather than to take foreclosure proceedings. On that basis alone would I discuss it. I would certainly not consider any sum which might be paid by the mortgagee to the mortgagor, or by this Government to the holders of the stock, as a matter of right. I would consider the question as to whether it was desirable in this case to acquire the capital stock in the light of the amount of money which we have to pay for it, and in that light alone. Otherwise I would stand by the foreclosure proceedings provided in the Act of 1914. I am opposed to this idea, in connection with foreclosure proceedings, of submitting to the court of arbitration, as a matter of legal right, the authority to give any judgment from one dollar to sixty million, but I would like to have the report of the commission as to what sum this Parliament could afford to pay the holders of these stock certificates to get the title in that way rather than foreclosure. Then let them report here; let Parliament consider whether it wants to take the title by foreclosure, or through the capital stock. It seems to me in this whole discussion we are confusing two questions, the question of public ownership on one hand-which ownership we would get by purchase and through the capital stock-and the question of foreclosure proceedings, that is, taking over a property which, at this time, we do not want, and which we would have on our hands. Holding that view, I am going to support the amendment of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley).


Mr. CARDIN (Richelieu) (translation):: The Government, Mr. Speaker, have evidently acted upon a wrong inspiration, when they saw fit to make use of the arbitrary power, given them by the rule of closure, in order to compel the passing into law of the Bill we are discussing to-night. When that closure regulation was adopted, we were given to understand that it would be only enforced in cases of extreme gravity; that, most probably it would have to remain a dead letteT. None of us ever dreamed, in

a commission to estimate the shares which were to be taken over in the case of the company being in default? The hon. Minister of Finance and certain other hon. gentlemen, who- then supported that proposal, wreathed a garland of flowers for the hon. Solicitor General because he had prepared that Act which thus entitled tihe Govt-ernment to acquire the Canadian Northern without spending a single cent. And today, Mr. 'Speaker, they are coming with new sophistry, with new exaggerations and new imaginative schemes, and trying to make the people of this country believe that it is necessary to appoint a commission to value this stock. Either we were imposed upon in 1914 or we are being imposed upon to-diay. When we were told in 1914, that we could acquire this railroad without spending a cent, without the necessity of going before the courts, we were therefore deceived. We are told that it is Sir William Meredith, Chief Justice of the province of Ontario, who. will be appointed as the Government arbitrator, to value this capital stock. May I be allowed, to state, Mr. Speaker, that I strongly doubt whether this distinguished magistrate will accept such a position, because it really seems to me he would bring discredit upon, himself by accepting such a position .as that offered him, a position that will compel him to declare, if he wants to follow the Government's instructions., itihat ruin is wealth, bankruptcy *a progress, and failure a success.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure of one thing, that is if, to pay him his. salary for the commissions he has been called upon to preside, he had been offered stock of the Canadian Northern company's, he. would certainly have refused, it.
We might ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, what are we to do? Since we do. not accept the Government's project, what can we do? Simply apply the Act of 1914, take over the railroad which is already, by right, the country's property. And if Messrs. Mackenzie and iManm were bold enough to protend that the capital stock of their company still have a par value, we could sell them back to them. They are perfectly able to buy this railroad with the pennies and the millions they have made in ruining it.
Mr. Speaker, should the Government acquire this road, under the Act of 1914, even if they took it over under the Act proposed to-day, I say that they should rid the company of the worthless administration that has led it into bankruptcy.

The right hon. Prime Minister stated yesterday in his stump speech, that this railway's organization should not be destroyed; that the way of letting it expand, the way oGdeveloping it to. the country's benefit, was to preserve its present administration. I say that the present .administration that has led this railroad into ruin, should be discharged, if the Government see fit to take it over.
On behalf of the electors whom I represent, and I .believe I might also say in the name of the province of Quebec, I protest against this. Bill, and. I demand that the solution of such an important question as this one be left to. the care of a Government holding a direct mandate, from the people. I deny to the present Government the right to so. heavily burden the people of our country. And, by-the-way, I believe that this Government have not, upon their own .admission, the .required authority to deal with .a question, of so grave an importance; for, .since several .months .already, Mr. Speaker, they are in. quest of new blood, they beg -a coalition which tho.se they want to come in refuse to join in and which would be worthless with others who are offering themselves.
I think the .amendment of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) should, be accepted. This extreme means would permit us to safeguard the people's rights, to a certain extent.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the people, in their just wrath, will shatter those who are lauding their valour and their sons' heroism only to better impose upon them.
Will you .allow .me to. tell you, Mr. Speaker, before I take my .seat, that every knock of your mallet drives a nail into, the Government's coffin; that the hollow sound of the table under its repeated .strokes echoes harshly, in our ears, but does not reach our hearts. The people cannot mourn over that coffin. When if will have itself, through its ballots., sealed, that misshapen box, it will be with enthusiasm that it will .sing the joyous hymn of relief which, the purified echoes of our country will repeat ad infinitum.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: In so far as this measure before the House means the taking possession of the Canadian Northern railway by the people of Canada I have no objection to it, but there are certain features of it to which I do object, and I think in voicing the view I shall

voice here to-night I represent the opinion largely of the people of this country When this Government gave assistance to the Canadian Northern railway in 1914 I am satisfied that the public felt that if the Canadian Northern railway did not in the future meet its obligations to the Government that Tailroad would automatically pass into the possession of the people of Canada without any more money being handed over to the parties behind the railway company. Now the prospect before us is this:	That under arbitration the men
behind the railroad may get from the Parliament of Canada more money of the people of this country, and the people of this country do not think that these interests should receive any more assistance out of the public treasury. Consequently, I feel that the public are opposed to that feature of the measure.	.
I am in favour of government ownership, and I come from a part of the country where the idea of government ownership is held by most of the people. Under this measure we are acquiring not only a very extensive railroad system throughout Canada, but also a telegraph system, an express system and other properties of value. But practically all this system-express, telegraph and railroad-has been created out of the money of the people of Canada, and when the gentlemen who started the Canadian Northern railway with high ambitions, thinking they were going to have a transcontinental system, failed in their efforts there is no reason why we should adopt any measure to provide them with more assistance from the people. They took their chance and failed, and consequently this property of theirs should come into our possession on account of the assistance we have given so extensively during recent years. I might compare their situation to the situation of many men in Western Canada who invested their money in subdivisions of real estate. They had ahead of them the prospect of making a fortune, but they failed to realize their ambitions. Nobody came to their assistance. In many cases the properties have been sold for taxes, or have passed back to their original owners. And so it is with the promoters of this railroad. They came to the Government of Canada and to the provinces of Canada and received assistance, and with all that assistance they have failed to meet their obligations. They should, therefore, be placed in the same position as the man who gambled in real estate and failed; they should lose their property and that property should
come into possession of the people of Canada, because the people of Canada practically provided the means whereby this road was created.
The commission appointed by this Government have told us, as I understand it, that the balance of the stock is not worth anything. Now, if it is not worth anything, why should there be any arbitration to decide the value of the stock? I am not a lawyer, I am an ordinary layman, but I come to the conclusion at once, that if a commission of reputable men say the stock is not worth anything, I do not see any reason why arbitrators should be appointed to find out whether the stock is worth anything or not.
We have before us an amendment providing that the arbitrators the Government are going to appoint shall submit their report to Parliament, for Parliament to reject or sanction. I am in favour of that amendment, and I believe the people of this country are in favour of it. I am going to conclude my remarks by reading part of an article from a paper that is of much influence in Western Canada, especially amongst the farmers there; it voices their views, and is not always antagonistic to this Government. It praises the Government when it is right, and criticises it when it is wrong. Its article in connection with the Canadian Northern railway is not a severe criticism of the Government proposal, but it certainly commends the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for St. John. I will read it for the information of the House:
On a proposition of this magnitude it would seem quite reasonable that the decision of the Board of Arbitration should be submitted to the next Parliament to be passed upon. How much the promoters of the Canadian Northern Railway will make out of stock manipulation nobody knows, but it can safely be assumed that it will be a tidy sum. The fact that the Canadian Northern Railway promoters are apparently quite satisfied with the present deal arouses widespread suspicion. For form's sake at least it would have been better to have heard them all kicking and kicking hard. We may take it for granted that Mackenzie and Mann will make more by selling the road to the Government than they would make by operating it themselves.
No doubt there will also be a very satisfactory contribution to the campaign funds, and as usual, probably both political parties will benefit thereby. But even though the cost will be high it cannot be any higher than it has been under the old system of giving the Canadian Northern Railway promoters all they want from the public treasury with no return.
This article approves the proposal that the award of the board of arbitrators should be



*COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
submitted to Parliament to be passed upon. This is an independent newspaper representing very important organizations in western Canada, and, I believe, it voices the sentiments of the bulk of the people of western Canada. So far as I personally am concerned, I am in favour of Canada acquiring this road, because of its failure to meet its obligations, but I am opposed to arbitration, because there is a possibility that, under arbitration, we shall be called upon to contribute more money to people interested in the road. If there is to be arbitration, then I agree with the sentiments expressed in this article, namely, that the report of the board of arbitrators should be submitted to Parliament.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, this is a war session of a war Parliament. The only reason why this Parliament is sitting to-day is because a world-war is in progress. We are here not by the mandate of the people but by our own decision under pretense that world-war conditions, in which war Canada was taking part, were of such character and of such gravity as did not permit that intervention of the people of Canada in the management of their own affairs that is provided by the constitution. Under these circumstances after the war has been in progress for three years, when no man can tell how much longer it will run nor what the result will be; after the debt of Canada has been increased to $1,250,000,000, of which $750,000,000 is war debt, we are asked to consider and to assent to a proposition that, in one week's debate of this dead Parliament, we shall add to the debt ol.Canada within measurable distance of what has been added to that debt by the three years of war in which we have been engaged.
It is true that we are to have assets in respect of those liabilities amounting to $650,000,000 which we shall assume, and if the assets that we assume, as a previous 6peakeT has said, will earn the fixed charges upon them, then there is no addition to our net debt. But does any one suppose that the administration of 9,500 miles oi railroad under this Government, judged by the results of its administration of the Intercolonial and of the Transcontinental, will result in earning interest on that vast sum of money? That would be the vision of a wild imagination. We have been running railroads in Canada for fifty years, and government operation of railroads has never yet paid a cent on capital cost. Not 
only has it never done that, but tens of millions of dollars have been added to capital cost because of failure to pay running expenses. Under those circumstances, it is no figure of speech to say that the Act of to-day that will pass at two o'clock in the morning, will add to the debt, to the liabilities, to the non-earning liabilities of the people of Canada, nearly as much as our three years of war have done.
If we are to take effective part in this war, we must have credit and we must have money, and if we destroy our credit by assuming non-productive liabilities of such a stupendous amount, where and how are we to get the money that will enable us to take that part in the war that it is our duty to take? It has been said already during this debate that Canada's credit has reached a point at which she can borrow only on short terms and at an abnormally high rate of interest. A few weeks ago we borrowed $100,000,000 in New York for only two yeare, and we are paying what amounts to 8 per cent for that money. That was before we entered upon this undertaking to assume ownership of the Canadian Northern Railway, to assume the obligations which the Canadian Northern Railway company has undertaken, to assume the responsibilities ot management of 9,500 miles of railway, when we have proved before the world during half a century that we cannot manage 1,000 miles of railway and make it pay. We are undertaking to submit to arbitration the question whether this country shall have to pay in addition up to $60,000,000 for that which we have evidence is of absolutely no \alue. If our credit was as it was four weeks ago, what will it be to-day or tomorrow after this Bill passes?
I have already said, in the course of the discussion on this Bill, that it does not bear the marks of an honest transaction. If this Government intended to deal honestly by the people of Canada, they would not come to Parliament with a proposal that we should arbitrate upon the question of whether that which was valued at nothing at all was or was not worth $60,000,000, They would have made their arrangements, whatever they might be, before they came to Parliament, and they would be able to say that by the payment of a certain amount of money we would achieve the ownership desired. That would have been honest, that would have been fair. Such a proposal as they bring to-day is not honest and it is not fair. It is an attempt to humbug, to mislead, to rob the

people of Canada under pretence of law and right.
Ia it a matter of importance to the people of Canada to-day that their credit shall be kept up? Is it a matter of importance to them whether or not they can raise more money for the prosecution of the war? We are being called upon to send our men the casualty lists in this evening's paper cover a page
__and we are expected to back up those
men with more men. And what are we going to do in regard to money if we have spent our money for that which has no value, if we have burdened our credit so we have no more credit? I ask you, what is our position going to be? It was said in the House the other day that munitionmaking was being shut down in Canada because the Canadian Government was unable to finance the making of munitions in Canada. It was said that the purchase of bacon in Canada for British supplies had ceased for the same reason. Because the United States was able to continue to finance the making of munitions, and the purchase of bacon, munition-making and the purchase of bacon are continuing in the States, while both were being shut down in Canada. Is this a matter for light consideration? Is it a light thing that we should see our industries shut down and the products of our farms left in our warehouses, or going to the Allies through the medium of our neighbours, because our Government has seen fit to destroy our credit and to spend our money in this enterprise they are undertaking at the present time?
I have nothing to say against the Canadian Northern Railway company and I have nothing to say against the Canadian Northern railway. It .is a great enterprise, and I have every confidence that under other circumstances it would have been a success. I would have been glad to see means taken to tide the enterprise over present difficulties, so that it would still	become	a success. However,that	is not	the question before
the House. The question before us is the payment of an unknown amount, not to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, not to Mackenzie and Mann, the projectors and controllers of that railway company, but to the Canadian Bank of Commerce, the pledgees who hold the stock. It appears the Canadian Bank of Commerce has advanced money, the Government refuses to say how much. This amount was advanced on security of this stock, which
the Drayton-Acworth report says is worth nothing, and which every man knows is worth nothing. The Canadian Bank of Commerce has seen fit to make advances of untold amounts on security that has no value. On what ground did the Canadian Bank of Commerce make those advances? On the ground that they had sufficient influence with the Government of Canada that the Government, acting as their servant, would come to Parliament and put through legislation that would protect them in having paid out money contrary to the terms of the Bank Act, contrary to good finance, and contrary to every rule that should govern business in this country.
This is an act for the relief of the Bank of Commerce, a member of the financial group in the city of Toronto which directs the policy of this Government and which has a strangle-hold on the business of this country. That is the reason this legislation is going through. It is not because of the *Canadian Northern railway or the devotion of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to the principles of government ownership; it is for the salvation and the help of Big Business in the city of Toronto, that the people's millions are to be poured into the coffers of the Canadian Bank of Commerce on the judgment of an arbitration that should never sit. We have millions to hand to the Bank of Commerce to save them from the consequences of acts which were never justified and which could not be justified; at the same time the wives and children of our soldiers at the front are depending on the passing of the hat for charity to keep them in comfort or decency -there is no recognition of the increased cost of living in the case of the dependents of our soldiers. We have not the money to spend; we have not the money in the treasury, and we cannot afford to spend it to maintain those dependents in the manner in which they should be maintained, but we have millions, and we do not put a limit on the millions, that we can pour into the coffers of the Bank of Commerce. Our disabled soldiers who come back from the front are not receiving the consideration to which they are entitled at the hands of this country which they have served, and for which they have suffered. The Government is convinced of this; the Prime Minister has told the House and the country that it is a fact. But the soldiers can wait; the Bank of Commerce cannot wait. The soldiers will get consideration when the next Parliament meets, but the Bank of


Mr. GAUTHIER (Saint-Hyacinth©) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker it is with pleasure, indeed that I shall improve the twenty minutes allotted to me, in condemning the measure now before the House for its third reading and in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for St-John (Mr. Pugsley). The future historian of Canada will state that since September 21, 1911, our country was unfortunate in having an administration steeped in torydsm to a degree unparalleled heretofore; and under a Government such as this, it is a relief to listen to a man such as the hon. member for St-John (Mr. Pugsley) who is fired with the spirit of true Liberalism.
What has been the present Government's policy? True to their traditions, they have bent their efforts towards encroaching upon civil liberty; they have outrun the term' of their prerogatives; they have substituted to Parliamentary action Commissions, appointed by themselves in order to load their friemds with all possible favours. But the greatest encroachment upon the liberties and the rights of 
the people and of tneir representatives, has certainly been the application of the closure rule which we are presently endiurinig, and' through which they silence the voice of the Opposition and force through the passing into law of the measure now under consideration. Commission after commission has been appointed. The House's privileges have been taken away one by one. Under the cover of every just cause, of the noblest principles, measures of the vilest character have been enacted, to 'an. extent unknown to any previous government.
I have not the time, in the few minutes at my disposal, to review the whole question now before us, besides I have already discussed it previously.
Mr. Speaker, what is the object of the amendment of the hon. member for St-John? Merely to assert the authority of Parliament, should the Government see fit to put this measure through by means of the closure. Indeed, this amendment provides that, before being carried out the award should be submitted to Parliament, the latter having the opportunity of threshing out the evidence, the testimony, the engineers' advices; in short, the evidence given by all the experts summoned.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of this House and of the country upon one particular item. On August 23, 1917, the hon. Minister of Finance brought down a statement as to that work known as the "Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal" and which happens to be in tihe city of Montreal. We who belong to Montreal, we are in a position to see what is going on in that city. The Government assert that the tota 1 cost should be $4,631,427, and that the expenditure up to April 30th last had reached $4,566,072.52, leaving an amount of $65,354.48 to complete the enterprise. NoV Sir, I am informed by a competent engineer that the amount stated as having been spent for the tunnelling of Mount Royal, is a fictitious one. This engineer, who is an expert, and who has consulted, other engineers, colleagues of his, contends that there has never been, on this continent or elsewhere, a tunnel where the cost has exceeded $200 per foot, that is to say, $1,000,000 per mile.
Now, this tunnel covers two miles and a half, which consequently puts its total cost at $2,500,000, and here we have the Government, accepting the figures submitted bv Mackenzie and Mann, fixing the cost of that tunnel at $4,631,427 and contending that, on April 30, 1917, the expenditure

amounted .to $4,566,072.52. The engineer from whom I obtained this data, which I believe credible, declares that it is impossible for Mackenzie and Manm to have spent in the tunnelling of Mount Royal the amount which they set down as having been expanded.
We ask for information and the Government refuse to give it.
In the blue-book concerning the Canadian Northern, we find entered as an unpledged security for the "Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company", an amount of $11,430,033.39 as outstanding debentures. Everybody knows that only $7,000,000 of that enterprise have been floated on the New York market, to the firm of Lazard Bros, and here now we shall be called upon to pay for $11,000,000 of deb ntures, when $7,000,000 only have been floated.
What of the balance? Who holds it? Nobody will extend the information and in spite of the Opposition's persistent inquiries, the Government turn a deaf ear. They resort to the g.ag and thus make totally obnoxious .a Bill based on the most *monstrous iniquity but which will bear in our statute books and in the minds of our people, the odium of having been put through by shutting off discussion and by force of majority vote, through which we are debarred from obtaining information to the benefit of our constituents.
The Government are using their full power and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we, on this side of the House, have not been at all surprised at the stand taken by these hon. gentlemen. Every one knows that, in spite of the nefarious influence which has paralyzed the press of this country, in spite of the means used by the occult power moving those who are the administrators of Canada; every one realizes that public opinion is awakening, in sipite of the sillenee of the press, notwithstanding the moneys spent to deceive, to chloroform public opinion; every one realizes that public opinion is err. the point of rising and of compelling the Government to go before the people.
Oh! I know that these gentlemen: have taken every possible precaution; I know that they have, as they always had at their disposal every means to extort a verdict from the people. We are expecting as much. Had they been able to put off the date of final reckoning, this nefarious measure would perhaps never have been brought up under sucn circumstances at this very session. But the Government feel that they must appear before the people; the Government are forced to face their judges and, realizing that the struggle will be a very hard one, that the result may be disastrous to them, these gentlemen, before leaving, have devised this Bill which I may sum up in a few words; Mackenzie and Mann having built a railway through subsidies obtained from every government in Canada, have thriven by impoverishing their company with its subsidiary companies, and to-day, after succeeding in enriching themselves by beggaring the companies of their own making, they ask the Government to come to their rescue and take over their debts so that -they may keep ail the profits.
As I see it, the transaction is summed up as follows; whether the money goes to the Bank of Commerce, whether the money, which we are going to vote or which will be the product of this legislation, goes to the Bank of Commerce, or to the National Trust or again, to Lazard Brothers, every body knows that it is through the advances made by those financiers, that Mackenzie and Mann have accumulated their private wealth, and that the debts these same gentlemen have created, the Government ishall take them over, leaving to those who have had the talent and the genius to accumulate colossal fortunes, their millions and! relieving them of their debts.
Mr. Speaker, is it credible that, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, in a country which lays claim to every British institution, in a country which has been brought to sacrifice as its iwax contribution the greater part of its wealth, its brightest prospects and its best men, to the very point o.f fading national bankruptcy; is it possible to believe that, in the last days of a Parliament which had been granted a new lease of life by formally pledging themselves not to bring up any contentious masure; is iit possible to believe that, during the last days of the last session of this moribund Parliament, the Government would be bold enough-were they not compelled to do ,so-previous to going before the people, to assume the responsibility of such a legal crime as this? Not by any means. It is because those who are the masters of the administration have forced them, before leaving the place, to open the public Treasury and allow them to draw upon it to any extent, in order to repay themselves for advances made to

enterprises which, had they been .managed with the prudence and wisdom that should characterize the administration of any large industry, would certainly have fully succeeded1.
And because the masters of this Government, because those who have put
i into power, those who have kept ihem in office, feel that public opinion is awakening, because they feel that the public conscience is on the point of revolting, because they know that the people's verdict, which the voters of the country will soon be called to give, will be the signal condemnation of six years of squandering, six years of iniquitous legislation and of scandalous ladiministraitdon, because they know that this verdict will go against their creatures and1 their valets; they exact, before this Government go away, that a last onslaught .he imiade on the public Treasury.
Can one be surprised, Mr. Speaker, that, before such a legislation as that one, can one be surprised that the Opposition shorfld demand that the voice of the people and the voice of the people's representatives be listened to? Is it surprising that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pug-sley), anxious as he is that the people's wishes be assented) to and. unwilling that the Parliament of this country should be deprived of its last prerogatives, is it surprising, I say, that this hon. gentleman proposes in his amendment that, when the arbitrators' award shall have been prepared, it be not executed before Parliament has been consulted and has declared', through its representatives, whether the bargain is good or not, whether wie are getting t,be actual value of what we are (purchasing?
I will go still further. If, in order to indemnify the builders of this railway system, the promoters of the Canadian Northern, the arbitrators should declare that an indemnity be given them to recognize their initiative, their go-aheaded-ness, the loss of time and of 'energy they have incurred-from the country's development point of view-recognizing the fact that the Canadian Parliament have declared,, by an Act, that the Canadian Northern had been built in the public interest, even if the award contained the shadow of a doubt, the members, in the new Parliament, would not hesitate in the least to grant, to those who have been the promoters of that enterprise, an indemnity, as a matter of recognition for 
all that those gentlemen have done in Canada's interest.
But the Government, by refusing to accept the amendment of the member for St. John, deprive Parliament of the right to examine the evidence and the expert testimony and, at the same time, of looking into transactions which, after all, the administration were not effected in their own personal name, but on behalf of the whole of Canada. It is the Canadian people who will have to pay and they should know whait they are buying, and dit is only fair that their representatives in this House should be in a position to decide, in last resort, upon the amount of the abritrators' award. In my opinion, this transaction should not be closed without the Canadian Parliament having decided unon the laward, as to the value of the goods w'e are acquiring.	-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I have been reminded by the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance of an old proverb, ' Consistency thou art a jewel.' When one reads the speech delivered by the Minister of Finance at the close of the last session and compares it with the speech he .has delivered to-day in reference to the interpretation to be given to the Act passed in 1914, really one cannot but believe that the argument of the hon. gentlemen is, with all due respect, nothing but tomfoolery. It would be of little importance if this legislation which we are considering and will be called upon to vote upon in a few minutes was only tomfoolery, but, unfortunately, it is Clifford roguery too. Lord Milner, one of the distant progenitors of the present Tory organization had a slogan which he used some years ago. In discussing the rejection by the House of Lords of the famous Lloyd George budget, when it was represented to him that the House of Lords should not run counter to the House of Commons, he said, " Damn the consequences." When I see this Government, with the Minister of Finance at its head, coming before Parliament in the dying days of a dying session of a moribund Parliament with such a stupendous proposition as the present one, I say that they have evidently adopted as their motto, their slogan, the words of Lord Milner-that silent and somewhat sinister figure in British politics-damn the consequences. I approve of the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley). The hon. gentlemen opposite, in order to cover their iniquity, claim that the

Canadian Northern railway in the future will be the people's railway. Sir, if this Parliament represents anybody or anything it represents the people of Canada, and as representative of the people of Canada this Parliament should pronounce upon the award because the award will represent the price that the people of Canada are willing to pay for what will become ultimately their railway. But the Government will not accept this amendment. This is exactly the cleavage between Toryism and Liberalism. Liberalism will trust the people but Toryism will mistrust them. The present Government, if they could do away with all parliamentary representation, with all advice from this House, would do it very quickly, because the Star Chamber is their type of government.
And are not the people of Canada being governed at the present time by a Star Chamber? The Government is not on the benches I see befcyre me. The present Government is not even sitting in council on the hill. The present Government receives its inspiration, receives its orders from a certain parlour in the Chateau Laurier. In the annals of Great Britain and of the British dominions I have never read of such a nefarious system of managing public affairs. The Government has completely surrendered what rights, what powers, it had into the hands of a few filibusters, into the hands of a few well known looters and plunderers. This is nothing else but a raid, and it is because it is a raid perpetrated on the Canadian treasury, that it has to be done by closure. A raid must be made swiftly and sharply, if must be done in the dark, far from inquiries, far from the surveillance of the elect representatives of the people. That is why the Government rejects the amendment of my hon. friend requiring that the award in the present arbitration shall 'be passed upon by the representatives of the people.
I said a moment ago that this amendment has all my support. It may seem extraordinary that, after having submitted this question to three arbitrators, we should claim the right to revise the award of the arbitrators. But this is a most extraordinary transaction. It is a transaction which reminds me of the looting and plundering which in years gone by was committed in the western states by desperadoes. When the desperadoes in California came sweeping down Ihe mountains to raid the poor inhabitants of the plains, the citizens, in order to protect themselves, formed vigilance committees and that is how they got
rid of the desperadoes in the Far West. We have desperadoes at the present moment before us. The vigilance committee is here represented by His Majesty's loyal Opposition, and the plain people at the next election will see to it that the desperadoes are dislodged from the hill yonder.
M]r. LAFORTUNE:	It will not takelong.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I said a moment ago
that the explanations of the Minister of Finance amounted to something like tomfoolery. May I explain in his own words the covenant which was passed in 1914. Let me quote in a few words what the hon. gentleman said:
Under that legislation in 1914, in the event of default on the part of the Canadian Northern Railway in the payment of interest upon its securities, or in the event of a receivership, which would be in the event of default, then this Government-
Mark these words-
-has the power, as that legislation is existing to-day, to appoint a board of directors of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and of its subsidiary and consituent companies to enforce its security.
Then he quotes section 24, and continues:
The effect of that enactment, which is in existence to-day, is that, in the event of default on the part of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, so far from the Canadian Northern Railway Company being able to take this Government by the throat-
As this company is taking it to-day-
-the Government can demand that the directors of the Canadian Northern Railway System resign their offices, and the Dominion Government may appoint directors in their places, may take complete control of the Canadian Northern Railway system and may foreclose the equity of redemption of the Canadian Northern Railway and deal with that equity of redemption as Parliament may see fit in the interests of the people of Canada.
He says further:
My hon. friend still misunderstands the legislation of 1914. So far from any delay being opened to the railway company under that legislation the Dominion Government can at once appoint boards, take possession and administer the system by these boards. It has as full power as if it had all the stock of the Canadian Northern Railway and its subsidiary and constituent companies.
And further on the hon. gentleman says, in answer to a criticism which was offered on this side of the House:
I have told my hon. friend that the Government is investigating the whole Canadian railway situation. We are doing what I believe is the sensible thing under present conditions. The Canadian railway situation is exceedingly complicated and one of the most Important that

has ever confronted any government in Canada. We are taking the opinion of experts, and when we have their advice we shall he in position to act.
We are taking the advice of experts, in order to act on the opinion of these experts. The experts, honest men all, were appointed. They said:
In the case of the Canadian Northern Railway Company no proceedings in court are requisite. Under the provisions of section 24 of the Canadian Northern Railway Guarantee Act, 1914 <4-5 Geo. V, chap. 20), the Governor General in Council has power, when authorized by Parliament, to declare by order, if default is made by the company in payment of interest on the $45,000,000 guaranteed securities (the interest on which is at present being found by the Government) that the equity of redemption of the company is absolutely barred and foreclosed; and thereupon the whole property becomes vested in His Majesty in right of the Dominion of Canada.
Let us follow the case. The hon. gentleman declared, when he introduced the resolution to the House, that the Canadian Northern Railway Company had failed to pay its interest charges. He admitted that the company had defaulted, and therefore he had only one thing to do. If he had been frank, sincere and honest with himself-not to speak of the honesty he should have exhibited to the people of this country-he would have followed the advice of the experts he employed-as he said last year, advice upon which the Government might act. I say that never in the history of this Parliament was a crime of that magnitude ever perpetrated against the interests of the people of Canada. I say to the hon. gentleman: You have appointed Chief Justice Sir William Meredith; Mr. Lash will be appointed; both of them will appoint a third. I am not saying anything against the integrity or the honour of the Chief Justice of the province of Ontario. I know that he is honourable, I know that he is a great jurist, but the people of this country will have no faith in the award of that tribunal. Let my hon. friend address himself to the Exchequer Court of Canada, and go before Sir Walter Cassels. He knows he is an honourable and eminently able judge, and that by the very nature of his functions he is conversant with such questions as these. He knows, further, that Sir Walter Cassels has protected the taxpayers of this country within the last months when the Quebec and Saguenay deal was being argued before him. I hold the judgment in that case in my hand. It shows that, although the counsel appointed by the Government recommended the pay-

ment of nearly $2,000,000 out of the public treasury to the Quebec and Saguenay, and the Quebec and Montmorency, the judge of the Exchequer Court, faithful to his trust refused to be bound by the dictum of that counsel. In one instance he said:
Now it is admitted that these two items of $500,000 referred to in schedule (A), and a'so the item of $794,869.58 floating liability comprise part of this item of $2,038,149.40. Crown counsel in their statement were of the opinion that these two items of $500,000 and $794,869.58 should be taken as the cost up to that uate, namely, July 1, 1898. I do not agree with that contention.
And he cuts off the two items, amounting to about $1,200,000. That is the judge I want to see as the Supreme Arbitrator in the present instance-a man who has the courage to say to the Crown Counsel: "You have allocated too much to the claimants, and I, as protector of the public treasury, and faithful to the trust imposed on me, refuse to allocate these two amounts." This is the judge I want to see appointed as a valuator in the present instance. What will the people of this country think when my hon. friend, having appointed the experts of last year, Sir Henry Drayton, Mr. Acworth and Mr. Smith, after having declared that he would accept their advice and act upon it, comes before the House this year, and begins by throwing overboard his own experts' report? He declares they have made serious omissions -and- have not properly valued the stock. Mr. Speaker, is that the way the watchdog of the treasury should protect the interests of the peoole? I say to my honourable friend that he has lost to a considerable degree the confidence of the people of Canada in the last few days.
It is hinted the Canadian Pacific would like to snatch the Canadian Northern from the people of Canada, and that by this legislation we are preventing the Canadian Pacific from getting control of that road. If it is true the Canadian Pacific is so anxious to snatch such a valuable asset as the Canadian Northern railway from the people of this country, if the minister had been wise he would have left the road first appraised by the Canadian Pacific, and then by Act of Parliament taken possession, as he was entitled to do under section 24 of the statute of 1914. I regret my honourable friend has not given the House a complete list of all the bondholders. The House would be glad to know, for instance, the names of those for wthom John Aird has $1,000,000 in trust. The holders in trust

should be brought to the bar of the House to divulge. the names of the real shareholders.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: This is the second time I rapped.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no tower so you cannot send me there.


Mr. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (translation) :: 
Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, it will be only a few minutes now until the curtain of this Chamber is drawn down on what I apprehend will be considered one of the most scandalous transactions that have ever disgraced the administration of any country under British rule.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman is surely exceeding the rules of debate.	*


William Manley German: If, by using the word "scandalous," I exceed the rules of debate, I will withdraw the expression "scandalous" and say that this is one of the worst transactions that have ever disgraced the administration of this or of any other country under British rule. We have here a proposition, introduced in the last days of a session, for taking over one of the great transcontinental railway systems of this

country, involving a responsibility on this country amounting to about $600,000,000; and the Government, without giving information which' members of this House desire to have and are entitled to have, are using the rules of closure to force this proposition through the House. That is an action on the part of the Government for which they will have to answer to the people of this country in a manner which, I apprehend, will not be to their satisfaction.
I do not think we can bring too often to the attention of the House and of the country what the positioa of the Government has been in regard to this matter. The transactions of the Government in connection with the Canadian Northern railway system began in 1914 when they guaranteed $45,000,000 of the bonds of that company. Yesterday, the Prime Minister, after repeated suggestions from various members of this House, endeavoured to explain-no, he did not endeavour to explain what was meant by his statements in 1914, but he made certain statements, and I think ;t is well we should place the statements of the Prime Minister made yesterday in this House side by side with his statement made in 1914 and the statement of the Minister of Finance made at the same time; the people of the country will then be able to use those statements standing in juxtaposition, and we shall see what the people think of them. This is what the Prime Minister said yesterday:
X have pointed out, and it has been repeatedly pointed out by hon. members on this side of the House, that if the Government utilized the legislation of 1914, it would be absolutely impossible, unless we desired to wreck the credit of this country, to proceed on any other principle than that which is embodied in this Bill. That is to say, that if the persons who own the equity of redemption in the Canadian Northern Railway and its subsidiary companies claim with any show of reason at all that there is some value in that equity of redemption, it would be absolutely impossible for this Parliament, for this Government, or for any other parliament or any other government having due regard for the public interests, to deny to the persons raising that claim the right to be heard as to the merits of their claim before some properly-constituted tribunal. If you depart from a principle of that kind, you might just as well bring into Parliament a Bill which would authorize expropriation of the property of any citizen, or firm, or company in this country, without compensation, or with one-half or one-tenth of the compensation that might he found by any court in respect of such property taken by the Crown for public purposes. It is absolutely impossible to do it. It is absolutely impossible to deny the right to be heard to any man whose property is taken and who makes a reasonable claim that it has some value. Therefore, I say, under the Act

of 1914, if the owners of the equity of redemption were able to show-as I think they have shown-that there is some reasonable claim for some value in the property over and above the encumbrances, we ought not to deny them the right to be heard.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that those people must have the right to be heard; that there must be an arbitration to settle the value of the equity of redemption of Mackenzie and Marin- in this railway enterprise. This is what he said in 1914:
If such default takes place the Governor in Council may, upon such notice as he deems expedient, declare vacant the offices of the directors of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, or of any of the allied companies, and may appoint a new board or boards, upon which very extraordinary powers are proposed to be conferred. Among such powers are the creation of any additional securities, the making of arrangements with the holders of any outstanding securities, and the transfer, with or without compensation, of the Canadian Northern system, or any part thereof (subject to then existing charges) to any corporation created by the Parliament of Canada for the purpose. So if, as apprehended in some quarters, the road cannot, with the assistance now afforded, be brought to a successful conclusion, the Government and Parliament of Canada will have the situation in hand better than by any possible method at the present time. In effect we propose to provide in the first place that a certain amount shall be available for the early and immediate completion of the road, and, if the road is not carried to completion by means of that aid, then the people of Canada, through their Government and Parliament, are enabled in the most effective and vigorous way to grasp the situation, and to carry to completion, for their own benefit, one of the great transcontinental railway systems of Canada.
I want to know where in the four corners of that statement of the Prime Minister, made in 1914, there is any suggestion that there will be an equity of redemption. As a matter of fact, he absolutely repudiated any idea of an equity of redemption of Mackenzie and Mann in this property. Mackenzie and Mann themselves, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this House and. as I purpose again pointing out-because it cannot be too often and too fully emphasized-agreed that there would be no equity of redemption in them to this property.
The Prime Minister there says, in speaking of the Order in Council, that the representatives of the parties, both Mackenzie and Mann as a corporation and Mackenzie and Mann individually, will be cut off, and that they will not he at any time, make or seek to enforce any claim for contractors' profits, commissions or otherwise against the Canadian Northern or against any of the constituent or subsidiary companies upon or in respect of any expressed or im-

plied contract, understanding, agreement or stipulation of any kind, heretofore or hereafter made whereby or whereunder they or any one or more of them may now or hereafter be entitled to receive from the Canadian Northern, or from any of the constituent or subsidiary companies, any consideration or profits in respect of work heretofore undertaken or as consideration for transfers of properties, rights or franchises already transferred or to be transferred under subclauses (a) or (b) of this clause, or for consideration or remuneration for services in financing or for any other services heretofore rendered, and all such claims are hereby by them and each of them absolutely renounced and. released. In the face of that, how can the Prime Minister or the Finance Minister stand up in this House and declare there is an equity of redemption in Mackenzie and Mann in regard to this property, for which they have a right to be paid? On the face of the whole transaction it shows that the proposition of the Government has some ulterior motive in view. It is not to recompense Mackenzie and Mann for any equity of redemption they have in this property. The Government knows; as we all know, that Mackenzie and Mann have renounced and released their equity of redemption in this property in consideration of having their bonds guaranteed to the extent of $45,000,000 in 1914. That being so, why does the Government come to-day and attempt-yes, even more than attempt, assert-to this House that there is an equity of redemption for which Mackenzie and Mann must be paid? What confidence can we have in any action of the Government in connection with this matter? What confidence can we have that this Government will in any energetic or thorough way go before the arbitrators and seek to show that there is no value in the equity of redemption of Mackenzie and Mann? We have the right to assume, in view of the action of the Government in connection* with this matter, that they will instruct their coun-[DOT] sel- to go before the arbitrators and admit that th^re is a value in the equity of redemption of Mackenzie and Mann in this property. Admitting that, then Mackenzie and Mann will call their expert witnesses, and will bring evidence before the board of arbitrators to show that this stock is actually worth par. We on this side of the House cannot have, and have not, any confidence in the Government energetically prosecuting this matter on behalf of the people of Canada, and that
is why we declare here that it is the duty of Parliament to keep control until after the whole thing is decided and disposed of. We should not have any confidence in the Government, because they have deliberately gene back on every pledge they made in 1914. They have deliberately turned their backs on every proposition of law that they laid down in 1914. They have deliberately gone back on every principle of equity and justice and fair play. That being the case, how can we on this siie of the House, and how can the people of Canada, have the Slightest confidence that the Government will prosecute this matter in the interests of the people? For those reasons, we declare that the Parliament of Canada should remain seized of the question until after the arbitrators have made their report, and then on the evidence which is made before the arbitrators, Parliament can decide whether or not the award they have rendered is a just and fair award. The Parliament of Canada is the highest tribunal in the land, as the Parliament of Great Britain is the highest tribunal in the British Empire. Why should not the Parliament of Canada remain seized of this situation until the arbitrators have made their report? The Government say .it will delay matters. It cannot possibly delay anything. All the Government has to do is to place their own directors in charge of this road, and take over the operation of the road from' this minute. They are not pinned down by anything. The law is as plain as the writing on the wall. The Minister of Finance declared in 1914 that all they had to do was to place their own directors in charge of the Canadian Northern Railway system, and operate it for the benefit of the people. It is the duty of the Government to do this now. The Solicitor General said this afternoon would that it be fair to accept an ex-parte decision of the Royal Commission in connection with the valuation of this property. This was a Royal Commission appointed by themselves to investigate this whole question, and there is not a man in the House who has denied that the findings of that Royal Commission were true to the facts, excepting Mr. Bell, Comptroller of Railways has said there is a mistake of some $65,000,000. On the face of it there is no such mistake. He says there was a mistake of $25,000j000 in the assets, but there was also a mistake of $25,000,000 in the liabilities, one offsetting the other. He says there was a mistake in not taking certain lands into consideration, but as a matter

of fact the commission took into consideration the money that was raised on the security of the land, so there was no mistake there. Mere than that, the commissioners themselves assert there was no mistake at all. The Government, knowing that there was no value to the equity of redemption in this property, is deliberately forcing through this House a proposition which will give, if not to Mackenzie and Mann, at least to their pledgees the Canadian Bank of Commerce, several millions of dollars of the people's money.	" .
There is another point in connection with this Bill about which I spoke the other night, and in regard to which I have not heard any explanation, that is, the agreement which is suggested in the Bill as an agreement to he made between Mackenzie and Mann and the pledgees and the Government before this stock is to be handed over. Why in the name of common sense should an agreement be suggested? There is no necessity for any agreement. Mackenzie and Mann lose all their rights in this road, and the pledgees have no higher rights than have Mackenzie and Mann. Then why an agreement? I wish to state, in all sincerity, and hon. gentlemen opposite will find that what I say will be very near the truth, that that agreement will be prepared in such a way that Mackenzie and Mann will be given further time for redemption of this property. Why should there be an agreement unless it be an agreement to give Mackenzie and Mann further time to redeem the property? The arbitrators will make an award - of perhaps $10,000,000, or $15,000,000, or $20,000,000, which will go to the Canadian Bank of Commerce. Mackenzie, Mann and Company will have four, or five, or maybe more years in which to raise this money if they can possibly do it, and redeem the property.
If it is a failure they will leave it in the hands of the Government, but if it is a paying concern, I am strongly of the opinion they will make provision in the agreement that they speak of in this Bill to give Mackenzie and Mann the right of redemption in the property. That is one reason why I claim that this proposition should be kept in the hands of Parliament until we see what is likely to happen. We have not the information on which we can decide with judgment and confidence in regard to this matter. We have not the information because the Government refuse to give it to the House. I asked the Minister of Finance the other day to let us know what that

agreement would contain. He said that it was simply an agreement for the handling over of the stock? Why is an agreement necessary for the handing over of the stock? The arbitration fixes the price to be paid for the stock under this Bill and the Government takes it. There is no necessity for an agreement. Mackenzie and Mann have nothing to agree to. The stock is taken from them in spite of them and the pledgees must accept the money which the arbitrators say they are entitled to get, if any. There is no necessity to make any suggestion of an agreement in the Bill. It is all an open, blank proposition. But under the Bill this Government can enter into any sort of an agreement with Mackenzie and Mann that they see fit in connection with this transaction. I believe it will be an arrangement to extend the time for the redemption of this property.
The time is growing short and soon the official axe will fall-and this debate will stop. The Government has not given the explanations that we are entitled to but there is another tribunal before which the Government will have to go in a few days, before which it will have to give explanations. Before that tribunal it will have to justify its actions in connection with this matter in the light of open criticism; before that tribunal there will be no closure rules to apply and before that tribunal every man will have as much time as he wishes to discuss this matter and the people will be glad to listen to him because it is a gigantic undertaking. When that tribunal has made up its mind, and when it gives its decision, I believe most firmly that the decision will be a condemnation of the Government which has shown itself spineless, corrupt and extravagant.


Mr. ARTHUR LACHANCE (Quebec-Cen-tre) (Translation):: Really Mr. Speaker,
Fortune seems very fickle towards me. The other night, I had, by authority of the chairman, to put'up with the hardship of the closure rule ; to-night again, I am bound to suffer the same inconvenience, since I have hut a few minutes left before the clock strikes two, the hour of crime, the fatal hour also for the present Government.
However that may be, could I make better use of these last minutes than by letting you listen here to the voice of citizens of the city of Quebec, of which I am one of the representatives?
A few weeks ago, the Boards of Trade addressed to the Government a memorandum containing important considerations upon the railways of Canada; several of

the remarks have a direct hearing upon the question now before us.
This is the memorandum:
The Canadian Railway Companies
Quebec, June 21, 1917. Proposed by Jos. Picard, Esq.,
Seconded by E. Harper Wade, Esq.,
And resolved
That, in view of the differing reports which have been recently made by the majority and minority members of the Royal Commission, appointed by the Government to study and report upon the railway system of Canada, and the best mode of overcoming the difficulties which have been created by the unfortunate duplication of railway in many districts, the Quebec Board of Trade is of opinion that it would be wise for the Government to carefully study the position again, before coming to any decision in favor of the adoption of either of the reports which have been submitted. That there are many reasons why it would not be advisable that the railway system of Canada or any very considerable part of it should be under Government ownership and management, which experience has proved to be not satisfactory in many respects ; that the progress of the country would be better stimulated by the initiative developed by company management, and that the Government management of the mileage betweeen Halifax and Winnipeg, now operated by the Government should be sufficient to regulate rates so as to direct the western trade to Canadian seaports; and that it would seem wise for the Government to let the railways work out their own financial problems, and to concentrate its efforts upon the proper equipment of our seaports with steamship docks and grain storage, upon reducing marine insurance rates and thereby attracting vessels to our seaports upon building or causing to be built ocean steamers to carry the trade of Canada, and in this way making our railway system fulfil the objects for which it was created, and arrest the alarming diversion of our trade to United States seaports. And that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Railways and the city representatives in the Cabinet and Parliament.
True copy. [DOT]
T. Levasseur,
Secretary.
I am glad to lay before the House these opinions of ia distinguished body and I hope the Government will give them all the consideration their importance 'entitles them to.
And now, may I be allowed to make a few observations about the Canadian Northern. This measure is of a most serious character; the consequence will be for Canada to assume a debt of $500,000,000 to $600,000,000, besides $60,000,000, the price for the 600,000 shares of the company's capital stock, and not including, in fine, the Government's intention to take over this railway.
The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) moves an amendment to the effect that the administration should not take that step without the assent of Parliament.
It is Parliament's duty to so step in; a large number of business men have declared that this transaction might seriously affect Canada's credit abroad. It is the most gigantic undertaking that any Government of this country has ever contemplated.
But the Government refuse to accept this amendment; they want to settle the whole matter at their own will1; they don't want Parliament's scrutinizing eye upon this game of chess.
However, they cannot get away from the fact that this whole affair will be earmarked in the Dominion's financial records under the name of "The Canadian Northern . deal", that is to say a legerdemain trick, a juggling with the public funds.
Why do the Government'refuse to assume the ownership conferred under the Act of 1914? The Prime Minister replied, yesterday, that it was to allow the proprietors to submit whatever claims they thought proper under the circumstances. At first sight, the proposition seems reasonable, but less so when we recall that the advances, made in 1914, were in full settlement of any possible claim on the part of those gentlemen, the day when, in order to secure itself, the country should take over that road.
On this point, Mr. Speaker, let me quote the sections of the Bill, such as I find them contained in a speech of the hon. member from Bouville, of August 15, pages 4739 and 4740 of Hansard (unrevised edition). Mr. lemieux said:
What does section 21 of the statute say? It reads as follows.
The following shall be events of default within the meaning of this Act, viz.:
(a) If the Canadian Northern shall make default in payment of the principal or interest of the guaranteed securities or any part thereof, or default in observing or performing any of the provisions of the new Trust Deed and the security constituted by the new Trust Deed shall thereby become enforceable.
And a little further:
Therefore I say, according to section 21 of the Act passed in 1914, the company is in default, and if the company is in default foreclosure follows, by section 24. The marginal note of that section reads as follows:
Equity of redemption foreclosed on default and vested in His Majesty.
And section 24 itself reads:
If authorized by the Parliament of Canada, the Governor in Council may, on such terms and conditions (if any) as Parliament may prescribe, at any time while any event of default shall exist and be continuing, by order declare the equity of redemption of the Canadian Northern and of all other persons whomsoever in the mortgaged premises to be foreclosed, and thereupon the equity of redemption of the Canadian Northern (and of such other persons) in the mortgaged premises and every part thereof shall be and become absolutely barred and foreclosed, and the same shall

thereupon be vested in His Majesty in right of the Dominion of Canada, any statutory enactment or any rule of law or equity to the contrary notwithstanding.
In view of such statements, these would be reservations, in the name of equity are empty statements, a red herring thrown across the track.
The Prime Minister, always to justify himself for not applying his enactment of 1914, says: It were better to leave the management and the operating of the road to the parties now in charge, in order not to create too much friction.
However, the results attained should * have induced him to eliminate that very staff who have put that road into bankruptcy. They blame the war for it; but, there are other railways in Canada, and tne war has not forced them into liquidation.
No, Mr. Speaker, the truth of it is that this enterprise, ever since it was started, seems to have been used more especially to enrich a few gentlemen at the expense of the public Treasury both of the Provinces and of the Dominion, and the present Act moreover shows that those men are impenitent and, so long as golden pieces shine within theirreach, (they will never be satisfied until they tinkle in their pockets.
. Therefore, I say, Mr. Speaker, this Act should be condemned by this House, as it will certainly be condemned by the people when the latter are consulted.
The amendment moved by Mr. Pugsley was declared lost on the following division:

Messieurs:
Achim,	Lanctot,
Barrette,	Lapointe
Bourassa,	(Kamoura*
Brouillard,	Lapointe
Bureau,	(Montreal,
Cardin,	Lemieux,
Carveli,	McCraney,
Copp,	McKenzie,
Delisle,	McMillan,
Demers,	Martin,
Ethier,	Michaud,
Fortier,	Murphy,
Gauthier	Oliver,
(St. Hyacinthe), Pacaud,	
German,	Papineau,
Graham,	Pardee,
Knowles,	Seguin,
Kyte,	Sinclair,
Lachance,	Truax,
Lafortune,	Verville.-37.
 NAYS. Messieurs:
Ames (Sir	Herbert), Merner,
Armstrong	(Lambton), Middlebro,
Armstrong	(York, O.), Morphy,
Arthurs,	Nichplson,
	
Ball,	Paul,
Barnard,	Rainville,
Bellemare,	Reid,
Bennett (Simcoe),	Robidoux,
Best,	Roche,
Boulay,	Schaffner,
Bowman,	Scott,
Boyce,	Sevigny,
Boys, [DOT]	Sexsmith,
Brabazon,	Shepherd,
Champagne,	Smith,
Clark (Bruce),	Steele,
Clements,	Stevens,
Cochrane,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Currie,	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Donaldson,	Sutherland,
Edwards,	Taylor,
Girard,	Thompson (Yhikon),
Glass',	Thornton,
Hanna,	Wallace,
Lewis,	Weichel,
McLean	White (Sir Thomas).
(Queens, P.E.I.), Meighen,	-53.
PAIRS.	
Messieurs:	
Bradbury,	Cruise,
Chabot,	Boland,
Borden, Sir Robert,	Laurier, Sir Wilfrid,
Burnham,	Proulx,
Burrell,	Douglas,
Carrick,	Power,
Cockshutt,	Charlton,
Cromwell,	Tobin,
Crothers,	McCoig,
Davidson,	Carroll,
Doherty,	Marcil, Hon. Chas.,
Elliot,	Ross,
Forget,	Bickerdike,
Foster, Sir George,	Turgeon,
Fripp,	Devlin,
Green,	Buchanan,
Hart,	Thomson
Hazen,	(Qu'Appelle),
Jameson,	Pugsley,
Kemp,	Loggie,
McCurdy,	Robb,
Marshall,	Maclean, A. K.,
Lalor,	Neely,
Morris,	Marcile (Bagot),
Morrison,	Boivin,
Munson,	Molloy,
Nickle,	Boyer,
Northrup,	Kay,
Rogers,	MacNutt,
Thoburn,	Mondou,
Tremair^,	McCrea,
White (Renfrew),	Chisholm,
Wilson (Wentworth),	White (Victoria),
Wright,	Wilson (Laval),
Webster.	Hughes, J. J., Gauvreau, C. A.


George William Kyte: I was paired with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel). I did not observe that he was in the Chamber. I desire my vote to be recorded in favour of the amendment.


Mr. WEIOHEL:: I was paired with the
hon. member until ten thirty o'clock last evening.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a precedent.
The other day I was allowed to vote.


George William Kyte: I desire to ask the clerk if my vote has been counted in favour of the amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Since I recorded my vote I have been notified by one of the whips that the member for York, New Brunswick (Mr. McLeod) considered himself paired with me. I had never heard of it, but in view of the possible misunderstanding, I should like to withdraw my vote if, under the rules, I may be allowed to do so.


Mr. EDWARDS:: When I voted I understood that the member for Quebec, with whom I am paired, was in the Chamber.
I understand he is not, and I would ask to have my vote withdrawn.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the rules a vote once recorded cannot be withdrawn, but we have a happy coincidence to-night, as an error has been committed on each side of the House, so it comes out even.


William Pugsley: I cannot vote because
I was paired with the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted I would, of course, have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PROULX:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). If I had voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBB:: I was paired with the Minister of Militia (Sir Edward Kemp). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment,


Mr. WRIGHT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. J. J. Hughes). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. LALOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Marcile). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to on the same division reversed, and Bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 2.20 a.m. (Friday.)
Friday, August 31, 1917.