Mr. PUGSLEY:

It is the Canadian

Northern Montreal Land Company, Limited. In the West it is the Canadian Northern Prairie Land Company, in other places it is the Canadian Northern Terminal Company, in some places it is the Canadian Northern Hotel Company, or it is the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company, in others it is the Canadian Northern Western Railway Company; but in all of the enterprises which belong to Mackenzie and Mann you will find that the name Canadian Northern is used. I refer the

(Mr. Pugsley. 1

Solicitor General to the people of Montreal if he requires any further evidence in favour of the contention that it is the townsite of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. There is the fact that Mackenzie and Mann interests acquired the land, and" the further fact that it is the Canadian Northern Railway enterprise that makes it valuable; the fact that the Canadian Northern engineers laid out the townsite, and the fact that it is owned by the Canadian Northern Railway Montreal Land Company, and that Davidson and MacRae, who, as I have said, are the agents for all Canadian Northern land interests, both town and country, are the general agents for this townsite, and its office is in the building in Montreal which is owned by the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Let me say to my hon. friend that I differ entirely from him and from the Prime Minister, who has stated that Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann are entitled to their lands, and that they are not bound to hand them over to the Canadian Northern Railway Company or to the Government. I think my hon. friend said that they are as much entitled to their lands as the member for St. John is entitled to land in which he may be interested in the Northwest. The case is altogether different frofn that of a private individual. Mackenzie and Mann are the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Who own

that company? Is it not the men who own the stock? It is not the men who own the securities, it is not the men who hold mortgage bonds upon the road, because the latter have no voting powers. The men who ow'n the company, who are the company, are the men who own the stock; and up to last year, when the Government took over 87,000,000 stock of this company in consideration of a grant of $16,000,000. Mackenzie and Mann owned all the capital stock of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. Now, Sir, I maintain that it was the duty of these men, coming to the provinces, coming to the federal Government year after year and getting land grants, bonuses and bond guarantees for the construction of the road, to take the town-sites in the name of and for the benefit of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and as security for the Dominion and the provinces who are aiding so liberally this undertaking. They did not do that, they took the land for these townsites in their own name, in the name of Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited. But our

argument is that while they took the town-sites in their own name, they belonged to the Canadian Northern Railway undertaking, and it was a simple matter of duty for them, coming as they have come for the fourth time during the last four years to this Government and asking aid to the extent of $45,000,000, to put in all these townsites, not only the townsites in the prairie provinces and British Columbia, but this townsite at Montreal and all the other townsites in which they are interested and which have been given any value by reason of the building of the Canadian Northern railway, to turn them in and give the country security upon them. That they have not done. It appears that the Government have not asked them to do it. It appears that the Government have simply taken those securities which they chose to offer to the Government and have not asked for these valuable securities, which they have kept entirely outside of the company and entirely outside of the Government security.

My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) says that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is wrong in stating that the Government has put in the bulk of the money, or practically all the money, for this undertaking. He says that Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann and Company, Limited, have raised some $174,000,000 on securities which have not been guaranteed by the Governments of the Dominion or the provinces. But is it not true that when the Government to-day are asking the people of Canada to guarantee these $45,000,000 of bonds which stand below and after all the securities now existing against the Canadian Northern and its subsidiary companies, practically the Government is assuming responsibility for all the securities which are already issued against the undertaking. If the Government should unfortunately be called upon to make good its guarantees it will have to make good all the securities already standing against the enterprise or eke pay over this $45,000,000, lose the amount entirely, and let the road go to the people who are holding the securities which stand ahead of these guaranteed by the Government. That is the position that the country is in to-day.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

If that is the case, then we have also put up every dollar for the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I am not speaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am speaking

of this road which these gentlemen say is bankrupt, which they say cannot be saved from a receivership unless the country comes to the rescue; and my argument is that in guaranteeing these bonds, which in some cases stand fifth, the Government stand behind the entire indebtedness of this undertaking. The Government by this Act practically guarantee the $360,000,000 of securities which are standing out to-day against the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the various constituent and subsidiary companies which compose the system. Under these circumstances I put it to thi6 House as to whether or not the proposition of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as representative of the Liberal party in this House is not a reasonable and a fair proposition. I ask you again and I ask this House now when this company comes to us in this helpless condition and asks to be saved from bankruptcy, if that is not the time to make a bargain with the Canadian Northern railway as to the acquisition of this stock on behalf of the people of this country.

My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moves as an amendment that as a condition of granting this aid the Government shall be allowed to take control of this stock and control of the enterprise until it is completed, and that the country shall have leave to take over the entire stock of the Canadian Northern railway within a reasonable time at a price to be fixed by arbitration but not to exceed the sum of $30,000,000. Is not that a reasonable proposition? Is not that a proposition which is fair to the people of this country who are called upon to assume this enormous liability? Is it not fair to Mackenzie, Mann and Company who are asking this country, for the fourth time, to help to complete this enterprise? It is fair to Mackenzie, Mann and Company, and it is a fair and reasonable proposition on behalf of the people of this country.

But the Postmaster General says that we are moving along towards state ownership in connection with the Canadian Northern railway because, while we do not own a majority of the stock, while we take no power to acquire the whole of it, yet we own forty per cent. To my mind, instead of that being an argument in favour of the policy of the Government, it is one of the strongest arguments which could be urged against this proposition. My hon. friend is oblivious of the state of public opinion if he

thinks that the people approve of the Government asking them to go into partnership with Mackenzie, Mann and Company in the ownership and control of this undertaking. They are absolutely opposed to it. They are opposed to becoming the minority partner if they are to be in the partnership at all, but if there is to be any partnership they want to have the controlling voice. The result of what the hon. gentlemen have done is to put the people in a position of partnership with Mackenzie and Mann but without control; they have only the minority voice, being responsible . for all this railway company does, being responsible from the date this becomes law for what Mackenzie and Mann, as holding the majority interests in this undertaking, may do, being responsible in honour for the debts and engagements of this company and being bound to stand behind this company whatever may happen in order to save the credit of the people of Canada. Instead of doing something which they ought to be proud of they are irrevocably committing the honour, faith and credit of this country into the hands of Mackenzie, Mann and Company.

My hon. friend says that they have made every inquiry and that in their heart of every inquiry and that in their heart of connected with this enterprise is just as it ought to be. I presume that in the secret recesses of the caucus, when they got together in the family circle, they told their friends all that they had ascertained and they may have satisfied their friends as to the exact position of affairs; yet, we find that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), one of the most honourable and conscientious gentlemen on that side of the House, a very thoughtful man, and one who is not disposed to condemn anything which he be-lieyes to be right or to forgive what he believes to be wrong, unless extreme party necessity compels him to do so, feels constrained, with all this secret information and all this knowledge imparted to him, to tell the House and the country that he is satisfied that Mackenzie and Mann are a pair of buccaneers. Notwithstanding that, the hon. gentleman, impelled by party exigencies, asks this Parliament to declare by statute that His Majesty the King, as representing the people of this country, shall enter into a partnership with the gentlemen whom he so described. We do not believe in that. We believe that the position of creditor and debtor as between the coun-

try and Mackenzie and Mann should not be disturbed. We do not believe that the whole of the people of Canada, by taking forty per cent of the stock and going into a partnership in this enterprise, should have an interest in receiving dividends jointly with Mackenzie and Mann against the interests of the people who are to be served by this road and whose interests will be affected by keeping the rates and tolls down to as low a point as possible.

We believe, and it is so expressed by the resolution, that as a condition of granting this aid the Government shall take control of the stock of this undertaking, hold that control for a reasonable time and that during that time it shall have the right to take over the road at a value to he fixed by arbitration. We say that the valuation shall not exceed $30,000,000 which, we submit, any reasonable man will say is an amount beyond the value of the equity of redemption under the existing circumstances.

The Postmaster General says that those who come after him will be able to look back to this Parliament as a Parliament which has declared that one of the transcontinental railway systems of the country shall not be allowed to take one pound of freight consigned for export anywhere except through a Canadian port. I do not like to say with regard to my hon. friend that he is attempting to humbug this Parliament and the people of Canada. Other gentlemen may attempt that, perhaps other gentlemen on the other side of the House, but my hon. friend would never attempt to humbug the House and the people. Yet does my hon. friend pretend that he believes this Act to mean that the Canadian Northern Railway Company shall refuse to ship from the West any produce destined for the limited Kingdom or any European market unless it is shipped through a Canadian port? Does my hon. friend believe the statute will accomplish that? Does he believe it will take out of the hands of the shipper the right to route his shipment by any port that he pleases?

Mr. FOWLER:

Would the hon. gentleman say that the Parliament of Canada has not the right to impose upon a railway to which it is giving large assistance a condition such as that referred to by my hon. friend and, if it imposes such a condition, could it not enforce it by law?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I say it could be done, but I want to know if it is intended to dc

it in this case? Further, I want to know if it is not simply put forward with the view of humbugging the people of eastern Canada by the phraseology.

Mr. FOWLER:

Will my hon. friend say that as a representative of one of the winter ports of Canada he considers that bad legislation, is opposed to it and wants it stricken from tihe statute?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

If the hon. gentleman

will he kind enough to sit down I will give him an answer. I do not hesitate to say to my hon friend that it is bad legislation. I do not hesitate to say to my hon. friend that to the producers of Canada, and especially to the western producers who have to reach European markets and ports, it would be most injurious. .

Mr. FOWLER:

Why?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Why?-to say to the

western farmer that you cannot ship by a railway which serves your district, or by any port you please, or in the cheapest way in which you can, to the markets in the old country, but that you must use one port and one port only, would be most unjust. I say that would be most unjust to the western producers.

Mr. FOWLER:

Will my hon. friend permit me another question?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Yes.

Mr. FOWLER:

This is a matter of some importance.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

My hon. friend's questions are quite important.

Mr. FOWLER:

It is a most important

matter to me personally, because I tried to get that same clause inserted in the Transcontinental agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific and was unable to do so, but a different government is in power now and this clause is in, and not at my initiative either.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

Will the hon. gentleman now ask me the question?

Mr. FOWLER:

Yes, the question I have to ask is this: would my hon. friend move, or is it his intention to move, that this clause be omitted from the Bill, and, if not, why not?

Answer.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

My hon. friend is always so pleasant in his questions that it would be quite out of harmony with my views to refuse to answer him. I may say to my

hon. friend that if the leader of the Government will say that he will allow that motion to be submitted to the judgment of the House, and will give me an opportunity I shall be glad to move it, and I shall be specially glad if the right hon. the leader of the Government would accept the amendment.

Mr. FOWLER:

Then why do you not

move it?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I have moved a number of amendments, and not one has been received with favour by the other side of the House. I am not able to entertain the hope yet that even if the Angel Gabriel sat upon this side of the House and were to make a suggestion to the gentlemen on the other side, they would receive it with favour.

At one o'clock the House took Tecess.

The House resumed at three o'clock.