Mr. GRAHAM:

One and three-quarters per cent.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Does it not mean that the Bank o.f Montreal receives one-quarter of one per cent on the whole loan?

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

No.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

How much does it receive?

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

My recollection is that on a previous loan it was one-thirty-sixth.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Every member in the House understood it as I did. In any case, I do not care whether the Bank of Montreal got the money or not; I would prefer that the Bank of Montreal should receive it rather than have it go to the New York brokers. The point is, the minister paid altogether too much for his commissions in view of the fact that the president of the United States is able to float an enormous loan of two thousand millions without paying a cent in commissions.

We have to take our choice in regard to this matter. There are two ways of dealing with it. We on this side of the House propose that we should assume control of the Canadian- (Northern railway system under the legislation of 1914. The proposal of the Government practically .admits that there is value in this stock. They do not say how much that value is-, but by the proposal they are making to the House and the country they admit there is some value. The owners of the stock claim it is worth $60,000,009, and by passing this legislation we run the risk that the arbitrators may decide that it is worth $60,000,000. If they do, the people of this country will have to pay for it. The legislation of 1914 was carefully explained by ministers and by hon. gentlemen opposite at the time it was going through the House. We were told that if the Canadian Northern. Railway company, or Mackenzie and Mann, made default in the future, after having received this large advance of $45,000,000, we had machinery in this statute to take possession of the Toad without foreclosure and without any legal proceedings. Why not do it? We were asked in 1914 to advance this $45,000,000, and we were told that that was the last time we should be asked to advance money to that railway, that the Canadian Northern people were not to come back to us, and if they did we should be in a position to deal with them. It is now proposed to hand out a large additional sum to these people. The statute of 1914 is clear. No one pretends to dispute the fact that it contains provision for taking over the road. The Prime Minister said so; the Minister of Finance said so, and the Solicitor General, who drew the Act, so explained it. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House made speeches on that occasion which form part of the history of this affair ,and they all told us in the plainest language that if default was made this Act of 1914 would be resorted to, and that it would be effective. The Minister of Finance was satisfied. He used this language:

I take off my hat to the Solicitor General for the way in which he has performed the legal work in connection with this transaction. I was dealing with the question of remedy upon default- .

Well, that is the question we are dealing with.

-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.

That is to .say that, under the Act of 1914, we were in a bettter position than we shall be in now by taking over the stock of the company. Will he not admit the principle that it is his duty to do the best he can for the country as the Minister of Finance and as the trustee for the people? He made the positive statement that this Act of 1914 put us in a .better position than if we owned all the stock of the railway system. He now proposes to take the stock of the railway system and he refuses to resort to the remedy that he provided1 in 1914. There is no good reason for it. The Prime Minister put h.imself on record in the plainest language to the effect that we had under this Act of 1914 a perfect Temedy, and that if the circumstances aroise which have arisen it would be effective. This is what he said:

It is also provided by clause 24 that if au- ' thorized by the Parliament of Canada, the Governor In Council may in case of default declare that the interest of Mackenzie and Mann in the Canadian Northern railway is absolutely barred and foreclosed and that all the property and assets thereof subject to any outstanding obligations shall thereupon vest In the Crown in the right of the people of Canada.

There is no suggestion of arbitration there. He simply says in the plainest and most forcible way that if default is made this property will pass to the Crown for the right of the people of Canada without paying Mackenzie and Mann any additional money therefor. The Prime Minister further said:

The enterprise must proceed. If the expectation of those who believe the enterprise can be carried to a successful conclusion are disappointed, then a summary method has been provided by which the road can be taken over, the system reorganized and either be transferred to another corporation constituted for the purpose or pass into the ownership of the people.

There is no suggestion of arbitration there and there is no talk of confiscation. Hon. gentlemen have been telling us that it would be confiscation to take this road under the Act that is provided, the Act of 1914. I submit it is not confiscation. We are not taking anything from these people. In the first place they did not put a dollar into this stock. We know how this stock was constituted; we made it here. We did the whole thing ourselves. It is absurd to talk about confiscation; we know that there is not a dollar of money in it. We know that any right they may have had, has been forfeited by the default they have made.

The CHAIRMAN:

Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to bring his remarks to a conclusion?

Mr. SINCLAIR:

I am just through. I regret that I am not permitted to say all that I would like to say on this important question. I want to say, however, that I am decidedly opposed to paying any more money to Mackenzie and Mann. They have already become millionaires at the expense of this country and there is no reason why the country should be mulcted in a large sum of money to take over this stock when under the law of the land, under a law passed by this Parliament, we have the right to assume control and to take it over without the- payment of any money.

Mr. R. LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napierville) (translation):

Mr. Chairman, as the representative on one of 'the finest counties of the province of Quebec, as representative of an agricultural county, and .being myself a farmer, I believe I would not be doing my duty if I did not protest, as strongly as I possibly can, against this iniquitous legislation whereby the country shall be mortgaged for t'he. pretty amount of $650,000,000.

I put the question to you, Mr. Chairman, is it decent that a measure of this importance be referred to us, be imposed upon us by a Parliament which, for twelve months, has had no mandate from the people and after the Government have, on several occasions, through the right lion. Prifne Minister, pledged themselves, were the Parliament's existence extended, not to introduce into the House any contentious measure? Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann's railroad has received large subsidies both from the federal and from the provincial government, as well as from various Canadian municipalities. With such subsidies reaching so fabulous a total, we should lie led to believe that this railway would have been a success, but I think it is rather the contrary that has been the result. According to the Minister of Finance, the railway is in bankruptcy, and I - think I am right in believing that Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann are actually worth millions.

Since 1911, the Government, who seem to have a great deal of affection and pf gratitude for (Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann-and I do believe that they actually owe them a debt of gratitude for the 1911 election-have always come to us, at every session, and asked us to assist the Canadian Northern by way of bond .securities. Finally, in 1914, the Government made a contract with Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann. For my part, I would have thought that the solvent party-should have taken 60 millions of the 100 million obligations and that the insolvent party should have held the balance, i.e. 40 millions. But, nevertheless, the railway

company took good care to keep the majority of 'the bonds, in order to be able, later on, to have the Government pay them their 60 millions ; so that it is the insolvent party who manages the business, that is to say, Messrs. 'Mackenzie and Mann. As many other .members who have spoken before me, II am of the opinion that it is not necessary to buy 60 million worth of stock to become the owners of that railway. It seems to me that the purchase of 11 .millions of that stock would have been sufficient to become the masters of the situation.

For my .part if this railway is in bank-rupty, I would rather prefer 'letting it go into the hands of a reoeiver, then, at least, we would know 'the actual amount of the company's liabilities as well as the financial standing of its promoters; we would also find out how many millions those gentlemen have invested in private enterprises in Mexico, in South America and even here, in this country. Is it not a fact, Mr. Chairman, that Air. Mackenzie lives in a magnificent palace in Toronto, estimated at two or three million dollars, I believe? If such is the case, how is i't that a man obliged' to sell the Government an insolvent concern, can nevertheless find the means of living in luxury in a palace and that, meanwhile, the people are taxed to the utm'ost in order that these gentlemen may live at our expense?

Let us now 'pass to the financial side of the question. If we add to the National debt those new liabilities we are to. take over in consequence of this Act, we reach the incredible .sum o.f $2,500,000,000. Under such circumstances, how cam any one pretend that the people of Canada can run the war and the railways besides? For my part, I unhesitatingly declare that it is time, more than ever, 'to stop .both the war and what I >would call the railway scheme.

In this railway policy, I see the repetition of the old story: elections are at hand. Indeed, what do we find? 'Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann spend almost every night with the ministers or with the Prime Minister himself, in order to have the conscription .Bill passed. Sir William Mackenzie is here, in Ottawa, since the Premier's return from 'England1; they have worked together, to impose upon the people of this country this nefarious conscription Bill, thinking it would be most popular, that the whole country would welcome it and that it would allow the formation of a coalition government. They wanted the peo-of this country to swallow that pill. It is always those same people, those same individuals we see behind, the curtain; Mac-

Mr. ALPHONSE VERVILLE (Maison-neuve) (translation):

Mr. Chairman, as representative of such a large city

Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval) (translation):

Mr. Chairman, I will not ask you to keep your eye on me, for your official position does not permit you to watch anything , but the hand of the clock -maT-king the hours which will take u.s up to two- o'clock that fatal -hour of the day which shall follow this one.

I will not ask you to listen to -me, because you are impatient, officially, to hear the two strokes of that clock which, like -unto the mechanism' of a -safety vault, will open at two- o'clock sharp the doors of the Public Treasury to-morrow morning, and thus allow the -smiling Finance Minister to freely enter, the voice of the last keeper of the treasury having then been stifled.

In rising, Mr. -Chairman, I have not the least pretension, not even the pretension that -any -argument I might make would in -any way advance our cause. The only pretension I may have is based upon a most mathemath-ical and mechanical truth, that I will only advance the discussion by twenty -minutes and that is -all. (What proposition- is there now before us, Mr. Chairman? A -money proposal.

When, in 1913, the closure w-as imposed upon us, I believed, in my " candeur naive to use the poet'-s expression-that the Government then in power would only use such a measure under most extraordinary circumstances: when the country's

safety would be at stake, when any invasion from -any foe whatever, would put the country's security in dir-e peril. But not at all, Mr. Chairman, for the -second time closure is applied, and it is about -a -money matter. The first time this measure was applied, if my memory serves me right, it was a question of some 535,000,000 which the then government -wanted to take from the national chest to make a gift of it to the mother country, England, for -a well known, plainly stated object, there was no possible equivocation. The idea was to increase the empire's nav.a' force, to pay a certain -amount to -the imperial treasury, for the construction of three dreadnoughts, at an approximative cost of some ten or twelve millions each, if I ire-member well. We objected to- that proposition made by the Government, although the House was perfectly informed as to- the nature of this expenditure, of the -application of this money, of how it should be employed, -and for my part, I never tho-ught, -for one moment, that the

535.000. 000 -which we were to put into the hands of the British Minister of Finance would be wrongfully expended1; but we objected to the very principle of -the Act, we said-and rightfully so-that if we had

535.000. 000 to -spend, it were better to- spend them f-or a Canadian navy than -to -aid the imperial admiralty, and events -have justified us.

I will not further refer to that political episode, only -to -recall wha-t I was saying

Mr. Chairman, I repeat it, it is an. extraordinary measure we are now discussing; but. still more extraordinary, on .account of the considerable amount of expenditure involved and as to the change of policy which it is intended to inaugurate; for they have but one preoccupation in their mindiSi; to satisfy the appetite of tho.se who, having done a bad (business, will retire, not as *honest people, free from .all liabilities .and of all obligations-if the proposal was to send them back home in .such a condition, I would in no- way object-but with millions in their pockets and with the qualification which was applied to them, in the name of the Government and rightfully too, by the hon. member for Calgary.

Mr. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (translation) :

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Lanotot), when speaking this afternoon, stated that he represented the finest county of the province of Quebec. I take exception to this assertion, and I .say that the county of Montcalm, which 1 have the honour to represent, is just as fine as his, if not finer, fqr it is one of the finest dounties of the province of Quebec, and even, one of the finest in the Dominion.

When, in 1913, the question arose for passing this extraordinary Act, not to say worse about it, this gag Act, I have strongly objected to it. At a memorable sitting of the House, I spoke during four hours and a half against it, and it was considered a new record, at the time. [DOT] I was then told; have no fear, Mr. Member for Montcalm, that gag Act will pass, but we will never apply it, except in cases of extreme urgency, I wiae afraid of these gentlemen., I had not much confidence in their declarations, and I rwas not mistaken.

They played a fine trick on us, Mr. Chairman, when they imposed us this gag, for did it not exist to-day I can tell you that we would keep you here long to prevent you from passing this infamous Act, this wretched and .miserable Bill which you will adopt presently -through your servile majority, who will applaud with .both hands [DOT] your triumph, when the vote is taken. Ah! how proud they will be, how happy they will be to take over a property under such conditions.

'The hon. Solicitor General has said: Ah! it's only Montreal that is speaking. Well! let him come to Montreal, the Solicitor General. iHe will be welcome; he may come to the Monument National and make a big speech in order to explain the Canadian Northern Railway Bill; he may bring

along with him the .Prime Minister; you will see how well they will be' received, for the people down there are most anxious to see both of them. You may try to accompany them, Mr. Chairman, you will be so welcome the three of you, we will give you a splendid night of it, Mr. Chairman; as for us, we will not impose on you the gag. We will let all of you speak, the Prime Minister, the Finance .Minister and yourself, as long as you please; you will see how funny it will .be.

Can they speak about conscription?

Mr. LAFORTUNE:

Yes, they can speak about conscription, if they feel like it, we will give them. " carte blanche," a free ride.

When we read the papers, when we .hear what is said up hill and down hill and what is going on every where we go; when we listen to the public talk, it is really painful to hear what the people are saying about you, Mr. Chairman; about these gentlemen, I should say, for I do not want to be personal, that will come on later, when the fight has started. For to-day .lot us remain in the strict limit's of legality. When we hear everything that is being said about the present Administration, we can't help wondering if we are living in a civilized country.

Mr. BOULAY:

'Speak louder.

Mr. LAFORTUNE:

If I am not speaking loud enough, draw nearer. I speak loud enough, Mr. 'Chairman, to perhaps 'know on what side the gentleman will vote; I do not know, I do not want to blame him now, but I am anxious to see.

, When they were told in 1914; do not advance those 45 millions to Mackenzie and Mann, it's money thrown away, then, the hon. gentlemen would say; it's a fine transaction, it's-for the country's good, if the Mackenzie and Mann obligations are not paid, are not observed, are not executed, we shall take over the road and that will answer the Government's purpose, it will be to the people's benefit. In vain did we protest against these .gentlemen, we did not succeed, the $45,000,000 were advanced, guaranteed, and you can see to-day where we stand, In what a fix we are. .

II heard an hon. member sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, a man whom I believed "to be sincere and serious, when he stated that M'aekenzie and Mann had spent their whole life-time in bribing everybody, in defrauding ever and everywhere. I had thought that this gentleman would vote against the sale of the Canadian Northern,

but, after having declared that this was a disgraceful transaction, that these men had spent their life in bribing and defrauding, he has the daring, this hen. member, to rise up and vote in favour of the sale. Well, I believed him to be Isincere, ,1 thought he was a business man; I may assure you that he has seriously fallen in my estimation.

When your humble servant now speaking to you, Mr. Chairman, will have said that the owners of this railway have spent their life in corrupting everybody, that they are disgraced, fallen and degraded men, you will not see him rise up to vote for such a transaction; I would have the courage of my opinion, of my convictions and I would not be a party to such a scandal.

Mr. BOULAY (translation):

Does the hon. .member for Montcalm always speak the truth?

jMr. LAFORTUINE (translation): I might ask if my interlocutor has always spoken the truth.

Mr. BOULAY (translation):

Would the hon. member read Mgr. Bruchesi's letter?

Mr. LAFORTUiNE (translation): I would rather be silent than to gainsay my own bishop, a thing you cannot do; I would rather pass for being in the wrong than to begin a fight against the archbishop of Montreal, .and what I have said was relevant, I will let you know that, Sir. And, as to the learned member who has just made such a remark, I would like to know whether he can very well throw me the first stone, for I never did any shuffling, any way.

Mr. Chairman, Mackenzie and Mann are notorious millionaires, and in order to reward them for not having respected their engagements, they were given titles of honour, they were knighted. Isn't that fine! Reward those who don't keep their pledges toward the State and give them the highest titles. Well, the people do not like that. 'Generally, when men are crowned with such high honours, given titles so lofty as that of Sir, it is on account oi honourable conduct, because they have won their bars and received a well-deserved reward, but when I hear the member for Calgary call them thieves, scoundrels, bribers, and declare that these men have passed their lives in bribing everybody, I'd rather not be knighted; under such circumstances, it is an almost worthless and emp+y honour.

In my province, Mr. Chairman, where I have the honour of practising as Crown Attorney for the twelve past years or so,

if a man lies to obtain any tiling of even little value, we call that false pretences; such a party is arraigned before the court and, upon conviction, he is sentenced to jail. .Here, it is all the reverse. The more values one can get under false pretences, by doing all sorts of criminal .acts, the more honours one is sure to receive. What a fine country! What an encouragement for those people who try to .be honest!

I was just speaking of millionaires. But, Mr. Chairman, one must make a distinction in this matter. Some men are found who have become millionaires, thaniks to their energy, to their labour, their good conduct or their skill in honest transactions. We must admit that there are millionaires of this kind; let us respect those who have made their millions in honest transactions, but not those who accumulate their wealth through fraud and bribery, as stated by my hon. .friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. BOULAY (translation):

Will my hon. friend allow me to put him a question?

Mr. LAFORTUiNE. (translation): Certainly, most certainly so.