August 30, 1917


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin


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 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.

Topic:   JO, 1917

William Ashbury Buchanan


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

Topic:   JO, 1917


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.


Frank Oliver


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

Topic:   *COMMONS

Louis-Philippe Gauthier

Conservative (1867-1942)

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 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. -

Topic:   *COMMONS

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.

Topic:   *COMMONS

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.

Topic:   *COMMONS

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order. Order.

Topic:   *COMMONS

Joseph Hormisdas Rainville (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)


This is the second time I rapped.

Topic:   *COMMONS

William Manley German


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.

Topic:   *COMMONS

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)


Order. The hon. gentleman is surely exceeding the rules of debate. *

Topic:   *COMMONS

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.

Topic:   *COMMONS

Arthur Lachance


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,


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:


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.



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.

Topic:   *COMMONS

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.

Topic:   *COMMONS

William George Weichel

Conservative (1867-1942)


I was paired with the

hon. member until ten thirty o'clock last evening.

Topic:   *COMMONS

George William Kyte



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

Topic:   *COMMONS

August 30, 1917