April 6, 1904


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


LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him in what case that was so decided ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   S59 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Edmund Boyd Osler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OSLER.

I will leave that to my hon. friend in front of me to answer.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   S59 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

Just give me the case in which that decision was made.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   S59 COMMONS
Permalink
CON
CON
CON

Edmund Boyd Osler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OSLER.

80S

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

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   S59 COMMONS
Permalink
?

Mr. F. B.@

WADE moved the adjournment of the debate.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   S59 COMMONS
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned. On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.45 p.m. conveying said mails by stage ? , « 7. Were tenders invited for this servic [DOT] .-.,


?

Hon. S@

Thursday, April 7' 1904.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   S59 COMMONS
Permalink

April 6, 1904