'Blegat " *S t^le l°west existant rate paid by faref ,e? ^tending such conventions, and the Public [DOT] en formally engaged in promoting the traaie ,lnterests, and thus increasing railway
t'6ieS1l0l\I<5 not those gentlemen, giving their t0|llHtv i hrains to the advancement of the [DOT], he provided with free transportation ?
H- R. RMMERSON (Minister of thidp, Vs an<l Canals). I cannot very well to whether this question relates
generally or merely to the gov-th6f]ent railway. I may say further that t>f !mtPuty minister informs me that no trace the a , Sl1cl1 resolution as that referred to in Uientquestion can be found in the departed [DOT] The second question relates to spe-(Ja'jtes on railways generally throughout l)artm' That information is not in the defree The third question involves the
'Vaytr^nsportation on the government rail-btai °t all those who devote their time and
the advancement of the country.
Coi),,„0"*nS stock might not be sufficient to '6y all of these.
trunk pacific railway.
sm e resumed adjourned debate on the pro-?D«aW°tioil o£ Sir Wilfrid Laurier, ' That Mr. l° go in, 1,ow leave the Chair, for the House s°hition 0 c°mmittee to consider a certain re-JSfeej, e°ncerning the ratification of the 6 Gra between His Majesty the King and n Trunk Pacific Railway Company,
a sea a 8th of March, 1904 ' ; and the pro-'tt,'6iUlmInen'iment of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in j. ment thereto.
}tr. '^ILLIAM J. ROCHE (Marquette). ^°Usef ,ker, the Bill which passed this tohtiper?r the construction of another trans-Mth highway, which was heralded
®Pp08it C1 great, acclaim by hon. gi
e' as being the very acme of per-o J a Bill that could scarcely be im
?f vwuP°n, beneficial alike from the point
b 0f _____j._____j „___
h t°-(iri v°f B*e country and of the company, U0hspl o aeing subjected to criticism in this si,,™0nS its own friends. We have ipf 1Tloned to parliament, so we have B'hnk j?r?e(i by the president of the Grand aiIway- f°r the express purpose of 6lpg 8 that contract, th*e amendments all L,8 ft,Ul iculated to confer greater advanta-it>. hot greater benefits on that corporation, tp reats0llf °t them to further protect the of] °f Canada. When the opposition J ast session that it was the intention th liattieriferni.nent to force that Bill through ? lptrofl without consulting the country, hita^i ce<^ a series of resolutions which IMm ests- to turther safeguard Canadian of ch ^y.' , tn view of the vast expenditure Of ?ahadaS incurred by the Dominion
tv *ts ie ,a'. the opposition in the performance tip Conf,,l5?te duties, endeavoured to make ho e bn a<?^ as Perfect as possible and to possible loophole that might sfl,' det).i,aavantage of by tlie company to htloj. , n't of the country. These rehowever
with, I think, but two
exceptions were rejected by the government and its followers on <the ground that they were not in the contract, that the company would not accept them and that parliament had either to accept or reject the contract as a whole. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) in particular waxed indignant at the mere suggestion that this corporation might hot keep faith with the Canadian people. Could we imagine a body of men, said the Minister of the Interior, a body of reputable citizens standing so high in the financial world as these gentlemen who were seeking incorporation under this charter, to have so little regard for their standing and their integrity as to break faith with the parliament of Canada, and go back upon their solemn contract ? The idea in his opinion was preposterous and hut the phantom production of the imagination of the members of the opposition. But, Sir, notwithstanding this great faith on the part of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) scarcely had the ink dried on the contract, not a bit of work had been done in pursuance of it, before we saw these reputable gentlemen going back on their contract and putting up not the deposit in cash or government securities required by the contract, but a deposit of Grand Trunk Railway bonds and this only after the time limit had expired. Thus we find these gentlemen right at the outset breaking their solemn contract and breaking it, not for the reason assigned by the Prime Minister that there was a stringency in the money market, for Mr. Hays very definitely stated that they could have had plenty of money, but merely as a matter of convenience to the company. So we In the opposition find ourselves justified in the position we took last year when we wanted to tie these gentlemen down to black and white, taking nothing for granted, no matter how upright they might be. When we find how lightly they have treated their written contract entered into with all the solemnity spoken of by the hon. gentlemen opposite, we feel perfectly justified in the position we took. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in dealing with this matter, this session profited by the criticisms administered to his speech of last year, avoided those mock heroics and that hysterical condition that played such havoc with his mental equilibrium last year. The mountains of information which he was supposed to lay before the House last year to furnish reasons for the construction of this line were found on careful perusal to contain very little practical information. It is true that this has been supplemented by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) lliis session by a quotation from a report made by a Jesuit missionary 200 years ago, wherein he had said that on a certain day in June, roses were in bloom and that they had no'night in that country. That was surely most modern Information on the