I have already gone over the ground that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) asserted flatly that he was not a promoter or charter holder, and I have also referred at some length to the statement that the land was pledged in both cases with the bonds. I have in the House the actual mortgage deed with regard to the Calgary and Edmonton road, but I will save time by reading from it only the clause which refers to the matter in question.
The new charter. The list will be found in chapter 84 of the statutes of 1890. Now, in regard to his claim that the land had to be pledged as security for
the bonds it is interesting to look up the mortgage deed and this is a reference to one of the clauses :
It is stated in such mortgage deed and in the bond certificates, that the bonds are secured by conveyance, by way of mortgage, to the trustees of the company's railway, with its revenues, &e., including an annual subsidy of $80,000. ' it being, however, expressly understood that the subsidy or land grant from the government, excepting as it forms an actual part of the company's line, shall be excepted from the operation of the said mortgage and shall form no part of the security for the payment of the said bonds or the interest thereon.'
That is a provision contained in the clause of the mortgage deed in reference to the Calgary and Edmonton Railway. In the statute respecting the Qu'Appelle Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway there is a subclause numbered (e) of section 1 :
In subclause (e) of section 1 of an agreement between the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, confirmed by chapter 82, 53 Victoria, it is recited that the former company ' shall not issue any bonds secured, directly or indirectly, on its land subsidies or any portion of such land subsidies, except so much of those lands, if any, as shall be actually taken for the line of railway and stations .'
' By subclause (c) of section 3 of the aforesaid agreement, it is recited that ' it is understood and declared that the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company may transfer one-half of the land subsidy from the Dominion government, from time to time, as it shall be earned, to any person or persons, as it may deem proper.'
This is apparently a provision which the hon. member for West Toronto and his associates took good advantage of. Then, his statement was that to guarantee six years' interest on the bonds the difference of 53,000,490 between the proceeds of the bonds and the cost of the road had to be left in the banker's hands. That statement will bear a little investigation. Surely this very able financier did not contract to pay interest on the money that he left in the hands of the bankers. Surely the three million dollars which he said he left in the hands [DOT]of the bankers attended to its own interest and no payment of interest there would be required. The road cost $6,283,162. Six per cent interest and that was the rate for six years would make $2,261,,934. But, we have to keep in mind the -fact that the bondholders were given a cash pledge from the government amounting to $80,000 per year on each road, or $160,000 per year on the two roads. In six years that would amount to $960,000, leaving a difference required to be provided to meet the total interest charges during these six years of $1,301,934, apart altogether from the portion of the land grant, which, as it appears by the prospectus of the Prince Albert Company, was sold and the proceeds handed over as a part of the amount to be
used in payment of the six years' interest. Perhaps the hon. member for South Lanark will be good enough, as the hon. leader of the opposition has declined to do it, to bring this matter to the attention of his hon. friend from West Toronto and ask him to repeat, if he dares repeat, the statement he made last year that he was obliged to pledge the whole of the land together with the bonds to raise the money for the building of these roads, that he was obliged to leave $3,000,490 with the bankers to meet the interest, which, even without any proceeds from the sale of land, required as I have shown, only a matter of $1,301,934. I will send over to the hon. member for South Lanark now the statutes of 1890. containing chapter 84, which includes his friend's name. That hon. gentleman who so far is not able or does not dare to repeat the assertions he made last year will perhaps be good enough to come to his place in this House and explain what became of this balance of $1,698,447. The House and the people of this country are interested in knowing and particularly the people who ought to be served and who are not served by the railways which were the result of this transaction are interested in knowing. Let us remember that the greater portion of the lands remain still to be accounted for entirely apart from the amount of $1,698,447. I will say to my hon. friends opposite that the lands were not pledged with the bonds and that the whole of the lands were not sold at the time the bonds were sold, and I will give to the House before I am through the actual disposition from the Department of the Interior of the lands, the actual people who obtained the patents of the lands which were granted in aid of the construction of these roads. I will tell the hon. member for South Lanark who may be good enough to bring it to the attention of his hon. friend from West Toronto, that, owing to the horn-swoggling with about one and a half million dollars and the hornswoggling also with the land grants voted by this parliament to these companies, brought about by selling at a very low price to subsidiary land companies, which the hon. member for West Toronto organized, with which he has been connected ever since, being a director of one of them. I believe, lands which he told us he was obliged to pledge to the bondholders, the people of the west have been subjected to the disabilities of which we complain today. If the matter of $500,000 that the Calgary and Edmonton Land Company were able to get out of the 130,000 acres of land which they sold last year had been devoted to the betterment of these roads the people of the Saskatchewan district would not have been obliged to send the telegrams which my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and myself have been called upon to read on more than one occasion, because, otherwise, these roads would not
have been in the deplorable shape in which they are found to-day. I have here a statement from the Department of the Interior in regard to the patenting of these lands. It is as follows :
Re Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan R. R. and S. Co.'s Grant.
Area earned (less area retained re
transport subsidy) 1,126,230
Total area patented to railway company or its nominees, made up as follows :-
Area patented to Land Corporation of Canada 127,651.63
Area patented to Osier, Hammond & Nanton 128,875.95
Area patented to nominees... 29,473.16
Area assigned to Saskatchewan Valley Land Company
Re Calgary and Edmonton Railway Co.'s Land Subsidy.
Total area patented to date
1,139,699.59Area patented to C. & E.Land Co
Area patented to assignees
of Land Co 12,510.17
Area patented to James
Area patented to assignees
of James Ross 505.10
Area patented to Osier,
Hammond & Nanton.. .. 25,140.79 Area patented to C. & E.
Ry. Co 215,856.74
Area patented to nominees of railway company.. .. 51,576.19
At the end of thirteen years the Prince Albert Railway Company were still in a position to deal with a new company, the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company, composed of American land dealers, and they assigned to them last year 840,229 acres, making a total of 1,126,230 acres, which was the total area earned by the Prince Albert Company. The hon. gentleman from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) took vigorous exception to a phrase quoted by the right hon. Prime Minister respecting, if I recollect aright, 'monied and ownied men,' the Prime Minister explaining that the latter term meant landed proprietors or landlords. The hon. gentleman from West Toronto took the exception that there were no landed proprietors in this country, but it appears to me that a gentleman who was permitted to exploit-if that is the proper term-who was permitted to manipulate, or at all events in some manner to horn-swoggle with three and a half million acres of the good land of the Northwest Territories, should not take such an objection, for if there is a landed proprietor any where in the world, it seems to me that the hon. gen-Mr. SCOTT.
tleman might be put within that class. My hon. friends of the opposition have been professing for some time to have a very keen interest in the transportation question in the Northwest Territories. They take a very minute interest in the Grand Trunk Pacific question. Let me say to them that there are tens of thousands of people who occupy a very large section of the Northwest Territories, and whose main interest in the Grand Trunk Pacific proposition has resulted from these indefensible transactions which I have been describing this afternoon. If any of my hon. friends opposite are good enough to get up and make any reference to this matter with which I have been detaining the House for the last hour and a quarter-
I have no doubt they will take me to task, as they did last year, for presuming, as they call it, to waste the time of the House in dealing with such a subject. In my opinion, a subject which has to do with about three and a half millions acres of land of the Northwest Territories, a subject that has to do with the resources of this country to the extent of more than $9,000,000, a subject which has to do with 550 miles of railway, a subject that has to do with a vital interest-an interest so vital that there are many hundreds of people to-day north of the Qu'Appelle valley and south of the south branch of the Saskatchewan river actually face to face with starvation ; in my opinion, I need not apologize for bringing such a question before the parliament of Canada. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Northwest Territories and myself are going to continue to ventilate this subject until a proper and effective remedy is found by the parliament of this country for the conditions which are the result of these transactions. Hon. gentlemen opposite are to-day very severe critics of our railway transactions, but the kind of transactions which I have pointed out are those for which they are themselves responsible. They have been asking the Prime Minister day after day, since the commencement of the session: Why, if the people of Canada are going to contribute so much for the Grand Trunk Pacific and the company itself so little, why does not the country own the whole concern? We may very well ask in regard to these two railroads I have referred to, why, if the people of Canada contributed the whole thing- not only the whole thing, but twice as much in resources as was needed to construct the roads ; why, if the country contributed an amount equal to $22,000 per mile, while the roads themselves, by the records of the Railways and Canals Department, only amounted to a matter of $11,000 per mile ; why, if the country in this case contributed, not only the whole thing, but twice the whole thing, we may ask, did it come that the govern-
ment didn't retain possessioin of the road for the people of Canada rather than hand it over to a corporation ?
I know that the people are complaining with good reason about this case of which I am speaking. In my opinion, it is a matter of very little moment who is. the owner of a railway if the people are ensured fair rates and a reasonable service on that railway. Notwithstanding that private corporations may own these roads, if the people had fair rates upon them and were able to get a reasonable service, in fact any service at all, I would not have to complain in this House to-day. I read at the opening of my remarks a telegram in which the people of that country complain that they are faced with starvation.
Mr. -SCOTT. It is from Mr. K. B. Birke-land, on behalf of the citizens of the town of Hanley. It is but the duplicate of another telegram which I read in the House ten days ago. The people along that whole line of railway are obliged to complain. As I pointed out when the hon. gentleman was not in the House, they are new settlers in these districts, this is their first seeding season, and they are obliged to Import their grain.
Mr. B'LAIN. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that this condition of things has been going on for some time in that district ?
There has not before been such a serious state of affairs as we have to complain about at present, but the interruptions in railway traffic in that country have been continuing for many years past. They have been a matter of common occurrence. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) has had, on half a dozen occasions, been obliged to complain here of the interruptions in the railway mail service on account of the inefficiency of this railway company, and these interruptions sometimes lasted a week, sometimes two weeks, and sometimes perhaps for a month. It must be patent to everybody that if the. resources of this country, voted to these railway corporations, had been used in behalf of the roads, we
would not now have to complain of these conditions. It is because the resources which were voted to the railroads never went to the benefit of the roads that we have to complain. The hon. gentleman who now represents West Toronto sold bonds on the money market of the old country sufficient, not only sufficient to build the road, but sufficient to give him an amount of cash to leave in the hands of bankers for six years' interest, and the land grants have been used for the benefit of other people ; used for purposes which never allowed them to reach the railway at all. As I have already stated, there was half a million dollars which the Calgary and Edmonton Company was able to get out of 130,000 acres of land last year, and which, if it had gone into betterments on the road, the conditions we have to complain of to-day would not exist. I repeat, in conclusion, that I very much regret that the hon. gentleman from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) is not in his seat. I know that I may be reproached because I discussed this matter again in his absence, but I am bound to say that the people of that country cannot subordinate their interests entirely to the convenience of the hon. gentleman from West Toronto (Mr. Osier). I explained that this matter was brought up ten days ago when I pointedly asked the leader of the opposition to draw . the attention of his absent friend to the subject, and I expected that the very first day that gentleman (Mr. Osier) came back to the House he would attempt to give some explanation. I took good care to be in the House on the calling of the Orders every day since, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) has not seen fit to give any word of explanation.