August 12, 1903

QUESTIONS.

RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT GOVERNMENT AID.

CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE asked :

How many miles of railway have been constructed in Manitoba, North-west Territories and British Columbia, without Provincial or Dominion government aid in money, land grant or guarantee of bonds ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT GOVERNMENT AID.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. CHARLTON.

Liberal

2. By what companies built, and what is the number of miles belonging to each road ?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.

S. Fielding).

(I.) 150-65 miles.

(2.) In Manitoba, none.

North-west Territories-British Yukon

Railway 57-97

In British Columbia-Bedlington and

Nelson 15-20

In British Columbia-British Yukon. .. 32-35

In British Columbia-Eenora Mount

Sickar 11-50

In British Columbia-New Westminster Southern 24-10

In British Columbia-Red Mountain.. 9-53

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT GOVERNMENT AID.
Permalink

DR. MOREAU.

CON

Mr. MORIN asked :

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. By whom was Hypolite Moreau, junior, of St. John d'Iberville, recommended as collector of the Chambly canal at St. John d'Iberville, and what is his salary ?

2 Has Hypolite Moreau, junior, given security to the government, and of what nature ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   DR. MOREAU.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).

The appointment was made on the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals. The toll having been abolished no security was taken.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   DR. MOREAU.
Permalink

LOUIS M. TROTTER.

CON

Mr. MORIN asked :

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Is there a person named Louis M. Trottier in the employment of the government at St. John d'Iberville?

2. If so, what is his employment, and by whom was he recommended ?

3. Is this employment new, or has it always existed ?

4. If it is new, for what reason was it created?

5. What is the salary of the said Trottier ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   LOUIS M. TROTTER.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier).

1. Yes.

2. Temporary excise officer. He was recommended by Mr. L. P. Demers, member for St. John d'Iberville.

3. It is new.

4. Increase of excise work and relieving officer.

5. He is paid at the rate of $400 per annum.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   LOUIS M. TROTTER.
Permalink

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.


The House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier : That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on a certain proposed resolution declaring : That it is expedient, in connection with the Bill now before this House, respecting the construction of a National Trans-continental Railway, to ratify the agreement set forth in the schedule to the said Bill, entered into on the 28th of July, 1903, between the government and certain persons on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, a company to be incorporated by parliament at the present session thereof, and to authorize the government to do whatever is. necessary to give full effect to the said Bill and agreement.


LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).

Mr. Speaker. At the close of my remarks last evening I had very nearly finished my review of the speech of the hon. the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair). I have only a word to add to what I have already said in that connection. I have thought over the position of that hon. gentleman ; thought'it over carefully, and I am obliged to arrive at the conclusion that there was no sufficient reason for the course that he has taken. When I coiTtrast his declarations in his speech made in Victoria last October, in which he asserted that we wanted another transcontinental road, that we wanted it right away, that we wanted to penetrate and open up new districts of country in the North-west and fit them for settlement- when I contrast that with his statement of yesterday : that we do not want a transcontinental road now, that we should delay in proceeding with the construction of that road, that the government were proceeding with indecent and reckless haste in the matter ; the two positions are irreconcilable, entirely irreconcilable. He puts me in mind of a story I read a few years ago as to the great riot in Chicago. A United States regiment of regulars who had been engaged in a winter campaign under General Miles against the Sioux Indians, were on their way to quarters in the east where they were to be granted a respite from their labours. They were ragged and toil-worn but they were veterans evidently, and as they were drawn up in line a person on the side walk said to the soldier nearest to him : you would not shoot us fellows would you ? He replied : I would not unless the captain told me to. Now, the difficulty with the ex-Minister of Railways is that he, did not shoot when the captain told him to. It is necessary to have discipline in an army, it is necessary to have discipline1 in a party. Individual men may have very strong individual opinions-1 belong to that category myself

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

But it is unreasonable for an individual to suppose that a party must accept his opinions and act upon them, and it is in the highest degree injudicious for that individual to kick over the traces because he cannot govern the party, for, in doing that, he destroys what little influence he might otherwise possess, and that is what my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, I fear has done.

Now, as I have said, there is no radical difference between the policy that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) advocates,

namely a government road ; there is no radical difference between that policy and the policy adopted by the government, of a road partly of government construction, partly aided by the government, leased by the government to a private corporation, a road destined to serve the same purpose under the arrangement that is made that a road would have served if it had been strictly a government road-I say there is no radical difference between these two propositions ; no difference so radical between them as to warrant the hon. gentleman to resign his position as Minister of Railways, and to go against the government as he did most unmistakably and most bitterly yesterday. His position yesterday, lacking as itj did that dignity which ought to pertain to the position of a gentleman who resigns on high patriotic and moral grounds, and the bitterness of his attack convinced me that there is something beneath and beyond the ostensible reason assigned for his leaving the cabinet.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I repeat what I said last night, that the hon. gentleman in the course of his remarks gives us a clue to his feelings in regard to this matter, a clue to his action in this matter, when he tells us that he was not consulted, that no official of the Intercolonial Railway was consulted, that the government forsooth, that the Premier of this country and his advisers proceeded to organize and arrange a policy about which the hon. gentleman was not consulted and which he did not approve of. I imagine Mr. Speaker, that when that hon. gentleman resigned, he had arrived at the conclusion that he would make the captain shoot at his command instead of shooting at the captain's command.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

And the outcome was that the captain did not shoot, and that the rebellious member retired from the ranks, and he is out of the ranks. I am sorry for the whole incident; I am sorry that the exminister (Hon. Mr. Blair) 'should have thought so highly of his own individual opinion ; should have decided that it was necessary for the government to accept his opinion and act upon it, and that if the government failed to do so he would leave the government in the lurch. Well, he has left the government in the lurch, if being deprived of the hon. gentleman's sanction could place them in that position. Now. Sir, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) devoted a large portion of his speech to the Intercolonial Railway. As I said last night. I shall leave the detailed discussion of that matter to gentlemen better acquainted with the condition of affairs in the maritime provinces than I am myself.. Still, it is patent to me. and must be patent to any person who has a fair knowledge of the situa-

tion, that the hou. gentleman in his criticism upon the policy of the government with regard to the Intercolonial did not take the pains to put us in possession of all the facts. He laments the ruin of the Intercolonial. He laments that we did not adhere to the policy of attempting to create a business for our maritime ports by using a second-class road with an unnecessary mileage of from 100 to 140 miles, with heavy grades, and one that we know cannot fulfil the conditions that we must expect of it if the scheme of the government is to be made a success. He did not tell us that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk are separate and distinct corporations. He did not tell us that the government had a contract with the Grand Trunk for 99 years to turn over to the Intercolonial at Montreal all freight the road brings to Montreal designed for points east of Quebec. The Intercolonial cannot be deprived of the business, one of the largest items of business it possesses. He made no calculation as to the grea,t accession to this road of business at Moncton for Halifax and St. John. If the straightening of its line, if the reducing of its grades, if the increase in its capacity, which are making it first-class and shorter, will lead to bringing from the west of a large amount of grain for ,shipment at maritime ports, the Intercolonial must share in the benefit. The Grand Trunk Pacific ends at Moncton. There are 183 miles of the Intercolonial road to share in the business that will come to Halifax ; there are 89 miles from Moncton to St. John to share in the business. The gross business of the Intercolonial will inevitably be increased by the construction of this short line, owing to the large increase of traffic between Quebec and the maritime provinces ; and there is besides the retention to the Intercolonial of the trade which I have mentioned that pertains to it and that cannot be taken away from it. _ 1 will not dwell further upon the position taken by the hon. gentleman ; I will not criticise further his statements.

As I said last night, I have a line of argument to present with relation to this scheme of the Grand Trunk Pacific which I propose to enter upon briefly at this stage of my remarks. As to the question whether we need another transcontinental railway, the question has been answered by the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair)) at Vancouver. I can quote him as an authority. According to him, we need the road and we need it quickly. It cannot be proceeded with too soon. He said on that occasion that men were standing in the audience who would live to see three or four transcontinental lines across the continent. I have no doubt he was right. At all events, the construction of this road is not premature. We must bear in mind the fact that we cannot get this road at once. We are taking the initiative steps now towards getting it. We have to proceed with sur-Mr. CHARLTON.

veys, we have to locate the line ; we have to proceed with the construction of a road 3,030 miles long in an air-line, and it cannot be done at once. It will take several years to do it. In the meantime, population is pouring into the North-west, new acreage is being brought into cultivation ; its prolific soil will furnish a large harvest every year, aud at the time this road will be completed, it will be a crying .necessity. We have undertaken its construction none too soon. I estimate that five years from to-day with a continuance of the conditions that exist now, the grain products of the Canadian Northwest will have increasced at least threefold. The present means of transportation will prove utterly inadequate and this road will be imperatively called for. The government, I repeat, are not "acting with undue haste, or proceeding with an ill-matured scheme. They are not entering upon an enterprise which they are not warranted in entering upon ; but on the contrary, they are entering upon a scheme which is called for and called for now.

I pointed out last night that our situation, so far as our great wheat producing region is concerned, and the situation of the United States when it was a young country, are entirely different. The United States had an outlet by the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. There were navigable rivers scattered along the Atlantic coast-the Hudson, the Savannah and other rivers. At an early date a canal was constructed from Albany to Lake Erie, tapping the waters of the Great Lakes. The country was able to get along largely without railways. In 1S50, when the country had 23,000,000 inhabitants, railroads had hardly become a factor in the transportation situation at all. But we are situated differently. We have no Mississippi to convey the products of our western fields to the sea ; we have no Erie canal ; we have no natural outlet, not even by access by navigable rivers to the Hudsoy bay; if we were to have a route, it would have to be provided by artificial means. The whole country, to as far north as the isothermal lines make it possible to produce cereals, must depend on railroads exclusively. For this reason our situation is different from that of the United States. We have to provide our North-west with the means of communication which are absolutely essential to its success and its prosperity. Consequently delay in providing these facili-I ties is inadvisable, and I dismiss the assertion as to the action of the government in proceeding with this railway being premature as totally without foundation, as betraying a lamentable ignorance of the conditions that exist and the probable wants of the near future.

The government proceeded carefully to the consideration of this question. The speech from the Throne contained an allusion to the necessity for a transcontinental line. The government were evidently considering the

propriety first of constituting a transportation commission to examine into this question and to report as to tlie proper course to pursue. But It became evident that there was not time to wait for the slow operation of an investigation by a commission. It became evident that the time for action was now, and that if we could secure such knowledge as would place us in possession of the facts that would warrant us in taking action, we should proceed. Well, what was done? The government proceeded to consider several propositions. They considered a proposition of building a government road, considered it carefully, as I am well aware, and rejected that proposition- the proposition which my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals pins his faith to, the proposition upon which he has gone out of office, because the government did not accept it. I say the government rejected that proposition for what I suppose I may fairly concede were good and sufficient reasons, although I was enamoured of it. The government realized that to make a success of a government road across the continent required the total severance of that scheme from politics. Can that be done in Canada ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
IND

August 12, 1903