August 17, 1903

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.


House resumed adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the House to go into committee on a certain proposed resolution respecting the construction of a National Transcontinental Railway.


CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Simcoe).

I have noticed that several hon. members much more competent to deal with this question than I am, and much more accustomed to speaking, have made apologies for the length of their remarks. Let me say, while possessed of all reasonable modesty, that I esteem it to be my duty to be guided rather by what I think is proper and necessary to be presented to the House than by the question .of the time which my remarks may occupy. The question that is presented for our consideration is one so broad, so far-reaching that, if we had months to consider it, aye, if we had months to debate it, there would yet remain aspects of the question which would be useful to be presented and valuable to be considered. But I will endeavour, having regard to the importance of the case, to confine my remarks and my criticism to as reasonable a space as I can. I believe in the future of Canada. I have as great confidence in the future of Canada, perhaps, as any hon.

gentleman in this House. I belong to a party that has always had faith in the prosperity and achievements of Canada. As firmly as I believe in the rapid advancement of any part of It, I believe and look for the rapid advancement of the great west. I believe that, as representing a constituency, and as representing also the interests of Canada as a whole, it is my duty and the duty of every hon. member of this House, irrespective of politics, to see to it that the west has reasonable facilities for transporting to market its enormous product. And I will not be behind any hon. gentleman in conceding reasonable facilities to the west, or any other part of Canada, consistently with our duty in administering honestly and fairly the resources of the Dominion and in controlling the federal exchequer.

The Speaker, who closed the debate, was the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver).

I have greatly admired the manner in which the hon. gentleman presents his arguments, although I have not often been able to see the cogency of his argument. X admire very much the 'forcible, earnest and sometimes, if X may say so without offence, the almost dictatorial manner in which he presents, as the ultimate conclusion of the matter, the view he happens to take of it. However, I do not propose, on this occasion, to deal with the manuscript which the hon. gentleman presented the other night. It contains five introductory sentences, and twenty ' becauses ' ; or four introductory sentences with one ' because,' and one other sentence containing twenty ' becauses,' as you prefer the punctuation. If his reasons are good, his statement is unanswerable. But the strength of his ' because ' depends upon the cogency of his proposition. If one of them is good and broad enough to cover the whole proposition, the proposition is sustained. It is like presenting a number of reasons to the Court of Appeal-if you have one strong one, you may abandon the rest. I do not consider that the time of the House would be well occupied in discussing these ' becauses.' And the reason is 'because' all the hon. gentleman merely gives is twenty texts. He advances not one proposition, not one argument, not one fact in support of these twenty texts. It would be as easy to formulate forty texts, and I believe you can subdivide these forty into forty others in dealing with a great proposition such as that before us. It reminds one of the case of puss and the fox. I do not remember the story very well ; the younger members of the House who have been more lately under instruction than I, will recollect it more clearly. But as I remember it, it was something like this : Puss, with her usual modesty said she had one method of getting clear of dogs. But the fox said he had ten in hand and ten times ten in a bag. Just then the baying of a hound was heard. Puss ran up a tree ; and from the top of the tree she had the

satisfaction-I presume it was a satisfaction, because we all condemn boasters-of seeing a dog's nose very close indeed to the fox's brush. Now, these reasons or texts of my hon. friend from Alberta, I am afraid, are somewhat the same as the fox's methods. I am afraid that, if put to the test, they would hardly answer. For instance, take the hon. gentleman's because ' of two miles of shortened distance. I am afraid that, upon investigation, that would hardly bear criticism.

Now, I come to the speech of the hon. member for (JaspG (Mr. Lemieux). If there is an hon. member of this House whom I enjoy listening to, an hon. gentleman who, I think, delivers his addresses in a graceful and pleasing manner, one who makes the most out of a bad case, if he happens to have a bad case-and sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, he very often has a bad case- it is the hon. member for Gaspe. But while, like the hon. member for Alberta, the presentation of his case is admirable, I fear that also like the hon. member for Alberta, his logic is not always conclusive. An hon. friend near me suggests that it is very limpy, and so it is. Let me refer to some of the hon. gentleman's statements in support of that proposition. The hon. gentleman says that under our parliamentary system, the opposition exists for the very purpose of opposing any measures which are not desired by the people. Now, I forgot to say that it will be my pleasing duty to concur in a great deal'of what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I give my full concurrence to this proposition of the hon. member for Gaspe. He says that the function of the apposition-and he stated that he did not blame us for discharging our function-is to oppose any measure which might not be desired by the people. That is exactly what this measure is. Canvass this country from one end to the other, go where you will and the preponderating voice is, and the overwhelming voice will be when the scheme is fully understood, absolute condemnation of this measure. The hon. member for GaspG says it is also the duty of the opposition to criticise any measure which may be considered as unduly pressed. It was evident that the right hon. leader of the House (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) realized the weakness of his case in this respect and sought to defend himself by urging the immediate necessity for relief and the demand of the public. My hon. friend from GaspG also realizes that this measure, which he himself describes as the most momentous that has been introduced into parliament since confederation, and which is introduced at the eleventh hour, at the very end of a long session, should not be brought before us now. It is unduly pressing the measure ; it is unduly exercising, not the right, but the power of the administration, when a measure of this kind is brought in at this stage and pressed through parliament.

Now, the hon. member for Gaspfi says that the policy of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is to run down the great lone land of the great North-west and the policy of his friends is to represent the country through which this railway shall run as a country of muskegs and rocks. Let me just interject, in passing, the question : What does the hon. gentleman mean by ' the great lone land ' through which this railway is to run. 1 thought that the proposition of the leader was to build a road to carry out the millions of bushels of grain awaiting transportation and to alleviate the congestion that exists. A great lone land, forsooth. And yet the hon. gentleman talks in this way as regards a great proportion of this enterprise. A great lone land for the present it certainly is, in northern Quebec and northern Ontario, along the borders of Lake Huron and Lake Superior; a great lone land it is as concerns the mountains west of Winnipeg, a great lone land it is from the mountains to the Pacific ocean, and it must necessarily be so for many years to come. But I refer to this because the hon. gentleman, and other hon. gentlemen upon the government side of the House, have been, to borrow his own language in reference to the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), indulging in imagination. They have been imagining that which they wish to exist, they have been trying to show that members on this side of the House have been belittling the west. AVhy, Sir, I challenge the hon. gentleman, I challenge any hon. gentleman supporting the government, to show one instance where one hon. member on this side of the House, either in this debate or in any previous debate in the House of Commons or out of it has decried or made little of the land which the Conservative party opened up and developed. But what are facts. Is it a fact that the member for East Grey did decry the great lone land ? It will be in the judgment of the House whether it was the bon. member for Ga spe or the hon. member for East Grey who did so. The hon. member for East Grey, in the course of his magnificent presentation of the case, made this statement:

I understand very well that our North-west is a great country. I do not underestimate its value and importance. I know that the great future of Canada is bound up in the west, and I believe it will be necessary in the future to provide for a development that has been unparalleled in the history of this country.

Is that decrying the west? Is that withholding from the west those legitimate means of transportation which it has been the policy of the Conservative party in the past to give, and which it will be the policy of the Conservative party in the future to give. If'the Conservative party should, ever renounce that policy, I would cease to remain a member of it. He says too that is the policy of ' his friends.' Well.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

if it is I think I have answered it pretty fully, if not effectually. Is it the policy of his friends in the great lone land he refers to ? Sir, is it the policy of the man in the west who more than any other man in the Dominion of Canada, the Hon. Mr. Roblin, a gentleman who sat upon the floor of the House the other day, and who has been instrumental in obtaining for the west a policy which is magnificent beyond description, a policy which has done much to solve the great transportation problems in the west.

The hon. member for Gaspe announced, with what he meant to be a flourish of trumpets, that he had a mandate from the people upon this question, and I believe that some hon. members supporting the go'Yern-ment are foolish enough to imagine that they do have a mandate upon this question. I would like to ask thoughtful and considerate members on either side of the House whether any one of them-of course we know the right hon. leader of the government said he had a mandate-I would like to ask whether if any hon. member of this House has really a mandate from the people in regard to the proposition that is before us at the present time. Why, Sir, it is known that this scheme was created, it was bora, and I think it was stillborn, within a few hours, or a few weeks of the time it was presented to this House. Not one hon. member, I venture to think, has ever presented the question to his constituents. Nay. I may say upon the authority of the right hon. leader of the House, that not one member on his side has presented this question to his constituency in any shape or form, for the right hon. gentleman announced that his own following did not know what the policy was. A mandate, forsooth. Then, the hon. gentleman refers to the challenge, as ho called it, made by the member for East Grey. He says that if the government accepted it they would win out. He says that from one end of the country to the other the people would rally to their support. Well, Sir, why not accept the challenge ? Call it a challenge, call it a request, call it a prayer, if you like, on behalf of the people of this country, in justice to the people of this country, in the name of fair-play to the people of this country; I ask the question, and at the same time I make the request, why not give the people a chance, why not give them a ehance to say whether this vast expenditure shall or shall not be incurred by the government. It is right, it is constitutional, it is fair-play ; the opposite course is not in harmony with the constitution, not in harmony with the equitable working out of the principles of responsible government. I invite the leader of the government to consider this proposition. He says he has no ear for those who say, To-morrow, and to-morrow and to-morrow he has no ear for those who say, ' Wait, wait, wait ' ; he has

no ear for those who say, ' Pause, consider, deliberate.' The hon. gentleman can give this oportunity to the people without losing one hour of time. He can, in the meantime, fortify his position if it is tenable at all; he can in the meantime send properly equipped exploring parties into the country and give us that adequate information which we are now denied. Hon. gentleman tell us of the vast resources in northern Quebec and northern Ontario. I do not deny them. They make rosy pictures, I do not dispute them; they give glowing accounts, X do not dispute them. I merely say I do not know, and I eeho the sentiment, the honest sentiment, of the majority of the members of this House, when I say so. Remember that you have not the whole intelligence of the country represented in this parliament, you have not all of the true sentiment of the great body of the electorate who sent us here to be their servants. And I again ask the right hon. leader of the government, would it not be wise, would it not be judicious, would it not redound to his credit in the future, if he accepted the request of the hon. member for Bast Grey and gave the country an opportunity to pronounce upon this great question?

But the hon. member for Gaspe is too zealous, and like all too zealous friends, he proves too much. The right hon. leader of the government gave us to understand that this was a new proposition; the bon. member for Gaspe gave us to understand that it is not a new proposition. He gives us to understand that it is identical with the trans-Canada Railway. He says that was endorsed years ago by the government of the country, as I understood him. Well, this is news to us. But I question both his facts and his conclusion. I do not think this scheme is identical with the Trans-Canada. There is no proposition there to go to Moncton, there is no proposition there for this system of half government ownership and half company ownership, there is no proposition there to form a partnership, and a very questionable partnership it is, between the Dominion of Canada, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Grand Trunk Pacific Rail-vray Company and Senator Cox-there is nothing of that kind. But on the other hand, there is this in the Trans-Canada, that they made promises, according to the hon. gentleman's own quotations, which were of vast importance to this country if implemented, and which are not to be found in the proposition now before the House. Their first proposition was-

To construct the entire road with steel rails and with steel bridges of Canadian manufacture, thus offering to the new gteel and iron works at Sydney, Midland, Sault Ste. Marie and Hamilton and immediate market for an immense quantity of steel.

Hon. gentleman on the other side will take nothing for granted, it appears, at the

present time. They say: Oh, but there is the same thing in the agreement between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company as with this other company.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) says no. Any schoolboy fifteen years of age will say no, and the country will say no, but, my word for it, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will say yes, because they have said it before. But the fact is that it differs in this particular :

To construct the entire road with steel rails

and steel bridges of Canadian manufacture-

in so far as we can, in so far as it is

possible. These contracts differ in this most important degree.

To give free transportation from Quebec to any point on its line for all immigrants and bona fide new settlers and their effects.

That is a pretty fair proposition, because that scheme was launched as a colonization road, and that was its main purpose, as this one is if you reduce it down to its essence, and the only thing it really is. When reduced to its proper proportions, it is a colonization scheme only. This is a sample of the kind of argument which, with all its grace and all its beauty, the hon. gentleman presented to the House, and this shows what it amounts to upon being analysed. But the hon. gentleman has not yet displayed his great weakness. Here is a better specimen of it. He is not far behind the right hon. leader of the government in that respect. The right hon. leader of the government said: We have mountains of

information, the people are entitled to what information we have, they are entitled to know just where we stand in this regard. I am not attempting to repeat the graceful sentences of the right hon. leader of the government, because the right hon. gentleman, I need not say, has a manner of turning his sentences which it is hard to equal. I am only giving the substance of his argument. He says : I will give you the proof, and then the right hon. gentleman proceeds to give the proof, and he gives us instances of a number of gentlemen who, from 1700 and something down to 1793, had made explorations in the west. The efforts of these devoted men, these men of selfsacrifice, of great endurance and of heroic purpose, are not to be discounted within their sphere, but the right hon. gentleman fails to give us that data and the only data from which we can form any intelligent conclusion, that is actual surveys made upon the ground,-actual measurements of the heights and the depths over which we have to pass, that reliable information which would guide intelligent business men in considering whether this proposition is a feasible one or not. I do not stand second

to the right hon. gentleman in admiration of the distinguished men whose names he has mentioned, but, when it comes to a railway matter, as the right hon. gentleman was speaking of a time before railways were known, aye, before Watts, if it was Watts, discovered the powers of steam, and (before Stevenson had invented thp steam engine, before railways were thought of in the Dominion of Canada, to bring proof of this kind before this House is to acknowledge the weakness and fallacy of the proposition. The hon. gentleman with whom I am particularly dealing now follows in the same strain. He tells of the vast resources. of northern Quebec and northern Ontario. I am not disputing that what he says may be all correct. I am saying that we do not know. But he calls as witnesses, whom ?-surveyors, engineers, experts ? Not at all. He calls as witnesses gentlemen whose veracity, whose fairness, whose candor or integrity, will be questioned-clergymen-four clergymen, or five-it does not matter about one or two clergyman, more or less, upon a question of this kind. He calls as a witness a learned doctor, too, and upon this he rests his case. Is this not showing the weakness of his case ? I submit that no greater condemnation of a scheme could be afforded than is afforded by this hon. gentleman. But let me refer to one gentleman who might be considered an authority cited by mv hon. friend. He is Mr. Henry Sullivan, F.R.G.S.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

No ; I will refer to the ' Cap.' afterwards.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

'Cap.' will be in for a contract.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

This gentleman is only speaking of a small section of the country, and he says :

Prom what I have seen by following a number of the water courses and occasional runs inland

That is not a very extensive exploration- * occasional runs inland.' Then, [DOT] omitting that which is irrelevant, he says :

Unless extensive swamps exist on the level plains between the main waterways there is no reason why the greater part of the country would not be fit for settlement should climatic conditions prove favourable.

In other words, the qualifications are much more important than the main proposition. He says he made ' occasional1 runs inland.' How far or for what purpose we do not know, and he says : If there are no extensive swamps. There are likely to be extensive swamps, and then he says that if climatic conditions are favourable lie sees no good reason why there should not be settlement. Hon. gentlemen opposite were charmed with the untested generosity of

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William .Mulock) the other night. Suppose he says : I am going to give you, by reason of your services, $1,000 less $090. That is about the meaning of this report. Having gone over the hon. gentleman's quotations, I am inclined to think that he hardly did justice to the case. I want justice done in northern Quebec and northern Ontario, and when we read these reports the conclusion of the whole matter is that there is a good deal of pulp wood up there, that there is a chance that we can raise potatoes, that we can raise oats, and that in some regions we can raise barley, and stops there and leads to the conclusion that the conditions of northern Ontario and northern Quebec are not better than that, I protest. I believe they are better. I am not behind my hon. friend, I am ahead of him, in appreciation of the resources of this northern country ; but I say, granting all that has been said, there is no basis upon which we can form a conclusion ns to whether the possibilities of the future of that country are -such as to justify the government in rushing in with mad haste to construct an enormous work of this kind. So far I have been in harmony with my hon. friend. I see very much along the same lines as he does. I have not endeavoured to entice him from the beaten path, but my hon. friend makes a proposition here that I am inclined to agree with again. I agree with every word of it, almost ; I agree entirely with the conclusion of the matter. Let me, before referring to that, refer to a peculiar coincidence. I said that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver)- it is only just to that hon. gentleman that I should refer to his speech or to his manuscript-divided his becauses under twenty heads. My hon. friend with whom I am dealing divides these advantages thus : 1, 2, 3, 4; then again : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ; then again : a, b, c, d, e, f, g; total 18. This is not quite coincident with the speech of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), but it shows such a remarkable family likeness as to lead one to infer that perhaps these two speeches were prepared in the same camp.

Mi'. BROCK. In the same caucus.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

In the same caucus my hon. friend suggests. Another hon. gentleman suggests by the same man. But that is not the gist of the matter with wlich I have to deal. The hon. gentleman said- and I agree with him in his conclusions :

' But I go further and I say the baigain is advantageous.' Advantageous to whom ? To the country ? Oh, no, that is not what he said. ' But I -go further and I say the bargain is advantageous to the Grand Trunk Pacific.' Does anybody deny that ? The Grand Trunk Pacific people, call them what you will, are at all events shrewd business men, and you may bet your last dollar that

the bargain will be advantageous to the Grand Trunk Pacific and to all who are allied, with them. The hon. gentleman says : ' It must be so, because the company would not have engaged itself '-then comes the subdivision : ' (a) to build the western

section ; (b) to operate the whole line.' Let me transpose these for the purpose of directing the sense of the House to the great cogency of this argument : ' It must have been advantageous, otherwise the Grand Trunk would not have agreed-to operate the whole line.' What marvellous self-denial ! A company willing to operate the whole line and willing to build the western section. If they had been willing to build, and if the government had been astute enough, and had been enough alive to the interests of the people of this country, to require them to build, the eastern section, then the hon. gentleman would have had some foundation for talking. But they are to build the prairie section, in the country which is to be inhabited in the almost immedate future by teeming millions of people, the country which the hon. Minister of the Interior describes as unequalled, not in Canada, but in the world. Go in and possess that land. And they have agreed to operate the eastern section, which is to be built for them without the expenditure of a single dollar, and placed undettheir control. I have always thought that if you were making an absolute gift to a person, it was not good manners for him to ask the price or to pry into the question where you got it, or tol say, I will go and select the article myself. But here we have a government making an absolute gift, in reference to this eastern section, of nearly $70,000,000 to this company, and this company, according to the hon. member for GaspS (Mr. Lemieux), has engaged to operate it but only upon condition that they supervise the construction. What magnanimity ! And they have agreed ' (c) to pay 3 per cent per annum on the cost of the leased property '-from fifteen years from now, barring strikes, barring delays, barring quibbles at the end of the construction period ; for, when the work is completed there will bei a delay of another year and the company will say, it is not yet completed. About sixteen years from now the people of this country will be in a position to demand a balance sheet, and a final settlement of the account, and then God knows what an amount this country will have been committed to. They have also agreed, the hon. member says : ' (d) to submit to government control of rates.' My hon. friend is a lawyer and a most astute politician-an old member of this House. Does he not know! that all railways in this country, except the government railway, have to submit to have their rates controlled by the railway commission ? And yet he advances this statement as an argument. They also agree, he says : ' (e) to concede running rights ; (f)

to quote as low rates to Canadian ports as

to American ones.' I hope my hon. friend does not show any particular astuteness as a lawyer, because lawyers are all honourable men, and are particularly candid. But he shows the astuteness of a politician when he says that this company has agreed-not to carry produce at the same rates to Canadian as to American ports, but to quote rates as low to Canadian ports as to American ports. One day when I asked an old Irishman who was collecting an account, what he had to say about a fraudulent entry made by his opponent, he said ' Why, paper won't refuse ink.' And this paper of the railway company will not refuse the quotations which the master hand of the railway enterprise shall see fit to put there. But quoting rates and giving fair terms are two different things ; in other words, the control of discrimination and the stoppage of discrimination are entirely different propositions from the mere matter of quoting rates. But I come again to the part with which I agree, completing the connection. The hon. gentleman says : ' But

I go further, and I say, the bargain is advantageous to the Grand Trunk Pacific. It must be so, because-to have accepted those conditions is the evidence on the part of the company that it is convinced that there is a vast business to be done, and done at a profit.' I agree with that. I agree that it is a profitable bargain for the Grand Trunk. I agree that it is a bargain likely to result in the further enrichment of the millionaire who is engineering this thing through at the present time, and his camp followers who are supporting him in the measure. But what I call the attention of the House and the country to is that it is going to be too profitable to the promoters of the scheme and vastly too unprofitable and unfair to the people of the Dominion of Canada.

Now, what is the price ? I have a1 little book here. It is not a Bible, but it is a good book ; and from it I get the price. I am glad I have this book. Hon. gentlemen upon the government benches, the hon. members of the government, the right hon. leader himself, have failed to give the House that enlightenment or the country that information, which it reasonably demands on this important question : What is to be

the price ? But I am within the fact when I say that the hon. members of the government had in their possession this little book, which was presented to them as the initial move in this vast transcontinental, all-Canadian line ; and if they had consulted this book, or if they had seen fit to see what is in it, we would have known better at this stage what the price is to be. This is a book issued by the Grand Trunk Railway or the Grand Trunk Pacific, I do not know which. Where any hon. member can draw the line between these two companies I do not know. It is also issued! by ' the interests,' whatever they are,

*which are promoting the scheme. Whether that means Senator Cox or not I do not know. Hon. gentlemen are as able to form their conclusion as I am. Hon. members of this House will remember the assiduity with which members of the Railway Committee endeavoured to elicit from those who were promoting the scheme in the committee whether or not a subsidy was required. They were dumb as a porcupine, somebody says.

You would think that they had not formed a conclusion, that in their innocence they bad come to the railway commission without having thought of the matter, but back of that, when this matter was first discussed in the newspapers, in November last, this pamphlet was issued. It may have been ready before that, but I have no reason to suppose that it came to the notice of the government before that day. It is headed :

' government aid or subsidy required.' The lion. Minister of the Interior tells us that throughout the Dominion there is a demand for another railway, that there is an outcry in the west and in the centre and repeated right down to the sea for an additional railway. There is a demand, no doubt, a demand which is at the back of this whole matter, and to which it owes all its impulsion, and that is the demand of Cox & Company on the government for a subsidy, as set forth in this pamphlet. Before setting forth in the pamphlet this demands these gentlemen tell us of ' the Dominion's needs.' Evidently they thought the government did not know. These railway promoters have evidently not a very high opinion of the government, and they perhaps know and understand the members of the cabinet better than we do. Under the heading I have mentioned, this little pamphlet goes on to say :

The unanimous report of all explorers who have travelled over the territory north of the Georgian bay and Lake Superior, is to the effect that it will not in the immediate future furnish business sufficient to support a railway, and it would not, therefore, he a business proposition to build one there.

That is what we find in this pamphlet. But it is a business proposition I am after. If the proposition be not a good business one, I do not care whether it emanates from the Grand Trunk Railway or anybody else.

I shall not support it. If this be not a business proposition, it will not work out with the business men of the west. These men are sharp to look after their own interest, they are bound to progress, and if my hon. friend thinks he is going to gain favour with the people' of the west by an unbusinesslike proposition, if he thinks he is going to secure their support by appealing solely to sentiment. I am inclined to the opinion that he is reckoning without his host. This pamphlet gives a black picture of the country through which this projected railway is to pass-a picture altogether out of harmony with the glowing one given by Mr. LENNOX.

my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Eemieux). It proceeds to say :

It would not therefore be an unbusinesslike proposition to build one there unless it was used as a link to reach the more fertile lands of Manitoba and the North-west ; the mileage through this unproductive section is estimated as 1,000 miles.

The line from Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains for a distance about oue thousand miles, will pass through a fertile territory but without population, or business, which must be created, but which is undoubtedly capable eventually of sustaining a very large community. It is, therefore, considered, by the interests presenting this proposition, as not unreasonable for the government to assist in tho undertaking, which will guarantee the road being built in a first-class manner, and up to modern standards in all respects, as to roadbed, bridges, stations, equipment, &c.; and assure the development of as virgin and as more extensive section of country north of the Canadian Pacific Railway than was opened for settlement by the construction of that railway, and extending north of the boundary line.

Here is tlie point as to the subsidy :

It is. therefore, quite as much in need of, and entitled to aid from the government, on its merits, at this time, as the Canadian Pacific Railway was at the time it was constructed, about eighteen years ago.

Here we have a definite proposition from this company at a time when they did not intend to run that unprofitable branch from Levis to Moncton, and they demand from the government, as a condition of their constructing the line, a subsidy equal to that granted the Canadian Pacific Railway. This will be, I submit, a measure of the cost which we may expect to incur in the constructiou of this road, now that practically the whole burden of construction is assumed by the government. What did tlie Canadian Pacific Railway cost the country ? $65,000,000 in cash and $75,000,000

in land, is about the lowest estimate of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not disposed at present to controvert their figures. I might, if I wished, show that they are valuing the land at more than it was worth at the time the c mpany obtained it. But let that go. $140,000,000. we will say, is the amount paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and definitely and specifically this new company was formed on the proposition that they should receive equal aid. What do the facts go to show ? Do they go to show that this undertaking will cost the government as much as $140,000,000 ? I shall again appeal to the authority of the Grand Trunk Railway. taken from this pamphlet, in support of the proposition that the road will cost every dollar of $150,000,000 before it is completed. I attach no importance to the fact that, as to the western section, there is only a guaranty, whereas the eastern section is to be paid for directly by the country. The government assume the total liability, and it is! not to be supposed that it will ever be wiped out. The government build the eastern section, and three quarters

of the prairie and mountain section, and the total outlay, the total guarantee of the government, is the proper measure to be used in estimating the liability of the government expense to the country. But the First Minister and the Minister of the Interior answer us that the government have absolute security and absolute immunity from the possibility of having to pay. They point to the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway assets amount to ?150,000,000. Well, admit the $150,000,000, and I am still doubtful. I do not like the way this thing has been launched. I do not think it is npen and above board. With whom are we dealing ? We have been told time and again that we should not deal with a company which is not in existence. But we know that we are dealing with such a company. Worse than that, we are dealing with two companies, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and il l man on earth can discover the line of demarcation between them. It is like the case of : heads I win, tails you rose. This is a cover which is always used when men want to reap the profit, if profit be made, and slink out if loss be incurred. It is the sleeping partner business. It is not profitable to the country. It may be profitable to the company ; but should there be disaster. that disaster will be loaded on the country. What is the security of the Grand Trunx Railway ? If a man comes to me and wants to borrowi $1,300 and I ask him for security, and he says he will give Mr. Brown, and if Mr. Brown borrowed from me $1,500 in 1865 years ago, upon which he has paid neither a cent of capital or interest, would I not be justifiable in refusing to take him as security 7 Could you blame me 7 It is said that a man will pay his own debt when he will not pay a suretyship debt, it is a common tendency in such cases for the man to say : I am not called upon to pay;

let the creditor lose who took the profit. Then, what is the position in which the country stands in relation to this proposition ? We- are offered the security of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Can-ala. In 1865, they borrowed $15,000,000 from the people of this country. They have not paid it back. Worse' than that, like the debtor I have spoken of, they have never paid a single cent of interest, and, on the 30th June last the amount due stood at $58,308,179. I have no word to say against the Grand Trunk Railway^ Company. I recognize that, side by side with the great Canadian Pacific Railway, they have done much to develop the interests of this country, and, of course, they have done it to their own great advantage. But when it is put forward as a business proposition by any hou. member of this House, when it is put forward by the right hon. leader of the House and the chief members of his cabinet that we are secure in a contract of

this kind because we have the security of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, I ask what reason is there in believing, what common sense is there in believing, that the position and action of that company will be better in the future than it has been in' the past 7 What guarantee have we that we shall be better treated in the future and in this new deal than we have been in the past 7 And if the treatment accorded us should be the same, at what untold millions will the amount of their indebtedness to the people stand ? Now, I have a further word to quote from this little book of facts ; -bear in mind, ' facts '-not theory, but cold facts as set forth in this book issued by the Grand Trunk Railway Company itself, the company that has the certificate and endorsement and guarantee of the government. You cannot dispute the honesty of your own witness; you cannot cavil at the respectability of the man you put in the witness box. And I know the government will dispute the testimony of this veracious chronicle.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

Veracious and voracious too. We are told here that the railway from Quebec to the Pacific coast will be 3,025 miles long. This is made up by specifically giving the distances five hundred odd miles to North Bay, and the remainder for the western stretch. At that time, that is what the railway company contemplated building ; and it should never be forgotten by members of this House who wish to give an honest, fair and full consideration to this measure that we are dealing now not with a proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, not with what they wanted to do, but with that proposition and an unprofitable tail tacked to it, forced upon them reluctantly, forced because of political exigencies and political necessity, as a means, as the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Eminerson) would have us understand, of rallying under his banner and to his support, as against the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) in a solid phalanx, the voters of New Brunswick. We shall see how it will work out. I do not wish the hon. minister-no, he is not a minister yet-I do not wish the hon. member for Westmoreland any worse luck than he had in the delivery of that speech ; I do not wish him any worse luck than he will have when 'he meets the ex-Minister of Railways, if that hon. gentleman thinks it worth while to lift him up, shake him a little and drop him into one of the bottomless ravines over which this new railway from Levis to Moncton is to pass. We have no absolute guide as to what the length of the Levis to Moncton road will be. I will not take the extreme. The right hon. first minister said that it will shorten the distance from 80 to 120 miles, as compared with the Intercolonial. The hon. Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), I think, put it at sixty miles. The ex-Minister of Railways puts it at 77 miles. The distance by the Intercolonial is 488 miles. Let us take about the average of these estimates of saving and take off the odd 88 miles. This would leave us with 400 miles of railway to construct here, making a total construction of the whole railway from Moncton to the Pacific coast of 3,425 miles. Now, I have to refer to another key to unlock the hidden mystery which contains the secret of what this railway is to cost us. The government has not seen fit to tell us what it will cost, so we have to find out the facts for ourselves. The interests presenting this scheme-' scheme,' I think that is the very proper phrase used-further states :

According to the reports of the Department of Railways and Canals for the year 1901, the present railway, with a mileage of 1,301 miles, and a capital account of $63,640,028 cost the country, $48,900 per mile. On this basis, to extend the government railway through to the Pacific coast as has been proposed in some quarters, would cost the country $141,810,000, entailing an annual interest charge at three per cent rate paid by Canada of $14,254,000.

This is a business proposition. The voice of the people from all quarters had not been heard by the right lion. Prime Minister at that time. He had not felt the throb and beat of the heart of this country, of which lie speaks. They are dealing with cold, hard propositions of fact. Does the government want to throw doubt upon the word of this member of the Senate ? For the Senate is not wliat is was in years gone by. Time was when, according to gentlemen opposite, it was useless, worse than useless, a drag upon the interests of the country, a menace to our best interest that ought to be wiped out and a clean slate made. All this we were told by lion, gentlemen opposite at one time. But tlie Senate is all right now. We have the certificate of the right lion, leader of the government that the Senate is the very thing required. As rapidly as Conservative Senators die out, the Senate is filled from the ranks of the truly elect. So the government will hardly say that this is a shahi and a fraud, that it Is a hold-up, that it is intended to intimidate the government, and that it is for this reason it is stated that, at the rate the Intercolonial cost the country, it will cost over $141,000,000 for the government to extend its railway, not from ocean to ocean, but from Quebec to tbe Pacific. The government dare not say that, these gentlemen were doing otherwise than presenting a conservative and reasonable estimate of cost, as they were bound as honest men to do in endeavouring to make a deal or bargain with the government representing the people of Canada. Tlie government will not dispute the testimony of this witness. So, you have a mileage of 3,425 miles from Moncton to the Pacific coast. At the rate given by the promoters of this scheme, Mr. LENNOX.

$4S,900 a mile, you have a total cost of $107,482,500. The company undertake to pay one-quarter of the cost of the western section from Winnipeg to the Pacific. If we estimate this at 2,000 miles, we get a total cost for that section of $97,800,000, and one quarter of this would he $24,450,000. And, deducting this amount from the total cost, we find that the government's share, according to the estimates of the Grand Trunk Railway ' Facts,' to be $143,032,500. Leaving a total cost in excess of the 25 per cent which was paid by the company as estimated by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, of $143,032,500, coming pretty close to their figures when they demanded that they should stand upon the same basis as the great colonization road, the great iron link between the provinces from the east to the west, the Canadian Pacific Railway-$140,000,000 on the one hand, and $143,000,000 to be paid by the government on the other, and a paltry and miserable excess of 25 per cent upon the western branch to be paid by the Grand Trunk, and which is alone to be paid by them.

But this is exclusive of a lot of things that they would naturally like to leave out. To get the true amount we must consider them. I am not going to take into consideration the fees which we have to pay to the London agents in negotiating a loan, the expenses of the Finance Minister in his journeyings from Canada to London and from London to Canada-at an enormous expense to this country-in endeavouring to float this loan; but I am going to count the interest. Now, five years is the time estimated for construction. We will not want the whole of the money at once, but we will want some of it almost at once, and we will want all of it before the road is completed, so I average it at half the time. So that instead of charging five years' interest at 3 per cent, I charge two and a half years' interest at three per cent, and we have on that account-and those who are familiar with matters of this kind can correct the figures if they are wrong, but they are approximately correct-we have $10,025,000 for that interest account. That brings us down to the time when it is supposed that the road will be completed. But we have to take into account the prevalency of strikes and setbacks of that kind. We have to understand that in a scheme so gigantic as this, it is hardly conceivable that it will go along without a hitch ; so it is questionable whether it will be completed at the end of five years. But let it go at that. Say at the end of five years we will have expended on principal and interest account, $153,657,000. Does it end there ? The right hon. gentleman said, when he was adducing his proof the other day-which turned out to be of a fallacious character, of the ornamental character that I have referred to-he said,

' This is not all.' Let me say, this is not all. Yon have to add the interest at

three per cent lost on the seven lean years, which equals 21 per cent for the period. You have to compound it. Why ? Because you have to borrow every dollar of the money required, and when a man has to borrow he cannot pay back, and whether you call it additional interest on principal or interest upon interest, it all comes out of the same treasury and comes to the same result-it will not cost less than 25 per cent of the funded amount at the end of the construction period, namely, $153,657,500, not less than a quarter of that sum to carry it through those seven lean years-and I do not think there will be any fat years in this case-the years while the government is allowing this company nominally and actually to have this property for nothing. That brings us to a total of $38,414,375. Talk of $13,000,000 as being the outlay to this country ! I have shown-and the figures, though they may not be right in detail, in principle they are incontestable-I have shown that down to the end of the time when the company say that possibly they will begin to pay, down to that time we have expended in interest account alone not less than $48,000,000. Well,

' this is not all,' as the right hon. gentleman says. We have three years during which the company may or may not pay something on account. We do not know, no one knows, the government do not know ; the future alone can tell. But we have to stand idly by for fifteen years from to-day and keep pouring our money into what may prove to be a bottomless pit, and at the end of fifteen years when the account is made up, then for the first time the country will know and realize what an enormous expenditure this has been of the resources of the people.

Now, ' this is not all.' It may be said- and in dealing with a proposition of this kind I am determined not to say one word beyond what I actually believe, I will not stretch one argument beyond what I believe, and history, the great vindicator, will verify what I say-it may be argued, I say, and fairly argued, by the government, that we won't have to pay $48,000 a mile for the western section, because the guarantee is limited to $13,000 a mile for the section from Winnipeg to the mountains, and $30,000 a mile for the section west through the mountains. I have, however, preferred to make the account on the first view of the matter advisedly. for this reason, that there is no man who has even a limited knowledge of politics, or parliamentary government, whether parliament be led by the right hon. gentleman or whether it be led by the hon. leader of the opposition-who will soon be on the other side of the House-I say, let it be led by one party or the other, once this scheme is launched, you cannot invoke the condition as to $13,000 and $30,000 a mile as the limit of our liability. Why ? Because once they have enjoyed in construction and reached this limit, the company says, We cannot go on, we must have more money-why, then it must have more money, the absolute cost will have to be met by the people of this country. So I am right in presenting the proposition as it is presented by the friends of the government and by the company which is negotiating this project, and I am right in availing myself of their figures.

But in order that I may make no mistake, in order that I may be quite fair, I imt it the other way. It has been said by a good many hon. members that the distance from Winnipeg to Moncton is 1.800 miles. The figures I have, show 3,025 miles of the original mileage by the Grand Trunk from Quebec to Port Simpson, and it is 400 miles as I have mentioned, from Quebec to Moncton. I estimate the 1,800 miles from Moncton to Winnipeg at $48,900 a mile, what the Intercolonial cost. This is a fair account of the known difficulties, the peculiar difficulties of the new line, of the haste with which it is going to be constructed, and on the basis of the statement made by experts of the Grand Trunk Kailway. This makes $88,020,000. I said when I was beginning that the useless branch, that worse than useless branch, the branch that is going to militate against the interests of the Intercolonial, would cost not less than $70,000,000. Now, the 1,000 miles of the prairie section at $13,000 a mile, makes $13,000,000, and 625 miles of the mountain section' at $30,000 a mile, makes $18,750,000, so you have a total expenditure far beyond the line suggested by the Grand Trunk Company, of $119,770,000. Add the two and a half years' interest on construction account, compounded equal to say 881 per cent, equal to $10,080,450, and you bring up the sum that is to bear interest to a total of $129,850,450, at the end of the construction period. This will have to bear the interest for the next seven years, during which, the railway will be absolutely and admittedly unproductive to the people of Canada. I count the interest as amounting actually to twenty-one per cent which, capitalized, will be not less than twenty-three per cent, or $29,865,603. making the total capitalized amount at the end of the seven year period $159,715,083. Then comes the period of uncertainty. If the railway begins to pay, if it pays enough to pay all its officers, to pay all the contractors and all their * needs and all the incidentals it will then begin to pay the government, but there will be the question of the construction account and accounts of that kind and this company will not begin to pay if they have in their minds what I think they will .possibly have in their minds at the end of the ultimate period. There is $14,374,357 that it will take to carry the account at simple Interest, for the three years of uncertainty, making the total $174,089,440. Will hon. gentlemen say this is speculation,. It is, buti it

is speculation upon a sub-stratum of facts greater than any presented by any lion, gentleman from the government benches. It is speculation and computation based upon the best information available in the House of Commons to-day. It is computation based upon the figures of the gentlemen with whom the government is dealing. It is computation based upon the figures of a gentleman who can do no wrong to Canada-a senator of Canada. There cannot be any doubt about it. Now, Sir, let it be uncertain; its range is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200.000,000 down to $150,000,000. What may happen ? Where are we at then ? That is what no man can tell. The right hon. leader of the government says : We had to construct the unprofitable end of the road and we had to give them the land of promise so that we might be able to control the rates. I have not heard the criticism of that feature of the scheme answered yet. and I do not think I will hear it answered unless I hear it in this which perhaps is the key to the whole situation. Those who have the immediate control of the matter find themselves subject to forces that stand behind the throne in the matter of elections, they find that party exigencies, in view of the fact that elections are coming on, compel them to submit to those who are in a position to dictate their terms and to say to the government : That is what you have to do.

Give us a subsidy equal to the Canadian Pacific Railway, give us a contract-upon the basis we have presented to you, upon the basis of the Intercolonial Railway. Take the unknown section along the shores of Lake Superior, take this section which we refuse to construct, take the section from Levis to Moncton and we will take that which has been well described as the garden, agriculturally speaking and minerally speaking as respects a certain portion of it, perhaps, of the world. The government say that they have confidence that these gentlemen will redeem their pledges. I have no confidence. The right hon. gentleman says that they have taken the unproductive sections so that they can control the rates. Could he not have taken the western section just as well as the sections east of Winnipeg ? Sensible thinking men outside of this House-you never can convince some men in this House-sensible men outside of this House will fail to respond to 'the argument presented by the right hon. gentleman. You could, as my hon. friend from Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) says, control the rates if you took over the other end. Every member of parliament knows that, and every man in this country, before the elections come on will know it as well or the Conservative party will be recreant to their duty to the people of this country. The company are given the productive end; they have the reservoir, they have the fountain source of supply. It is not very fax-down hill from Winnipeg to the international Mr. LENNOX.

boundary. The American boundary is riddled with railways and southern Manitoba is in the same state. Where will the right hon. gentleman be and whei-e will his government be-thank God they will not be in power fifteen yeai-s hence-but whei-e would they be if the company should say at the end of fifteen years : Take your key, take your

controlling section, take your bloomin' ' spout,' take your eastern section, keep it, we have the source of supply, we are the masters of the situation, we have the cards and we will play them as we have played them before; take your bloomin' end, take that or take a compromise of twenty-live cents on the dollar or we will switch the products of the land we have developed in the west, we will ship the products of the garden of the west, not by your line, not by the unpaying line which you forced us to take against our will, but through the United States to American ports. Who comes down ? The coon comes down. You are powerless. I attribute no wrong to any government which may be in power at that time. It matters not whether it is the Conservative or the Libex-al party which are in power at that time, the situation is inevitable, and those who are then in control will have to succumb V That is what in all probability will happen, and that is what, I venture to say, is in the minds and hearts of lion, gentlemen opposite. The right hon. gentleman talks about the heart of the people; that is what is in the minds and in the hearts of these gentlemen at the present time.

Now, I will come to what I have said in reference to the question of better terms raised by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux). I aixi sorry he brought up that question but he did bring it tip. He spoke of the colonization question and also of the question of subsidies to local railways. I do not propose to say that under no circumstances will I consent to subsidies. I will wait until a definite scheme is proposed. I do not say that under no circumstances will I join in granting money for colonization purposes, but I do say that it appears to me that the question, for instance as respects northern Ontai-io or northern Quebec, of granting subsidies to railways for the purpose of colonizing these portions of the country is one that should not be favourably entertained by the members of the Dominion government without good cause clearly shown. It is local in its nature and whilst we have necessity for every dollar we have for the development of Canada as a whole it seems to me that we should not apply ourselves so vigorously as in the past to the subsidizing and promoting of colonization i-ailway schemes. Now, that is the more manifest when we consider that we have awaiting us in the west vast untenanted ti-acts of prairie which will return a rich i-eward to all who go in there to settle. But, I am not in any case

In sympathy with better terms. It was said by the hon. gentleman that Ontario had joined with the other provinces in the raid for better terms. I say all the more disgrace to Ontario's premier, if Ontario did. Ontario surely knows that the larger proportion of that which is given by way of better terms comes out of Ontario itself. Ontario does not want better terms for the purpose of colonizing or building railways if the resources of the province are fairly administered. I had no sympathy with the leader of the Ontario government when he announced the scheme that he did announce with such a flourish of trumpets on certain political .platforms in the campaign in North York. If they had fairly and honestly administered the resources of the province of Ontario, if they had not rejected the appeals of Sir William Meredith and others to conserve the timber interests of the province, if they had not squandered its resources on the Captain Sullivans and American citizens and men of that stamp, the province of Ontario would not to-day be taxed as it is. The government would not be taking her railways for provincial purposes to the detriment of the municipalities; taxing her insurance companies, and so to an additional extent depleting the pockets of the insured, taxing dead men in their estates; taxing the people by all sorts of devices for the purpose of raising money to administer the affairs of the province, which if-properly administered would not require any better terms or any of these illegitimate ways of raising a revenue.

The hon. Minister of the Interior corroborates the hon. member for Gaspfi in saying that the Grand Trunk Company and Senator Cox have a snap. I think it is only just to the hon. Minister of the Interior to give his exact words; but, like the hon. member for Gaspg, he is very zealous, and he proves too much. He proves that the country through which this railway is to pass is such a garden that it is the most iniquitous proposition to give the company a subsidy. It is not denied that we are giving them a subsidy. It is not denied that we are giving them 513,000,000. Why $13,000,000 is mentioned more than any ofher figure I do not know, because it has not come out in any computation that has yet been given.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNON.

An unlucky number as my hon. friend says. This railway according to the hon Minister of the Interior, is projected through a fertile country, the best part of Canada, with the best immigration swarming into it that has come into any country in most part, so that if there has ever been a case where a railway should be selfsupporting, where there should not be a subsidy, it is this case. The Americans have not granted aid of any kind in support of their magnificent railway development since 1871 ; and if they can forego that very expensive luxury and still have a magnificent system, it is time for Canada to pause and consider where it shall draw the line. Although I do not say that it should be drawn hard and fast in every case, I shall scrutinize every scheme very closely before 1 consent, as representing the county of Simcoe, to giving one dollar of the hard earned money of the people for the promotion of a railway of this kind. The hon. Minister of the Interior said :

The net profits of the Canadian Pacific Railway during the year ending the 30th of June, 1902, were $14,085,000, and last year its net profits were $15,000,000. The company have made of their railway enterprise a magnificent success, and if they were called upon to-morrow to incur the liability to pay back every cent of public subvention which they have received, and all the money which they have received for lands, notwithstanding that, the Canadian Pacific Railway company would be a good, sound, and solvent concern. Compared with that enterprise, the route from Quebec to Winnipeg by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is a better route The Canadian Pacific Railway, on the contrary, was built around the north shore of Lake Superior. It. was built through a rocky country which did -not then, and does not now, produce a single pound cf traffic.

Then, speaking of the Canadian Pacific Railway line across the prairies, he said :

It runs through the very worst portion of the territories. You could not select a line that could be very much worse unless you got right down close to the international boundary. But this new line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will run from Winnipeg to the Mountain pass through a territory, every mile of which is fertile and productive. It is hardly conceivable that such could be the case, yet the information in the possession of the government amply justify the statement I have made. There -is no such fertile stretch of country in the world.

Hon. gentlemen probably thought 1 was father exaggerating when I was talking of gardens ; hut I am taking the cold, calm, deliberate, judicial statement of tlie lion. Minister of the Interior. With regard to the route through the mountains, he said :

Now take the British Columbia part, for some reason best known to themselves, which nobody has ever been able satisfactorily to explain, the Canadian Pacific Railway chose the Kicking Horse pass, which is the worst pass in the whole lot, and it went through a line of territory which perhaps, of all the different belts that could he opened up through the Rocky mountains is the least productive.

So that we have all the cream left. The Canadian Pacific Railway took the skim milk, and the cream is to go to the Grand Trunk.

And it suffered in consequence. For years it got no traffic, except what its own construction gave, out of that portion which goes through the eastern part of British Columbia. The Grand Trunk Pacific, on the other hand, will go from the Rocky Mountain pass to the coast through as rich a timber and agricultural country as there is in Canada-a country rich in

timber, mineral and soil. Then we must not forget that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was projected, there was no movement of settlement from the outside.

Then he

What is the position now ? We had an immigration into the North-west of 30,000 people last year. If it keeps on at that rate for the next ten years, think what that will mean for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.

I need not pursue the matter further. What plausible reason can the most fertile imagination suggest why we should give to the Grand Trunk Pacific admittedly $13,000,000, probably $150,000.0(10, besides entering into an unknown liability, in the face of this testimony from a man so prominent in the counsels of the party, and one who should know the west and what it can produce, if any man in the government does ? Why should we give a subsidy at all in such a case ? We have the hon. Minister of the Interior showing the vast resources of the west, which are fully capable of sustaining any railway, and we have, on the other hand, but upon another branch of the case, the most capable and qualified member of the government as it existed until a few weeks ago, the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, denouncing the scheme as wholly indefensible upon the financial side as well as upon all others. And we have the most meagre information as to those parts of the railway about which it is important to have information-the passes in the Rocky mountains and that section which extends along the northern shores of Lake Superior and Lake Huron.

At one o'clock, House took recess.

House resumed at three o'clock.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

When you left the Chair at one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with some statements made by the Minister of the Interior. I was pointing particularly to the fact that he, in common with many supporters of the government, had painted the west and the future of this country in glowing colours. In that respect, I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman. It would be strange indeed if I did not. I would be forgetting the principles I have imbibed during a long period of years from the history of the Conservative party. I am not a whit behind the hon. gentleman in believing that there is a great future for this country. If the affairs of this country are administered as they ought to be, that great future is not far distant. And if I am impressed with the progress and the development which are at hand for the older provinces, I am equally sensible of the great future, the great prosperity, the great aggregation of wealth-1 wealth beyond the dreams of avarice '-which await the sturdy, Mr. LENNOX.

energetic and capable settler of the great west. With regard .to a statement made by the Minister of the Interior, which he seems to take great pleasure in repeating time and again, that the members on this side show uncompromising hostility to the scheme before the House, let me say this : I have no brief to speak for hon. members on this side. I have no mandate to express their sentiments. I am merely voicing my own opinions. But I have ears that can hear and a modicum of understanding, and I have failed to find any utterance on this side which bear the construction given by the hon. gentleman. But what I recognize is that, taking all the facts and circumstances into account, there cannot fail to be, to a large extent, uncompromising hostility to the scheme before us. But there is a most important difference between uncompromising hostility to this particular scheme-and L notice that hon. gentlemen supporting the government, with remarkable unanimity, speak of it as a scheme-and no better word could be used to describe it-and hostility to a well devised measure for the relief of our great west. While there may be uncompromising hostility to this particular scheme, I am not aware that there is any hostility in the ranks of the Conservative party, in or out of this House, to a carefully considered policy for the development of this great country as a whole. One and all, we recognize that the providing of every reasonable facility for bringing to the markets of the world the produce of the great west is of paramount importance and necessity. Tlie hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemienx) asked, in concert with the Minister of the Interior, whether Canada was able to bear the expense of this scheme. Let me say to the House that Canada can afford to pay for everything she needs, for everything that will tend to her development, for everything for which she will get a fair return. Therefore, speaking for myself-and I believe I am in harmony with the consensus of opinion on this side- I am prepared at any time to support any expenditure so long as it makes for the general development of this country. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, and my hon. friend the member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) are close partners in another regard, and partnership, Mr. Speaker, is the order of the day. We have in this scheme the most complicated system of partnership ever devised in connection with parliamentary government in this country. Each of these hon. gentlemen by a singular coincidence, unearthed all the newspapers of last November to show that several gentlemen of prominence, of commercial standing, whose opinions are weighty, have expressed the opinion that a properly devised and financed scheme for the speedy development of the west would be in harmony with their views. They quoted the hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Brock)-and there is no

gentleman in this House for whom I have a greater regard. What they quoted from that lion, gentleman had the merit of brevity. But I imagine there must be a context to it, and I would like to hear the whole of it; but even if that hon. gentleman had declared himself unreservedly in favour of the present scheme, if he had not merely limited himself to saying that he would endorse anything that made for the general development of the country, I would still, without any abatement of my regard for his sincerity refuse to go with him to that length. But even if hon gentlemen opposite could quote hon. gentlemen on this side as endorsing the scheme before us-and they have not so far succeeded in so doing-that would not be a convincing proof of its merit. One swallow does not make a summer ; and taking the word in another sense, one swallow, even if it be $13,000, as announced by the right hon. leader of the government, will not satisfy the insatiable thirst of Senator Cox and his camp followers.

I now come to a question upon which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior stands alone, so far as I have been able to observe. He tells us a story about the Mexican cattle.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

Yes, the one-eyed steer. He tells us that the west required last year 50,000 stockers, and that 25,000 were obtained in Ontario and the other 25,000 had to be sought for in Mexico. Why ? Because of the lack of adequate railway facilities. If I am not mistaken, he said they could not be got in the province of Quebec because we had not the requisite railway facilities. We could obtain 25,000 in Ontario, but not the other 25,000 in Quebec. Of course, we must give the hon. gentleman credit for veracity. We must credit him with a desire to tell the truth, and we want to give him credit for an ordinary common sense. But it is difficult to account for his making the statement I have just drawn attention to, except on the hypothesis that he had been led astray by an exuberant imagination. Have we not the same facilities for transport from the province of Quebec that we have from the province of Ontario ? The assertion is a mistake. It is found upon investigation that the hon. minister is not correctly informed-for I certainly assume that it is only owning to incorrect information- and even a little study of the situation would have set him right. Here is the statement:

There is another line of trade to which Jus' one word of reference may be made. It is the cattle trade. I want to call the attention of this House to a fact or two with which I think they are not acquainted, because they are not likely to have ever been brought to their attention. I want to call attention to the fact that one of the great industries of the Northwest Territories is grazing cattle, as contrasted with raising cattle. Last year we imported 277

into the North-west Territories no less than

50.000 head of what are called stockers, that is, young cattle, bought by the ranchers for the purpose of being finished and perfected for the English market. Where did they get them ? They got 25,000 from the good province of Ontario, and our friend Mr. Crawford, the Conservative member for one of the Torontos in the provincial legislature, says they have not at present facilities for sending their cattle to the North-west, and he wants the Grand Trunk Pacific built so that they will have more facilities. * * Where did they get the rest. They got them from Mexico. * * Here we have

25.000 stockers in one year coming from far away Mexico, because we have not the shipping facilities to take them from Eastern Canada.

I am not personally acquainted with Mr. Crawford. I have known him as a public man ; I have had the pleasure of reading his speeches. But if speeches are an indication of men's minds-and if they are, God help some of these hon. gentlemen on the other side-if a man's speeches are a measure of the calibre of his brain, I take Mr. Crawford to be a sensible, intelligent, practical man. That is the reputation he has. I know that in a county where I was stumping-some hon. gentlemen will say that what I am about to say is no great certificate of Mr. Crawford's ability-it was recognized, where I and some others were going to speak, that if we could get Mr. Crawford, we should have an exceptionally strong man.

Topic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

August 17, 1903