August 26, 1903

QUESTIONS.

CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.


Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Ingram-asked : 1. How many Civil Service employees are there, and into how many classes are they divided ? 2. What is the annual salary in each class ? 3. How many employees are there having an annual salary of not less than $1,500 ? 4. What are the hours of work for these last-mentioned employees ? 5. Is there one or several permanent federal employees who work fifteen hours per day, viz.: from nine o'clock in the morning till midnight ? G. If so, what are their names ? 7. How many requests for increases of employees' salaries have the different Ministers received since July 1, 1902 ? 8. Who are the employees whose salaries have been increased since July 1, 1902 ?


?

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

I am afraid that I shall be unable to give the hon. gentleman the information which he desires in detail, as his question is a very comprehensive one. Perhaps it would be sufficient if I indicated in general terms where the information may be found, because that which is available is already in possession of the House. The number of the civil service, the officials in each department, their classification, their salaries and their names are all set forth in detail in the civil service list. The hours of duty are from half-past nine to four o'clock, but, of course, it is expected that, when necessary, officials will work later, and many of them do. I am not aware whether there are some who work the long hours mentioned by the hon, gentleman, fifteen hours ; it is quite possible ; but I should say that if that takes place it is exceptional and in emergencies. I thought the privilege of these long hours was only restricted to cabinet ministers.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
Permalink
L-C

Andrew B. Ingram

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. INGRAM.

Or to members of parliament.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.

Or to some members of parliament, that is, those who attend. In the outside service there are officials who have longer hours, but I do not attach much importance to the question, of official hours, because I think it is the duty of a civil servant to do the work that is required, irrespective of official hours. That is certainly done in my department, and I know that many civil service officials do work much longer than the ordinary official hours, and do it very cheerfully. With regard to increases of salaries since 1902, I think I am safe in saying that all the civil service officials have received what is called the statutory increase. I am not aware at the moment of any exception ; if there has been, it has been for some good reason. But speaking generally of the civil service, they receive the statutory increases. As to applications for an increase, I cannot recollect any special application, but a formal application was made on behalf of the civil service generally, by a deputation, for an increase of pay.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
Permalink

HAULAGE OP OFFICIAL CARS.


Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Ingram-asked : 1. what sum was paid each year, since June 30, 1889, up to June 30, 1903, for the haulage of government, official, and private cars, over railways in Canada and the United States ? 2. How many government, official, and private cars were owned by the government on the 30th day of June, 1896 and 1903, respectively ?


?

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

1. The government have made no payment for haulage of government, official or private cars over railways in Canada and the

United States since June 30th, 1889, up to June 30th, 1903.

2. The number of official cars on the Intercolonial Railway on June 30th, 1896, was four ; the number on June 30th, 1903, was six.

One of the additional cars was required for the use of the official occupying the office of general traffic manager, which office was created to meet the changed conditions on the Intercolonial Railway by reason of the largely increased volume of traffic.

The other car was ordered in connection with the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York, and was used on the royal train during Their Highnesses' trip throughout Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   HAULAGE OP OFFICIAL CARS.
Permalink

BAND OF THE COLDSTREAM GUARDS.

L-C

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :

Liberal-Conservative

1. Has the government been officially advised that the band of the famous Coldstream Guards is about to visit Canada, to play at the Toronto Exhibition ?

2. If so; has it been arranged that other metropolitan centres in Canada shall have the opportunity of hearing this world-renowned musical organization ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BAND OF THE COLDSTREAM GUARDS.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon Sir Wilfrid Laurler).

The government has not been officially advised that the band of the Coldstream Guards is to visit Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   BAND OF THE COLDSTREAM GUARDS.
Permalink

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.


The 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,, and the motion of Mr. Puttee in amendment thereto.


CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell).

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will consider [DOT] it presumption on my part to attempt at this stage of the debate to offer anything particularly new. The discussion has been a long one, and I am noti at all certain that it has been barren of what may turn out to be good results, or that it has been unprofitable to the country. One thing has been made clearly apparent during this debate, and that is that the government who have launched the scheme and those who are supporting it have no fixed ideas, absolutely no uniform notion, of the utility of the road, or of anything beyond the fact that the scheme has been placed before the House, and that they have been asked to support it. We find both the press supporting the Liberal party and Liberal members in this House, declaring, from the Prime Minister downward, that we are mostly to lose sight of every commercial consideration in connection with this enterprise, and that we are to follow what the Bill itself I

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

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

discloses. One main idea of it is to appeal to every sectional jealousy, to satisfy every sectional ambition, to appeal to each locality at the expense of the scheme! itself. Now, Sir, the Prime Minister tells us that we are not at all to consider this as a commercial line ; we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce telling us that it is idle to discuss this question in its financial aspect; and we have the Minister of Finance declaring that the short line feature of it is not of much importance, but that we must consider other interests, namely, such interests as we find in the maritime provinces. I may perhaps be permitted to say, speaking entirely for myself, that if we are to have a national scheme, If we are to have a road that may be called a national transportation road, then the country will conclude that the government ought to be strong enough to have fixed by themselves a route that would have made it purely national. The hon. gentleman dare not do that, because it will destroy every vestige of local reasons for supporting the Bill. The Prime Minister made, at least by inference, a very strong appeal on behalf of the city of Quebec and of that locality. The Minister of Justice could not refrain from strongly dwelling upon the fact that the city of Quebec and that portion of the province of Quebec had been neglected in the past, and it was time now that something should be done for them. Now, Sir. it seems to me that in undertaking a railway that is worthy to be dignified by the name of a national transcontinental railway, it should be built on some better grounds than an appear to local and sectional Interests.

Now what is this after all ? The right lion, gentleman-and I do not desire to speak in severe terms of the right hon. gentleman -knows himself that this scheme is surrounded with very grave party difficulties. The right hon. gentleman had behind him a strong section of the province of Quebec, mainly from the locality where his constituency is, from which a very large delegation came to this House ; and he was confronted with a very grave difficulty because on the one hand he had applications from those who were promoting a transcontinental line, and on the other from those who wanted to build it. These gentlemen have been in the field for some time. They no doubt had their applications before the government, they had no doubt had these applications heard, and they had no doubt had promises made, not only directly, but by inference, of grants of money and of land. The right hon. gentleman saw in the earlier part of the session that there was one way to deal with this business. He adopted the plan which was put in the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General, who, in the speech from the Throne, said that there was only one way to deal with it, and that was to submit this important matter to a commission of experts and let them

lay down a plan. I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the government why he abandoned that course? I know that the right hon. gentleman will not be disposed to answer that question. He would not care for this country to know the reasons why he abandoned that plan, but the country knows perfectly well what his surroundings were and that he was forced as a matter of fact by party exigencies to take a different course rather than to launch a scheme which is now merely one on paper. What did the right hon. gentleman do when he found himself in this difficulty? He could not give what the Trans-Canada people asked, because very naturally, they were asking for large subsidies. Mackenzie & Mann came at the same time seeking aid of some kind either by way of endorsing their paper, giving guarantees or otherwise. We found the Grand Trunk Railway people coming at the same time asking for assistance. The right hon. gentleman saw the impossibility of dealing with each and every one of these schemes upon its merits. He must refuse some of them. He could not afford to yield to all the demands that were made by these other corporations, each of which was no doubt very powerful in a party sense. What did the right hon. gentleman do ? He abandoned his original idea, one that the country applauded at the time, and would still applaud if carried out, he abandoned the only sane and sound idea which should guide any public man leading a great political party to which the interests of this country have been entrusted for the purpose of getting out of what was purely a party difficulty. The right hon, gentleman changed the plan in a few hours, as was told us by one of his own colleagues. I may say that the hon. gentleman who made the statement was not one who was compelled to guess, as many of us guess and guess pretty acurately at what was going on ; he knew what was going on, he was the colleague of the right hon. gentleman, he was perfectly well able to speak as to what was in the mind of the right hon. gentleman, as every other colleague of the right, hon. gentleman knows what is in his mind, and he told us how it came about that he abandoned the whole thing. What was done ? A pencil was drawn across the map of Canada. There were no surveys, there was not a particle of information, there was not a single attempt made to get any information from the moment that the right hon. gentleman was induced to declare, and to declare with good reason, that he must have a commission of experts to inquire into the conditions and necessities of the country, but a mere pencil mark was drawn across the map, and it was brought down here as a great transcontinental railway scheme. What is the right hon. gentleman's position ? It is a matter of notoriety, although it is not a strange thing nor

am I going to say that it is a matter that does not happen in all parties, because it is a daily occurrence under our system, that the right hon. gentleman found his friends rebelling against it from one end of Canada to the other. As to that we have the evidence of a number of gentlemen. W'e have the evidence, for instance, of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who declares that he himself was opposed to it, who declares that in the caucus there were party difficulties, and who declares that he afterwards gave up his own opinion, and so on. We have innumerable declarations in this House and notably one made last night that the rank and file of the Liberal party rebelled, and if it had been possible on the part of the Liberal followers of the government in this House to have dissuaded the right hon. gentleman from the course he has taken we would have had a different state of things. But, the right hon. gentleman had to get out of his party difficulties.

It has been said by the Prime Minister, and by nearly every other hon. gentleman in this House that this will be a colonization road, that it will serve this district and serve that district. I do not lay any the less stress upon the importance of a colonization road or its utility in this country, because it is the duty of the government to assist in every possible way the building of colonization railways, but I deny that you can sacrifice a single feature of the great transcontinental line for the purpose of colonization. We must meet the necessities of colonization in some other way. Would any hon. gentleman launch a transcontinental railway scheme involving an expenditure of from $110,000,000 or $120,000,000 with colonization features that would result in the impairment *f the main scheme ? Had he considered for one moment the impairment of a strong feature of that scheme for the purpose of promoting colonization ? Such a consideration absolutely undermines every particle of the transcontinental railway scheme. What must a transcontinental railway mean in Canada ? It must mean that Canada is setting out now for the first time to solve a great problem, and the solution of that great problem not only requires that we shall have the best road that Canada can produce, but that we must have a national competing scheme that will compete with the railways that Canada comes into competition with to-day. Can we afford to consider the locality we are giving a colonization road to ? Can we consider whether this or that small part of the country will be served- or not ? Can we consider whether this particular locality or that particular locality will gain by this railway or whether the railway should be designed for the purpose of serving the greater interests of Canada as a whole ? The right hon. gentleman has sacrificed the

96S7

9(188

strong feature of a transcontinental railway by giving consideration to interests of that kind.

Having said so much, I desire now to deal shortly-and I hope I shall be able to redeem the pledge to be brief which I gave- not with the contract which has already been dealt with in very great detail, but with the two schemes which are now proposed, one by way of Bill and the other as enunciated by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I think the country will have no better means of judging than by putting these two schemes side by side, the one as declared in the Bill, the other as declared from his place in this House by the hon. leader of the opposition. Let me say at the outset that I know of nothing more unprofitable, nothing that would have a greater tendency to becloud and deceive than to make extravagant statements on the one side or the other for the purpose of showing the strength or weakness of one side or the other. Each scheme ought to be dealt with entirely on its merits. We should lay down one given rule which should be applied to both schemes, as that is the only means by which we can arrive at a fair conclusion. Thus it would be well to entirely free the question from the surroundings which hon. gentlemen have dragged Into this scheme. The hon. leader of the opposition, in outlining a transcontinental railway scheme for Canada, has incidentally mentioned some matters that are only remotely connected with it. In order to make an intelligent comparison we must place these two schemes side by side at the points at which they meet and at which they may diverge and where each of them may end. I think that is the only way to give the public an intelligent idea as to the merits of the two schemes. We are told that the hon. leader of the opposition has committed himself to the building of a road from Moncton to Quebec city, and also from Quebec city to Winnipeg. Now, I am sure that hon. gentlemen who desire to discuss these two schemes upon their merits will not drag into what is after all, a clear enueia-tion of what the general policy will be, irrelevant considerations. In order to make it clear, I will read what the leader of the opposition said in referring to the line between Quebec and Moncton. He said :

If within a certain number of years a practical route be found, then extend that road to the Pacific coast. Build it as a government road from Quebec to the coast. Be not afraid to undertake that project, but do not undertake It until you have the information, the data which will enable you to deal with it. I am not saying this for the purpose of delay. I believe in' going ahead with the work once you get the information and the data which are necessary. .

That means nothing more nor less than that when such information is obtained and Mr. CLANCY.

when the necessity arises, the work would be undertaken, and then it would be extended as a part of the Intercolonial Railway and be a scheme under the direction of the government of the day in some way. I make that statement in order to divorce the proposal from what is after all the live question, nanjely, a transcontinental railway from ocean to ocean. The hon. leader of the opposition similarly dealt with the road from Quebec to Winnipeg, and he said :

So far as the line from Quebec to Winnipeg is concerned, I am not disposed to minimize the possibility of that northern country. Looking at the history of the great west, there may be a great flood of settlement into that country north of Lake Superior some day or other, at least up to a certain point west, but I do not think we know enough at present to justify us in saying there will or will not be, because I do not know how far that country is capable of competing in the early future with the magnificent country we have in the North-west. I have some doubts as to whether or not that great northern country may compete as early as we would desire with the great western country. But I am not disposed to minimize its importance in any way, and to my mind the rational way of dealing with that road from Winnipeg to Quebec is this.

Mark the words :

To thoroughly explore and understand it, and then to build that line from Quebec to Winnipeg, as a colonization road according as the requirements of the people and colonization demand.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear that that is to be a colonization road and no more, and that colonization road is to be built when we have obtained all necessary information and when the interests and requirements of colonization demand it. Colonization alone is the main feature of that undertaking. I have dealt with these two points in order that we may consider them apart from the live question of the transcontinental road proposed by the government, and as to which the two parties are asunder. I have no doubt that the right hon. gentleman would agree with the view expressed by the leader of the opposition if he looked upon this from the point of view of a colonization road, and I believe that, because he has laid great stress upon the colonization utility of his scheme. If there was no transcontinental line in view, I have not the slightest doubt but that the Prime Minister would agree with the views expressed by the leader of the opposition, both as respects the Moncton section and the Quebec and Winnipeg section. I now propose to make a Comparison between the scheme of the leader of the opposition and the scheme of the government with respect to that portion of the line which commences at the end of the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal and that part of what is called the national transcontinental railway, commencing at Moncton both ending at Winnipeg. I think such a comparison is the only

intelligible plan that can be adopted to give to the people of the country a fair conception of the two schemes. I need offer no apology to this House when I say that 1 would "not attempt to give any figures on this point on my own initiative, because the House would properly regard such figures as being of little value. I shall not, therefore, give information that is my own, but X shall give information which has been obtained from the most reliable source possible. When the leader of the opposition laid down this scheme he particularly emphasized the fact that he would proceed with his project only on the strength of the best expert evidence that could be produced in Canada, and consequently it must be remembered that the scheme proposed by the leader of the opposition may be deviated from or changed in the light of the best expert evidence obtainable.

The hon. leader of the opposition proposed, in the first place, to extend the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to the city of Winnipeg. We have a 99 years' lease'from the Grand Trunk Railway for the use of its line from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal, so that it will not be necessary for me to refer to that part of the line to any detailed extent. We have expended large sums of money in acquiring terminals at Montreal. It is proposed by the leader of the opposition that a first-class road shall be built from Jacques Cartier junction to Coteau junction on the Canada Atlantic Railway. Mark you, we speak of a first-class road, because if a transcontinental railway is to compete for traffic with existing railways in the United States, and in Canada for that matter, no ' second or third rate road will do. It is estimated that the thirty miles from Jacques Cartier junction to COteau would cost $40,000 a mile. That will not shock hon. gentlemen opposite, because the member for Dabelle (Mr. Bourassa) stated that he had expert evidence from a gentleman of long experience that it would cost $30,000 a mile. It is then proposed to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway from C6teau junction to Depot Harbour, if it can be acquired upon favourable terms, and if not, that a road should be constructed. Hon. gentlemen may say that we have to deal with corporations, and that corporations are very exacting in the amount which they require a government to pay for their property.

It would be just as well for this House and this country to understand that the people of Canada are the possessors of the soil of Canada, and that we have the right to use our power to expropriate, dealing justly and prudently, as I am sure any government would do. Canada is not a railway company dealing with another railway company. It is a nation dealing with its own affairs; and the railways of this country, whether they exist now or shall come into existence in the future, must be subject to the will of the people of Canada;

so that the question as to whether we would have any trouble or not in dealing with this matter amounts to nothing. But I am now proceeding on the plan which has been clearly enunciated by the hon. leader of the opposition. It might not be thought prudent or advisable for us even to acquire the Canada Atlantic. That is entirely an open question. The estimate is that that road of 342 miles, with its equipment, could be acquired for the sum of $12,000,000. Every hon. member of this House knows that within the last two years, if not within the last year, there has been an option open to the world for that road for $11,000,000. But suppose we did not acquire the Canada Atlantic, we might have to construct a railway from Coteau Junction to Depot Harbour at a cost of $12,000,000, which would be very nearly $40,000 a mile.

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

Aaron Abel Wright

Liberal

Mr. WRIGHT.

Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? If you do not purchase the Canada Atlantic, how do you propose to get through the Wilno Pass? Hon. members know that there has been a lawsuit between the Canada Atlantic Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as to who has the right to go through that pass.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

I am afraid my hon. friend did not pay attention to what I said a moment ago. I said that this is not a case of one railway company dealing with another. The people of Canada will take over every pass they require in the interest of the country. That does not mean that the Canada Atlantic people will be unfairly dealt with. It means that the people of Canada must preserve and maintain their own rights, and exercise those rights whenever it is in the interest of Canada to do so.

Taking the next section of the proposed line, from Scotia Junction to Sudbury, a distance of 104 miles, our knowledge as to the character of the country or the cost of that road, is no surmise. There are actual plans made from surveys, under which contractors could put in their tenders to-morrow if they chose to do so; and the cost of that section of 104 miles is put down at $40,000 a mile. I wish in this connection to call attention to the fact that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), on the evidence of an engineer whom he states to be a gentleman of repute, now connected, 1 believe, with the Trans-Canada scheme, gave as the cost of that section $30,000 a mile; and my figures are considei'ably in advance of that estimate.

Then, to acquire the Canadian Pacific Railway from Sudbury to Fort William, 555 miles, I put down as costing $25,000,000. Hon. gentlemen have laid a good deal of stress on the difficulty of dealing with that section. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. leader of the opposition has found a rational and final solution of that question, namely, that this unprofitable piece of

railway be used jointly by all tbe railways. He pointed out tbat the two sections of Canada are separated, as it were, by a bridge tbat no single railway company could operate this unprofitable section and make it profitable; and, therefore, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would, as business men, without the slightest doubt, be glad to get rid of that section. What is the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition ? We have several great railways running from the west to the east- I say the more the better. At a certain season of the year that section of railway would have to be operated, either by a single company or by all the companies in common. The hon. leader of the opposition proposes to nationalize that unprofitable section of 555 miles, and offer all the railways of Canada inducements to use that bridge, which they could do combined at much less cost than could a single company. Could any proposition be made that Would appeal more to the business sense of the people of Canada than that all the railways of Canada, including the people's railway owned by the government, would Use that section in common? I am told that it costs the Canadian Pacific Railway, in round numbers, $1,000,000 to operate that piece of road, which is a drag on their earnings all over their system. Pet us suppose that we had running over it not only the Canadian Pacific Railway, but tha Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial. We would have four railways running over that unprofitable section, reducing the cost to each three-fourths; in other words, each railway bearing one-fourth of the cost. Is that not a scheme which appeals to the good sense and the business experience of the people of this country? The estimate of the cost of that section which I give, $25,000,000, is equivalent, in round numbers, to $45,000 a mile. The estimate given by the bon. member for Labelle, obtained from Mr. Doucet, an engineer, was $40,000 a mile. Therefore, hon. gentlemen opposite will see that in every case the figures I am giving are above the estimate of their own friends, and therefore they are not in a position to quarrel with them.

The hon. leader of the opposition proposes that $3,000,000 be put down for the betterment of the road between Sudbury and Port William; because it is recognized that if that road were acquired, it would be necessary to spend a considerable sum of money upon it for the purpose of improving the gradients.

The hon. leader of the opposition further proposes that we should acquire or lease or obtain running powers upon, or build, whatever the best railway experts in Canada, would recommend, a line from Fort William to the city of Winnipeg. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. leader of the opposition wisely and prudently said Mr. CLANCY.

what must be done, if you build a railway in the interests of Canada, namely, that it might be to the best interests of Canada to get running powers over the railways now going from Winnipeg to Port William, which is the seaboard of the North-west. No one would attempt to do more than provide for the building or the acquiring, or getting running powers over the road, just as a commission would advise in such a case, and I have taken, therefore, the plan of making a calculation based upon the cost of building a road which may be a possibility in order to compare the scheme from end to end with that suggestion by the government. To acquire or construct a line from Port William to Winnipeg, 426 miles, would cost $30,000, a mile, or $12,780,000. For the betterment of that road, we would have to spend $2,100,000, in order to make it a first class road. With your permission. Sir, I shall now go over the road from Coteau Junction to Port William, giving what each section would cost. Prom Jacques Cartier to Coteau Junction, thirty miles to be constructed at $40,000 per miie would make $1,200,000. Prom Coteau Junction to Depot Harbour, by the Canada Atlantic Railway, the distance is 342 miles. We would have either to acquire the Canada Atlantic Railway or build another line, which would cost $12,000,000. Prom Scotia Junction, on the Canada Atlantic Railway, to Sudbury, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, 104 miles at $40,000 per mile would cost $4,1G0,000. To acquire or construct if necessary-but I am going to assume that it will be acquired, because it will be in the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway to enter into an agreement of that kind-555 miles of railway between Sudbury and Port William at $45,000 per mile would cost $25,000,000. For the betterment of that section, to make it a first-class road, it is estimated that $3,000,000 will be necessary. To acquire or construct-because the latter might be a possibility-the railway from Port William to Winnipeg, 426 miles at $30,000 per mile, would cost $12,780,000. For the betterment of that piece of road, it is estimated that $2,100,000 would be required to make it a first-class road. There would be, if we add the section between Scotia Junction and Sudbury 104 miles, a matter of interest amounting probably in round numbers to $200,000.

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

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

With reference to the last item which the hon. gentleman gave, the item of betterment, is that intended to be applied to the road he proposes to build ? Twelve million seven hundred and eighty thousand dollars he gave as the cost of building an independent line from Port William to Winnipeg, and then he spoke of betterments on that line.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

When I say that the construction of the road would cost $30,000 per mile, such a road might not be up to

the standard and would require additional expenditure for betterment. If, on the other hand, you were to acquire one of the roads in existence, you would have to spend that same amount on betterment to make it a first-class road. The sum total which will bring the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal into the city of Winnipeg will be $60,470,000. You remember that we are dealing now entirely with the roadbed, with its terminals, and with the equipment which belongs to a railway outside of its rolling stock. The scheme proposed by the government from the town of Moncton to the city of Winnipeg is precisely that class of work, and I wish to make a comparison upon similar terms. I propose now to deal with the scheme proposed by the right lion, gentleman, alongside the one enunciated by the leader of the opposition. I wish to ask any hon. gentleman in this House if he is prepared to say that you can build a mile of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg any cheaper than you can a mile of the road from Montreal to Winnipeg. Gan any lion, gentleman state within ten million dollars what that road will cost 1 Will any hon. gentleman assume the responsibility, even upon better information that the government have, of saying that mile for mile the road from Moncton to the city of Winnipeg *can be built as cheaply as the road proposed by the leader of the opposition, namely, the extension of the Intercolonial from Montreal to Winnipeg ? They both pass through a country somewhat similar, and the estimates I have given are based on the experience of a country traversed by railways, where we have reliable information as to the cost of a first-class road. If we wanted to begin work to-morrow, we have all the information necessary to ascertain the approximate cost. But the question of policy, how it shall be done, the most economical and efficient way to do it, is a question to be determined on better information than you can get in this House.

I shall now make a comparison upon the same basis of cost, between the government scheme and the proposition of the leader of the opposition. The cost of the eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is as follows : From Moncton to Winnipeg

is 1,875 miles. I am taking the figures given by the Finance Minister, and I am going to take the mileage given all through by hon. gentlemen opposite, so that there will be absolutely no mistake in making a fair comparison. According to the Minister of Finance, the distance between Moncton and Winnipeg is 1,875 miles, and the average cost per mile, as set forth in the extension of the Intercolonial Railway is $41,500, including everything. I, therefore, apply the same rule and calculating 1,875 miles of road from Moncton to Winnipeg, at the same cost per mile as the extension of the Intercolonial, we have a cost of $77,812,000. Then there is the interest during the period of

construction, taking the figures given on the cheaper plan outlined by the Minister of Finance, this would come to $3,309,000, and the contribution to the Quebec bridge would be $2,000,000, as estimated by the Minister of Finance. The total capital expenditure in this case would be $83,122,000. I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, -to mark the words ' capital expenditure,' because it is an important feature in this scheme.

In the scheme laid down by the hon. the leader of the opposition there is absolutely no interest expenditure involved beyond the paltry some of something like $200,000, but the interest expenditure upon this road as proposed by the government, from Moncton to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,875 miles, would come to $29,238,000. Then there is another sum involved which the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) termed the cost to the country. The Prime Minister estimated this at $13,000,000 ; the Minister of Finance raised him half a million, and called it $13,500,000 ; the Minister of Trade and Commerce went still further and told us yesterday that it would be $14,000,000. Now, let me tell the whole truth as to what this is to be. There is an expenditure on capital as I have said of $83,122,000 ; and the interest on the cost of construction on this eastern section-and I am dealing now with the eastern section alone, leaving out the prairie and mountain sections for the purposes of this comparison-the interest on the cost of construction, in ten yearly payments, which the government In their contract have agreed to pay, and must pay, would be $2,493,665 a year for ten years. Some hon. gentlemen may say : Well,

we may have to pay that for only seven years. There is something in an argument of that kind, speaking generally, but the probability is overwhelmingly on the side of having to pay it for ten years ; and for this reason, that it is no small matter for the Grand Trunk Railway to have to finance each year so large a sum in interest as $2,493,000. There is another danger ; it has not been contended in this House that this will be a paying, competing road. No hon. gentleman has offered the statement so far, or even the suggestion that this will be a competing road through Canada. They have said time and again : Oh, there is a good deal of fine national sentiment in this. It is going to promote colonization. But no man has ventured to deny the one fact that is overwhelmingly more important than this, namely, that this is not to be a national competing road from one end of Canada to the other. There is the other danger that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will not have net earnings sufficient to pay that interest or any portion of it. The doubt is, and this doubt -was in the minds of the men who made the bargain-for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway

people are not in any sense Infants-that for the first seven years they will not be able to pay anything. They contemplate that for the next three years it may be possible, nay, it is probable, that they cannot pay one cent and they therefore ask yon to capitalize that and to charge them the interest on it. The Grand Trunk Railway thus compels the government to finance for it something like two and a half millions of dollars. If the Grand Trunk pays that, it will go into the public treasury of Canada. If the Grand Trunk does not pay it, it is not a debt against the Grand Trunk Railway, it is a sum upon which interest is to be paid, and therefore constitutes a part of the cost of the road without one dollar going into the road in return.

For ten years wre must pay in interest out of the treasury of Canada, $2,493,000 a year, an enormous sum. Let it be remembered that each of these payments must be carried, one of them over nine years, one over eight years, one over seven years, one over six years, one over five years, one over four years, one over three years, one over two years. Therefore we must pay out of the treasury of Canada to carry each of these payments during the period of ten years a sum amounting to $3,306,000. There is absolutely no doubt that this will have to be carried. If you had made a payment nine years ago you would have borrowed the money to pay it, and therefore must pay the interest on the money for that nine years, and in this case the interest will constitute part of the cost of this scheme. Then the government have entered into a contract with the Grand Trunk that the rental, if any is paid, is to be paid annually. They have undertaken by their Bill and by the contract that the commissioners appointed to construct and manage this road shall issue the bonds of Canada, payable half yearly. Therefore a sum of money is borrowed that is paid to the government if it is paid at all, yearly, and the government has to pay the interest upon that half yearly. The difference thus arising during that period is nearly one million dollars that the country will lose directly by that transaction, $935,350 is thfe net sum. The whole sum involved, Mr. Speaker, is $29,238,000 not one cent of which will have gone into that road, every cent of it being a dead loss to the country. There will be nothing to show for it.

I have given you the capital expenditure at $S3,000,000 in round numbers. I have pointed out in detail-and I challenge hon. gentlemen to successfully controvert a single statement I have made-that you are paying out nearly $30,000,000 interest on this scheme after it is constructed. The Minister of Finance made an allowance for interest during the period of construction, but I am now dealing with that future interest which amounts in round numbers to $30,000,000 for which you have to carry a Mr. CLANCY.

dea l scheme for ten years. Now if that can be said then this road will have cost $83,000,000 with $29,000,000 added to it, altogether $112,000,000. I wish to say and to emphasize this particularly, that thirty-five per cent of the money will be paid out by Canada, $83,000,000 of it for construction and nearly $30,000,000 paid out for interest for which Canada will have not one copper to show. I know of no more alarming condition of affairs than tha,t Canada should have to enter upon a scheme of this kind.

I know of no more alarming condition of affairs than that Canada should have entered upon a scheme' that involves, not the cost alone, for if the cost went into the road you could use it as an asset, but that Canada should be 'asked to commit herself to a scheme that involves the payment of a subsidy to a railway without any return for ten years, a cost that will amount to two million and a half dollars, in round numbers, in order to get the company to take over the road and run it. Is it any wonder that the Grand Trunk Company refuse to enter into a scheme of that kind, or to finance it ? It was stated by way of apology, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the reason for doing that was that the Grand Trunk Pacific, although a great and rich corporation, backed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, was unable to finance so great a scheme. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was'cautious, prudent, as he always is, and refrained from entering into details of that kind. The hon. gentleman did not tell us that we could have got over the difficulty without costing us one cent, by way of guarantees, if we considered the security good. But the hon. gentleman skated over the thin ice without falling in. I only regret that the hon. gentleman did not improve the opportunity to give scope to his intellect and experience upon a question of this kind. Had he done so, he would have denounced the scheme as the rottenest scheme that was ever proposed in Canada. He would have told the country that we had entered upon a scheme that would involve an expenditure of $30,000,000, in interest and that for all the good we would get out of it, we might as well throw the money into the Ottawa river.

Now, that is the essential difference between these two schemes ? The first one Is a scheme that loads Canada with interest for many years to come. The best evidence that it is a scheme that should not be entered upon is the fact that the shrewd railway men of Canada would not touch it. It has been said in this House over and over again that the Grand Trunk Pacific did not want this scheme. It has been said in this House that it was a miserable compromise of local conditions and party conditions, and that what might have made it a scheme of national utility has been sacrificed to the meanest motives. The Grand Trunk Pacific Company know that perfectly

well. They refused it, and they said : If you want a scheme of that kind you must carry it out yourselves. The government said : If we build the road you will operate it ? The company said : No, you must give us two million and a half dollars a year, or we will not operate it for ten years. What does that mean ? It means that we have to build a road that will be no good as a competing transcontinental line ; it means that we have to build a road that cannot earn dividends above the cost of operation ; It means that if you want a railway of that kind, it will be so expensive and of such a character that Canada must bear the burden and folly of it, because the Grand Trunk Pacific is not in a position to bear it.

But we have that scheme financed by the Finance Minister. I am sorry he is not in his place, but I am delighted to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce is here. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been an authority for many years upon questions of finance. I sympathized last night with the hon. gentleman's embarrassment. He is a gentleman of long experience, a gentleman of more caution than the Minister of Finance, and in his utterances he took very good care not to commit the country to the extravagant statements made by the Minister of Finance. Now, Sir, let us see how the Minister of Finance deals with this great question. Before I go further,

I want to call the attention, both of the Postmaster General and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to this fact, that what the Minister of Finance terms the cost of the road to the people, is only a portion of the loss to the people in addition to the cost. It is not the cost at all. The leader of the opposition has never shirked his responsibility. He has never given any uncertain sound on any question which he is discussing. He is prepared to say, as his followers are prepared to say, that every dollar that goes into this work costs the people that much money. If we borrow the money, the credit of Canada is pledged to that extent. The sums paid out in interest are absolutely lost to the people, in addition to the cost of this scheme. Now, I wish to read what the Minister of Finance says :

If at the close of the year, when we are making up the accounts, we lay aside the surplus which will have accrued as stated in the budget speech, and subject to the improvement which we hope will take place in the final adjustment of the accounts, and if, instead of using that surplus to build railways elsewhere, t.o reduce our debt, or in the many other ways in which we could use it. we place that $13,000,000 in the hands of financial managers, I hope to show the House that tha.t money would mef't every financial responsibility which the government of Canada have assumed under this contract. How is this brought about ? We have to consider not the mere multiplication of interest for seven years. What we have to consider is what use we could make of that $13,000,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if be is prepared to commit himself to this government banding I over $13,000,000 to be invested by finance managers ? Does he propose to hand it over to an insurance company, as has been suggested by the Minister of Finance ? Does he propose to take $13,000,000 and invest it in that way ? I ask the right hon. gentleman now if he is prepared to sanction any such plan ; and without being offensive I ask him to give me an answer now, because it is important. The right hon. gentleman, prudent as he always is, cautious and wise, will never commit himself to a folly of that kind. Yet the Finance Minister, who sits alongside of him, has made that statement in this House, he would commit such a folly. I call it folly, Mr. Speaker, but the word is a mere euphemism for a much stronger term that might be applied to a proposition of that kind. I know of no more palpable fraud upon the people of this country than to propose a matter of that kind. It is something that no government would think of doing. It is something (hat no government in Canada has any authority to do. 3ut he told us that apart from that he was going to use it. We have had surpluses in past years as follows, according to the statement of hon. gentlemen opposite :

1898 $1,722,712

1899 4,837,749

1900 8,054,714

1901 5,648,333

1902 7,291,398

Now, the hon. Minister of Finance proposes to invest, as he says, $13,000,000 of surpluses that he is going to have in cash. I desire now to ask the right hon. Minister of Tirade and Qommerce

t)699

-gone ? There is a difference, as the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mu-lock) will see, between the cost of the two schemes, including interest and capital expenditure in both cases. The one leaving Moncton and going to the city of Winnipeg, and the other leaving the city of Montreal and reaching Winnipeg, of $51,000,000. Where is that difference thrown away ? I have calculated the cost per mile in each case as being precisely the same, because it is the only way of making the comparison. There has been thrown away at the commencement of the line, in paralleling the Intercolonial Railway, $15,000,000 or $16,000,000. We have evidence beyond doubt of that fact. We have the evidence of the hon. Minister of the Interior and we have the evidence of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals that the Intercolonial Railway can compete, and compete successfully, even with a shorter line. In order that there may be no mistake, I will give to the House what was stated in this House as evidence. I will give to the House the views of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, a gentleman of experience greater than any other man in this House, who declared from his place here that the Intercolonial Railway could compete successfully and compete with the shorter line, because it had a better road, and that by attempting to shorten that road GO or 70 miles, you do not improve it in any way, because you cannot get as good a road, and the difference is so small that it is not recognizable. He says :

It must not be forgotten-and I wish to emphasize this fact-that the Intercolonial Railway has such exceptionally favourable grades, is so well laid, and is such an exceptionally favourable road for traffic, running along the coast line, that it can haul heavier traffic 2-59 miles further- .

In this case it would only be 60 or 70 miles further.

-than the Canadian Pacific Railway in shorter time. You can therefore see how small a figure 77 miles would cut under such circumstances.

But that 'is not all. I am going to give the evidence of an hon. gentleman in this House who, it has been said, made tin; speech of the season in regard to this question. I have now reference to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton). He had made a reference to the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway, as hon. gentlemen will see by reference to 'Hansard,' and then he proceeded to say :

The figures that I have given prove that the Intercolonial Railway was able to do a substantial amount of business, and that the Intercolonial was able to do it in competition with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway ; both lines much shorter than the Intercolonial Railway ; both lines

and this is the point I wish to emphasize-both lines shorter than the new Grand Trunk Pacific Railway line will be. Then, Mr. Speaker, if the Mr. CLANCY.

Intercolonial Railway under its traffic agreement can compete with the short line to Portland and with the short line to St. John, why in the name of common sense cannot, it compete with the new line by way of the Chaudiere Junction ?

We have the evidence now of the hon. Minister of the Interior that such an expenditure is wholly unwarranted. The only reason given for building a shorter line was to enable the transcontinental line to be a competing line. We are told by tile lion. ex-Minister of Bailways and Canals that the Intercolonial Railway is a competing line, and that it will be a better competing line than the proposed short line, as hon. gentlemen may term it, and we have the further evidence of the hon. Minister of the Interior that the Intercolonial Railway is competing, and can compete, with the existing short line. Then, I say you have thrown away $15,000,000 or $16,000,000 of their $51,000,000 in constructing that alleged shorter line through the province of New Brunswick. But you have done more. You have paralleled the Intercolonial Railway. You put a road alongside the Intercolonial Railway when it is stated by one of tbe hon. ministers that the Intercolonial Railway will he a better competing line than the proposed short line, and I say it is the rankest folly to build a road alongside the Intercolonial Railway and thus render tlie Intercolonial Railway less efficient. You will destroy the efficiency of the service for the people living along that line, you build a line to no purpose, and you will enter upon a scheme which is an absolutely unjustifiable one, as a supporter of the government declared from his place in the House last night, and one that he was prepared to "vote against.

Where does the balance of the $51,000,000 go ? The other part of it disappears in the payment of interest. The sum payable in interest will be about $30,000,000.

Now, I want to come to another feature upon which much stress has been laid, and that is the colonization feature of this road. I shall not say anything in regard to the province of Quebec, because I confess to a very limited knowledge of tbe character of the country in that province. I am, therefore, leaving out the question of colonization in New Brunswick and Quebec. I believe that to be a question of general policy, which must be dealt with by itself. But I will take the province of Ontario, and I shall not have one ill word to say of that country.

The hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) delivered an admirable speech last night, in which he said that both parties 'had faith in the country and I venture to say that for the first time in his whole parliamentary experience, he had seen both sides of the House professing abiding faith in the possibilities of Canada when discussing a controver-

sial policy. It was a feature that he had never witnessed in the course of his whole public life. I believe that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) came to parliament a very young man, and he has grown up in wisdom, and experience brought to him by those two greatest schools in Canada. namely : Membership in the House

of Commons and membership in the profession of journalism. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was pleased to notice that no matter what the scheme before this House may be, the present opposition, the Conservative party of Canada, refuse to decry the country when they are discussing it. The opposition in this House, Sir, will use no unworthy weapons in meeting any scheme promulgated by the opposing political party. In that respect they differ from another parliamentary opposition in Canada in days past. The opposition in this House have chosen to examine the scheme itself and to base their criticisms upon its merits or demerits, and I will not go so far even as to tell what I believe to be the whole truth about the country through which this government railway will run. Let me say in general terms, that I believe that part of Canada is worth something. But, if you put colonization roads there to-morrow, the northern part of the older provinces cannot possibly compete with the great west for many years to come. As an evidence of that let me refer to the reports of the Ontario government surveyors, upon which hon. gentlemen opposite have been compelled to rely entirely for their information. There are about 100,000,000 acres of land in that territory, and if you take what is called the clay belt and every patch of agricultural land that can be collected in it. you have something like 15,000,000 or 10,000,000 acres of agricultural land in northern Ontario, nr about one-seventh of the whole. I shall not decry the country ; I need not say more than that. I believe that some day, even perhaps in this generation, young men may go into that territory when the lands in more favourably situated parts of the country are exhausted for agriculture. Sir, I shall not follow the member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) in his manner of justifying the government scheme. He told us that this country would be settled up immediately, when as a matter of fact every one knows that it cannot compete in agricultural possibilities with the fertile lands of the west, for many years to come. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) proposed to subject French Canadians to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. He told us that there were people in Quebec who would go into that country and grub up stumps. I shall not allow the remarks of the hon. gentleman to dispel from my mind my long-cherished belief, that the French Canadian people are as intelligent and progressive ns any other people in Canada. My experience of them is that they are as much alive to 304i

public questions, that they are as keen in business questions as any other class of our people ; and to say that French Canadians would go into such a country as that and be too dull to see the advantages of the west, is a statement which I for one do not believe. Are our French Canadians or any other Canadians for that matter, less intelligent than the Europeans who are flocking into our west to reap the many advantages which that country possesses ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) driven into a corner for an argument in favour of the government scheme, was forced to say that his fellow French Canadians were duller than other people and could not see the advantages of fertile lauds as compared with these regions in the north. It is a slander on the French Canadians, and I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that your own experience has been, that French Canadians will dig up stumps when they can get clear and fertile lands on which to settle.

I have said, Sir, that the question of colonization must be dealt with separately, and I have also said that it would be folly amounting to insanity to subordinate a single feature of a strong national transcontinental competing railway to the idea of colonization. What is going on in the province of Ontario just now ? Commencing at Quebec until we reach the line between Manitoba and Ontario going west, what do we find in the matter of railway construction ? We have the Lake Temiscamingue and Pettawawa River Railway, under the Canadian Pacific Railway, built some distance into that country. We have the Ontario government constructing a line from North Bay and penetrating that country into the fertile lands of Lake Temiscamingue. We have the .Tames' Bay Railway, now under construction, I understand. that will run from Sudbury to Lake Abitibi also in what is called the fertile belt. This has been given by the Ontario government a cash subsidy of $2,000 a mile and a land grant of 5.000 acres a mile for 175 miles running north. AA'e then have the Ontario. Hudson's Bay and Western Railway, that runs from Missanabie Station further west, through the valley of the Missanabie and within forty miles of the clay belt. In order that hon. gentlemen may not be sceptical let me read what this report says :

The southern boundary of this great tract of fertile land is less than 40 miles from the Missanabie Station on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the country north of the height of land being an immense level belt sloping off towards James Bay, the construction of a railway and wagon roads through every part of it would he comparatively an easy matter.

But that is not ail the railways that are projected or under construction. There is as I have said, the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railway running from Missanabie station to Moose river or .Tames bay, going through the whole length of that conn-

try. It has from the Ontario government a cash subsidy of $2,000 a mile and a laud grant of 5,000 acres a mile for 240 miles. Then we have from Peninsular Harbour, a station still further west, the Lake Superior Long Lake and Albany River Railway, running from Peninsular Harbour to Hudson's bay. It has a cash subsidy or ten miles of $3,000 a mile from the Ontario government. Then we have the Nepigon Railway, running from Lake Nepigon to Long lake and James bay, also penetrating that country. It has a cash subsidy of $3,000 a mile for the first fourteen miles, which, I believe, are being constructed. Then, we have the Thunder Bay, Nepigon and St. Joe Railway, which runs from Port Arthur to St. Joseph's lake, on the Albany river, which, as you know, forms the boundary line between Keewatin and the province of Ontario. The length of this railway is 225 miles. It has received from the Ontario government a cash subsidy of $2,000 a mile for the first ten miles, which, I understand, are in operation, and a land grant of 5,000 acres a mile for the whole length. It is abundantly clear that an effort is being made in the direction of colonizing that country. I have pointed out seven lines of railway which will be feeders to what in the near future I contemplate will be the Intercolonial Railway of Canada. Much has been said as to the value of developing that northern country. That country has both mining and agricultural features; and, although the latter may be and will be delayed in their development for many years, for the reason I have given, some day the country will be developed and colonization roads will be built through it; but they will be built from other parts of Ontario than from the city of Quebec or the city of Winnipeg into Ontario. The natural flow of capital into that country will not come from either of these quarters. The men who put their money into these schemes are men who live in the great cities of the province of Ontario. No man can be considered sectional because he says that the capital for these purposes is more likely to come from the great cities of the province than from either end of it. Some day it may be found necessary to build a colonization road through that country, or the necessity may never arise. It must depend entirely on the information which may be obtained, and the circumstances which it will disclose.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have just one matter more which I desire to deal with, and that is with regard to the relative cost of the two schemes before us. I am assuming, as I have a right to assume, that this House will not of necessity consent to the scheme placed before the House by the government.

1 I have a right to assume that hon. members on both sides of this House will exercise their prudence and their independence-will recognize their responsibility, not

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

August 26, 1903