August 26, 1903

?

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

The hon. gentleman, at all events, in trying to satisfy this House what it would cost to carry out the scheme of the hon. leader of the opposition said that the estimate was that this particular railway would cost $45,000 a mile, and that a large sum would have to be spent for betterments, which I think amounted to $5,000 a mile. So that the hon. member for Bothwell put the railway from North Bay

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

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

No, from Sudbury.

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

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

The hon. gentleman started from Sudbury, but the hon. leader of the opposition started from North Bay. You see, our hon. friends opposite are not in harmony, and I am defending the hon. leader of the opposition. That hon. gentleman is buying the whole railway from North Bay to Fort Wiliam, and the hon. member for Bothwell puts the price at $50,000 a mile, and it is a question whether we will take his figure or the figure of the hon. member for South Lanark, viz., $60,000. I think it probable that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals has a more accurate knowledge of the facts. At his figure, then, the 634 miles from North Bav to Fort William will cost us $38, 040,000.

We have now reached Fort William. There we meet two railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway. The hon, gentleman proposes to acquire some estate over the Canadian Pacific Railway. His scheme is to get a continuous line of railway from Montreal to Winnipeg available for the Intercolonial Railway and all other railways. He has already told us that running powers are a delusion, that they cannot be acquired so as to be of any value. Therefore, when he proposes to make use of these two roads in a certain way to make them effective, it cannot be under the old scheme of a company owning a line and giving running powers over it to others. He says :

The third point which I would submit to the consideration of the House, as a sound policy, is to assist in improving the grades of one or both lines from Winnipeg to Port William, upon the condition that complete control of rates is obtained and that the Grand Trunk Railway as well as the Intercolonial Railway shall have running powers from Port William to Winnipeg.

His object is to secure a highway available for the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Intercolonial and the Canadian Northern. He has already told us that running rights cannot he acquired where a company owns the lines. How, then, is he going to acquire a proper highway to meet the services he is seeking ? He is going to expend public money upon the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway or both between Fort William and Winnipeg.. There is only one way, he says, by which the public money expended on those roads will be saved, and that will be by the public owning those two roads. He might as well have said frankly that his purpose was to purchase these roads out and out, and that is practically what is admitted by his friends behind him. fiut, if he buys only one, which one will he buy ? Does he pretend that he could buy the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg and use it In rivalry with the Canadian Northern Railway or vice versa ? I question if that would he considered a just arrangement. He must either buy both or none, for each has equal rights, and if he proposes to buy one, that carries the responsibility of buying both or ruining the other. But if he should buy only one, which one ? The government of Canada built the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg and paid for its construction $15,638,549. The government then made a free gift of it to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Without adding one penny to the original cost of that line from Fort William to Winnipeg, it would cost us, if we only had to pay what was originally expended" upon It, $15,000,000. Then take the Canadian Northern Railway, which runs side by side, that cost $25,000 per mile, and no one will say that that is an over estimate. If that estimate he satisfactory, it means that the purchase of the Canadian Northern Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg will cost $10,625,000. Now, the purchase of these different roads and the construction of two pieces would aggregate in all $841,015,549. And when he has this road to Winnipeg, I presume he pro-

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

William Mulock (Minister of Labour; Postmaster General)

Liberal

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

poses to equip it with rolling stock. How much he proposes to expend on rolling stock, I do not know, but if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway consider $20,000,000 not too much to expend on rolling stock, with which to equip its proposed new line, at least half that would be required to make this extension of the Intercolonial Railway effective. If so, that would mean $90,000,000 odd for bringing the Intercolonial to Winnipeg.

Assuming that the leader of the opposition has carried out his policy, assuming that he has expropriated the Canadian Pacific Railway from Port William to North Ray, I would like to know w'hqt effect that is going to have on the railway system of the Canadian Pacific Railway and our western trade ? Everybody knows that the 634 miles operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway between Fort William and North Bay is about the most unprofitable piece in all Canada. Everybody knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway have an alternative route from Duluth to Sault Ste. Marie, a distance of nearly 400 miles, which they would be only too glad to use if they could get rid of the expensive north shore piece of railway. The hon. gentleman proposes to take out of the Dominion treasury $38,000,000 and hand it over to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the purchase of its railway from Port William to North Bay. The Canadian Pacific Railway could then turn around and build a short line of railway, 360 miles in length, from Winnipeg to Duluth, side track Port William and Port Arthur, and divert the whole traffic west through Duluth, going down from and coming back to #Cana.da by the Sault Ste. Marie. The Canadian Pacific Railway is at present maintaining two lines of railway for its western traffic going east, with the exception of a short link between Winnipeg and Duluth of 360 miles. Every day it runs a train from Port William to North Bay, it loses money. I am not in a position to say how much but an hon. gentleman oppositespeaking with I do not know what authority-suggests that $1,000,000 is the annual loss in operating the railway between Port William and , North Bay. That may or may not be correct. But that line follows a rocky coast, as every body knows, on which there is not sufficient traffic to make it pay, and besides the grades are bad, the curves are severe, and it is altogether an expensive road. Nothing therefore would suit the Canadian Pacific Railway better than to be relieved of the cost of keeping open that road; and were the hon. gentleman's policy carried out and the Canadian Pacific Railway paid $38,000,000 of the people's money to sell out what is a dead horse, namely, the line from Port William to North Bay, they could take $13,000.000 of that money and build a road from Winnipeg to Duluth. That would be the outside cost, and they would then have complete connection between Winnipeg and the Soo, around the south shore of Lake Superior and could divert all the Canadian traffic over that route from the hon. gentleman's common national highway. The hon. gentleman proposes to give the Canadian Pacific Railway $38,000,000 to divert traffic from Canada to the United States, to destroy our own ports, Port William and Port Arthur, and to build up Duluth in their stead. We, on the contrary, aim at having a Duluth of our own on the north shore of Lake Superior. The hon. gentleman proposes to Americanize the Canadian Pacific Railway, to rob it of its national character, to divert the commerce of Canada to the United States, and build up the rival city of Duluth as against Canadian ports. What would be the effect of the hon. gentleman's scheme if he could carry it out ? If the grain of the North-west, which the Canadian Pacific Railway carries, were brought to Duluth instead of to Fort William or Port Arthur, Canadian shipping would immediately be made subservient more or less to the laws applicable to the United States, mercantile marine. It would mean the driving away largely of Canadian mercantile marine from the lakes, and all for what purpose ? Can any one tell us w'hat purpose will be served ? Who has been the hon. gentleman's adviser ? Does the hon. gentleman feel proud of this scheme, the products of eighteen days reflection ? It cannot be that it is the outcome of eighteen days reflection. It must have involved long consideration by persons better versed in these matters. As the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) once said, there must have been some gold bricking done; and I submit that on this occasion a very considerable gold brick has been passed on the leader of the opposition by the Canadian Pacific Railway. What are we to gain by spending $54,000,000 to buy up the existing roads between Montreal and Winnipeg ? The expenditure of that money wifi not open up for settlement one additional square mile of country. It will transfer many millions of the people's money into the treasury of some company, but it cannot possibly be of any service to the people of Canada. It will take $84,000,000 out of the treasury of Canada and put it into the treasury of some railway companies which have already been well subsidized. It will do worse, if will throw upon the country for all time the cost of maintaining an unprofitable section of railway between Fort William and North Bay. In every way, it will be adverse to our interest and yet we are told by our hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) that it is a work of constructive statemanship. The hon. member for Bothwell, in his description of this scheme, stopped at Winnipeg. Why did he go back on his leader ? His leader did not stop at Winnipeg. The hon. member Cor Bothwell either di'd not understand the scheme or he is going to repudiate

it all west of Winnipeg. Let me again come to the rescue of the leader of the opposition; his is a larger scheme than that:

The fourth point

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

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

The hon. the Minister of Finance stated that the length of that section would be 480 miles.

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

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

I have not the figures of the Minister of Finance

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

William Mulock (Minister of Labour; Postmaster General)

Liberal

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

before me, but I understand that from this point at Edmonton it will be some 600 miles.

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

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.

I did not say that it would be 480 miles from Edmonton.

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

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

The statement was that the mountain section would be 480 miles.

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

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.

That is not from Edmonton.

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

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

Taking the length of the line from Edmonton to the coast at 600 miles, and estimating the cost at $50,000 a mile, we will have $30,000,000. Thirty million dollars added to the $84,015,549 which it has cost to bring his railway to Edmonton makes $114,015,549. That is the cost of the extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to the coast, including aid to the prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.

Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has got one railway to the coast and you would think that that scheme ought to have satisfied the ambition of any ordinary man. But not so on this occasion. The hon. gentleman told us, and he told us particularly, that the country was not afraid of spending money, and the hon. gentleman is not afraid of spending money. I take him at his word, I have not the slightest doubt of the accuracy of that statement, because, having got to the coast, he turns back again to the east with an eye to Moncton and Halifax-and I do not blame him for that. He considers how he is to square himself with the people of the east on the unfortunate position in which he placed himself on the 30th of July last. So he approaches the question a little gingerly but still his meaning is not difficult to discover. On the 18th of August, addressing himself to the subject of a government line, he says :

I say that If there is a better line between LSvis.mr Riviere du Loup, or any such port on the Intercolonial, and Moncton, a line the construction of which will give to Halifax and St. John a better fighting chance, for western traffic than that which they have at present, I will support the construction of that line. But I will not support it with the object for which this Bill provides. I will tell my hon. friend how I will support it. I will support the construction of that line as part of the Intercolonial Railway.

'Therefore, hp says, If a better route can be obtained he is prepared to extend the Intercolonial from Moncton to Levis. It is not a question of cost; it is not a question of paralleling the Intercolonial. He is prepared to build a railway from Moncton to L6vis; he is prepared to take the through traffic or all traffic if needs be off the main line of the Intercolonial which now follows the south shore of the St. Lawrence; he is prepared to incur all the expense if a better road can be obtained. It is not a question of cost, he commits himself up to the handle because every one knows that a better road

than the existing line of the Intercolonial can be obtained if you do not object to the cost. Engineers can get you what you are prepared to pay for. It is a question of a better line and money does not concern him because as he said :

The people of the' country are not afraid of spending money, if it is spent in a sane and reasonable way. . . .

There is no reason to be afraid of spending money, I am not afraid of spending money. And the country is not afraid of spending money. But let us spend it in a reasonable and proper way.

Every one will concur in the hon. gentleman's statement that he is not afraid of spending money after the words I have quoted from his speech. He is prepared, if a better line can be got, to build from Moncton to Levis and I am sure the hon. gentleman could not go back to Halifax to-day and say that he was not honestly in favour of the construction of a line between Moncton and L&vis-not only in favour of constructing such a line, but of constructing it at the earliest possible moment, and I expect that before this debate is concluded the hon. gentleman will come all the way over and say that he heartily approves of the immediate construction of a line from Lfivis to Moncton.

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

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Will the hon. gentleman permit me to say that he has misquoted my remarks in that he has not given my entire statement, on this point.

I said, immediately following the words the hon. gentleman has quoted :

Iu all this, act reasonably, survey your country, consider your course, consider the distance to be saved, consider the cost of haulage to be saved. Do not plunge into the thing rashly, do not undertake to build it upon a survey made thirty or forty years ago when railway conditions wrere different from what they are at present. Go into the enterprise sanely, after having obtained information which would justify you in believing that it would give a better chance for trade to the people of the maritime provinces.

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

The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).

The hon. gentleman has not at all disputed anything that.I said. I did not pretend to read all his words. I read the portion of his remarks wherein he said that if a better line can be procured he is prepared to build a line from Moncton to Levis. The question of cost is a circumstance, but it is not a controlling circumstance with the hon. gentleman, who, I am sure, will not say in this House that he is against the building of a line from Moncton to Levis, nor for that matter from Levis or Quebec to the Pacific ocean. The hon. gentleman is prepared to build a line from Ottawa, to put it under contract from Moncton to L6vis if an engineer can tell him that a better line than the existing Intercolonial line can be obtained. That is his position, ,he has put himself on record and from it he

cannot recede. Either tfiat is true or he did not intend to express himself as he did in the language which I have quoted.

Hon. gentlemen have said that it will cost $10,000,000, I think they say $15,000,000 to build from Moncton to Levis. If that line would be 400 miles long and $25,000 a mile is put down as the cost, it will cost $10,000,000. I am sure there is not an hon. gentleman in the House who will say that this is an unreasonable estimate.

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

William Ross

Liberal

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).

Too low. The POSTMASTER GENERAL. Well,

I won't say whether it is too low or not. The Minister of Finance, I think, estimated it at something like that. Now we have to go to LCvis at the south side of the river St. Lawrence, a mile or two from the city of Quebec. What is his policy when he gets to the city of Quebec ? Again, I will read his words :

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 to justify us at present in saying that 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. To thoroughly explore and understand it, and then to build that line from Quebec to Winnipeg, as a colonization rdad, according as the requirements of the people and colonization demand. To build it after you have obtained the fullest possible information and obtain that information with the least possible delay. You may find curious conditions surrounding you when you get into that country. You may find that, the road, which is the most direct line to the Pacific coast, will not be the road that will open that country for colonization. You may find the road running one way for colonization purposes and another way direct to the coast.

You may also find that a line running north from the northern part of Ontario will be required for the development of that country. You must go upon information, upon sound and reasonable lines, and when you do that, give to that country all the development which the people require. Not only build that line, but operate it as a government line. A. government line, it seems to me, would be peculiarly suitable to that country for colonization purposes, and I see no reason why the problem should not be solved in that way.^ 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

9775

believe in going ahead with the work once you get the information and the data which are necessary.

I have read all that the hon. gentleman has said on that point, and I think the fair deduction from it is this : The very moment you get enough information, go ahead with the road. Surely the hon. gentleman, in this age, is not going to say that the people must go into that terra incognita before there is a railway. To-day railways are the pioneers of settlement. If that country is to be settled, railways must go first. The hon. gentleman says that as soon as there is information obtained about that country, go ahead with the enterprise.

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.

Now, if to-morrow the information and the data were forthcoming, then the hon. gentleman would believe in proceeding at once with the work. As the First Minister has explained, there are mountains of information upon this subject.

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

An hon. MEMBER.

Where are they ?

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

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

They are everywhere. There are more on the Table of this House than any hon. gentleman of the opposition has -waded through. The library is full of them, the woods are full of them. There are survey parties in every part of that district to-day, and in a few short months, probably, there will be no part of Canada better known than the country between Winnipeg and the city of Quebec. As soon as the snow goes away next spring, I have no doubt that the surveys will be in that forward state that the actual work of construction may be and will be undertaken. Now if the information is forthcoming the hon. gentleman's policy is to build at once, not to wait. Now, we have him on his second transcontinental trip across the continent. We have got him as far as Quebec. Now to Winnipeg the distance is 1,400 miles. I will allow that here he proposes to build a colonization road. I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by a colonization road. I suppose he means a cheap road, a road inexpensive to operate. If so, I would take exception to the wisdom of putting In a cheap road in a country that is about to be settled up. If there is any class of people who are entitled to cheap rates, to the best railway facilities for their commerce, it is those people who are the pioneers of settlement in the unknown solitudes of the north. Why the hon. gentleman will pass upon them a cheaply constructed road, though expensive to them, I am at a loss to understand. However, he proposes to treat these people with a colonization road, a cheap road to the country, a dear road to them. If so, if it costs the government $25,000 a mile to build a first-class road from Win-

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

William Mulock (Minister of Labour; Postmaster General)

Liberal

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

nipeg to Quebec, I will take off $5,000 a mile, and suppose that w* can get his cheap colonization road at $20,000 a mile.

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

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

The Minister of Finance put it at $28,000.

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

The POSTMASTER GENERAL.

The Minister of Finance was speaking of a properly constructed road. The Minister of Finance proposed a good trunk line, useful for other purposes as well as for colonization-the leader of the opposition proposes what he calls a colonization road, which I suppose is not a road of this character, but a road of severe grades and many curvatures, a cheap but expensive road for the purpose of supplying traffic. I would not favour that kind of a road ; but as the leader of the opposition is now submitting his policy, I am endeavouring to present it fairly to the House. Fourteen hundred miles of a colonization road between Quebec and Winnipeg could be built for $20,000 a mile, amounting to $28,000,000. Then the hon. gentleman proposes to extend that line across the continent. I do not see why, after building a government line from a point near Edmonton to the coast he should build another. Speaking on page 9295, on the 18th of August, the hon. gentleman says:

Not only build that line, but operate it as a government line.

Then he proceeds to say :

Then extend that road to the Pacific coast.

I would have thought it more economical to endeavour to connect that road with the mountain section which he is going to build from Edmonton to the coast, but the hon. gentleman probably had some other scheme in his mind. Therefore, we have to figure this line through to the coast, and if so, we have to allow, I suppose, at least $20.000 a mile for 1,000 miles, costing $20,000,000. Then there is another $30,000,000 for the GOO miles of the mountain section, making in all $93,000,000. So his second transcontinental railway will cost the trifling sum of $88,000,000. His first transcontinental railway has cost $114,115,549. Add to that the cost of his second transcontinental railway, $98,000,000. and his two lines will cost $202,113,549. He is not afraid of spending money. It will have to be equipped with rolling stock, both these lines are to be operated as government roads. The Grand Trunk Pacific undertake to put $20,000,000 on their line, it will take twice that to equip the two lines. I add, therefore, $40,000,000 for equipment of the two lines, and you have the total cost of the two lines as $242,113,549. I am 'ashamed of our modest scheme involving an expenditure of only $13,000,000. Now, let us leave the railway. There are other features of this scheme. The hon. gentleman proposes to purchase the Canada Atlantic Railway transit fleet. What does that involve ? Let me give the hon. gentleman's words. Having pointed

out the great service performed by the Canada Atlantic transit fleet, he proceeds to say :

While there may be some difficulty in the Crown owning steamers which ply in foreign countries, X should suppose, though I did not consider the question very carefully, a difficulty of that kind could be overcome by maintaining the present organization ; or in other Words, the legal title to the steamers would remain vested in the company, and the government could own stock in the company in the same way that the British government can own stock in the Suez canal.

He proposes that this government shall go into the grain-carrying trade on the upper lakes. What effect will this action have upon private ventures of the same kind V There are many millions of dollars of Canadian money at the present time invested in vessels upon our inland waters engaged in the grain-carrying trade. How will the owners of these vessels be able to compete with the government steamers engaged in this same line of trade ? Will it be fair to them that they shall be liable to the competition of the government fleet of steamers ? Why, Sir, it is only necessary to propound that proposition to cause any hon. gentleman to withdraw from it as an unsound policy. Either the government has to engage in the whole grain-carrying traffic on the lakes or nothing at all. The government cannot engage one ship in the grain-carrying trade on the upper lakes in competition with private capital, without being called upon to purchase all the vessels engaged in the traffic and be responsible for the whole traffic. It is either all or none, and as to what it involves anybody can form a fair estimate. It means the government buying up all the vessels now engaged in the traffic, it means putting an end to all private enterprise of this character, it means a system of paternalism in connection with the carrying trade that no business man would seriously propose and yet that is what the hon. gentleman proposes in this scheme. He says :

Thoroughly equip our Georgian Bay ports

What does that mean 1 Everybody is in favour of the equipment of the ports as rapidly as the circumstances of this country will permit. But it cannot all be done at once. The demands upon the treasury of this country are great. I doubt if there is any five millions of people in the world having greater responsibilities and rising more to the occasion than the people of Canada, but we cannot equip our great inland waters all at once. Remembering that we have inland seas and rivers 2,000 miles in extent it is impossible for any government at once to be able to complete the equipment and pnt everything in a perfect state such as only time and the greatest experience and expenditure will produce. But he says :

Thoroughly equip our Georgian Bay ports, our national waterways

I sympathize with that proposition.

-our St. Lawrence route

I sympathize with that proposition.

-and our ports on the Atlantic coast.

I sympathize with that proposition. Then he says abolish if necessary the harbour dues on the Atlantic coast and on the Georgian bay. Will the hon. gentleman tell us what is involved in that ? Has the hon. gentleman considered the consequences of abolishing the harbour dues in any harbour in Canada ? Take for instance the harbour of the city of Quebec. The city of Quebec collects dues upon shipping. It is a practice common in all parts to impose dues upon shipping, these dues being funded and expended in improving the harbour facilities, the construction of docks, dredging, elevators and providing other harbour advantages. The harbour commissioners have to incur debts in order to provide these facilities and the only revenue wherewith they can pay their debts is derived from the dues collected from shipping. The hon. gentleman proposes to make free our Atlantic ports, our inland ports, the ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and others. It is in the power of parliament to abolish the dues collected by the - city of Quebec. The city of Quebec to-day has borrowed and owes for money expended in improving its harbour, $5,803,538, and the only way whereby it can pay that money is by imposing dues upon shipping. The hon. gentleman proposes to abolish those dues. If he abolishes those dues he has to assume the debt of the Quebec harbour. You then have to add to the cost of this scheme the debt of the harbour of the city of Quebec, amounting to $5,803,538. Then, coming to Montreal, the harbour commissioners of Montreal have been doing their best to improve the harbour of that great city, and they have expended and are authorized to expend $8,054,156. If, Mr. Speaker, we carry out the hon. gentleman's policy and wipe out the dues upon the shipping that comes to that harbour, no matter how desirable it would be if the circumstances allowed, how are we to meet the debt of the harbour commissioners of the city 6t Montreal ? We have to pay that debt as well. Add that debt to the debt of the harbour of Quebec, and add that to the other Bill and we have $255,971,233, as the ascertained cost in giving effect to the hon. gentleman's scheme. Again I deplore the insignificance of our little scheme alongside of this one. That represents the two harbours of Quebec and Montreal, and I am proud to say they are not the only harbours In Canada. There are other harbours that have debts. I need not mention them all. We have harbours on the Atlantic coast. I do not know to what extent they are in debt.

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

William Ross

Liberal

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria. N.S.).

There is no debt on the harbour of Halifax.

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

August 26, 1903