August 27, 1903

?

Mr. AALVDE@

I do not think, that, if I wanted to employ a lawyer to give me an opinion on a railway contract, I would go to a Law Reports editor, but to an active practitioner who is dealing with the matters to be considered. But what does this gentle-

man tell us ? He tells us in effect, that the only way by which the government can enforce the operation of the eastern division by this company is by selling out the five million dollars worth of rolling stock. Well,

I could not imagine that a lawyer would have made that statement until I heard his letter read, and until I had a copy placed in my hand. I have the letter, with the statement referred to over Mr. Smith's own signature. Now, I give my opinion against that of this gentleman, that if the Grand Trunk Pacific fails to operate that eastern division in strict accordance with the terms of the contract and lease, which is to be drawn, the government will be in a position to do one of three things : They can seize, under their mortgage, the five million dollars worth of rolling stock and sell it; or, they can bring action against the company for the amount of loan and damages, and the measure of damages would be the cost of operation of the road by the government; or, they can, under the terms of an Act which lias gone through this parliament this session, and which the learned gentleman was evidently unaware of, go to the Exchequer Court as an ordinary creditor and asked for a decree to have the whole system of the Grand Trunk Pacific put in the market and sold. This gentleman does not seem to keep posted on what is going on.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

Will it sell for the amount of the bonds ?

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

I will talk about selling for the amount of the bonds, in a minute. This new law to which I refer says :

The Exchequer Court of Canada shall have jurisdiction, as regards any railway not wholly within one province, or as regards any section ot a railway not wholly within one province, or as regards any railway otherwise subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada,-

(a.l At the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals, or of any creditor of any person or company owning or operating such railway or section, to order or decree in such manner as it may prescribe, the sale of such railway or section of railway, and of all the rolling stock, equipment and other accessories thereof, whenever such company has become insolvent, or has for more than ten days failed to efficiently continue the working or operating of such railway or section or any part thereof, or has become unable so to do.

First it goes on to provide for order of sale. Then, there is the provision to show when the company shall be considered insolvent. It is considered insolvent in all cases which constitute insolvency under sections 5 and 6 of the Winding Up Act. I have not the exact wording as it left the committee of this House and cannot state just how it was finally worded. But one thing is certain, that if it suffers judgment to go against it and execution to remain in the hands of the sheriff for a period of thirty or sixty days (I think) that is an act of insolvency, and, that act of

insolvency having been performed, the government can, as a creditor, go to the Exchequer Court and ask for an order to sell the whole railway. If that is done what is the result ? In the first place the Grand Trunk Pacific has to lose the $20,000,000 which it has put in for rolling stock. The result is that the Grand Trunk Railway is going to lose 25 per cent which they guarantee towards the construction of the prairie and mountain sections. That is all gone. The government can step in and buy that road and they would have the road, plus the $20,000,000 of rolling stock, for the cost of the road less the rolling stock. Perhaps it may be said that the Grand Trunk Railway would bid the price of the road up so as to cover the cost of the bonds that they have guaranteed. Granting that they did that, and they had to pay the bonds, then the government would pay no more and no less than what the road actually cost and they would have $20,000,000 in rolling stock for nothing. I would ask the hon. gentleman what further security could we have than that 1 Is not that ample security and does this justify him in making the statement he has made ? These are about all the criticisms of this contract that I have seen made and which I deem it necessary to reply to.

I must apologize. Mr. Speaker, for detaining the House so long, but this subject is a vast one and one that cannot be considered in a moment. There has been a great deal of time taken up in the discussion of this measure, but I think it is' time well spent. It is cerainly time well spent in the interest of the government, because every day that this matter is under discussion it is being demonstrated with more certainty that this is a marvellously good contract in the interest of the Dominion of Canada. While it isi a good contract in the interest of the Dominion of Canada, I believe it will be a good contract in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. It would not be a good contract if they were going to run a small, picayune business, but if they are going to inaugurate the system they promise us, they will then have a contract which will be profitable and beneficial to them. One of the effects of this scheme is that the capital that is going into it is British capital, capital that is content with a moderate earning and that is a matter of very great importance. I heard one of the best railway men in Canada make the observation the other day, and mark you lie is opposed to this scheme for personal reasons. that it was useless to talk in this day about operating a transcontinental railway unless you have ocean connections. What would the Canadian Pacific Railway do to-day if it had not its connections on the Pacific coast and if there is going to be no profit in the hauling of grain, if there is going to be no benefit derived by the Canadian Pacific Railway in

the running of their road out into the Northwest Territories, I would ask hon. gentlemen why did the Canadian Pacific Railway within the last two months acquire a line of steamships upon the Atlantic? They only acquired that line because they could not operate that road without it. They must have their line of steamships there just the same as they have their line of steamships on the Pacific Ocean. We cannot tell, we can only imagine the increase of the trade that is going to take place on the Pacific coast, and I believe that this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is destined to have a brilliant future.

At all events, Mr. Speaker, I have faith in this Canada of ours. We are all working together with a common purpose, we are feeling in these days the pulsations of nationhood, we are no longer satisfied to occupy a lesser and meaner position. We have in this country determined to work together to develop our great resources which God has blessed us with, and I say it is the duty of every Canadian to put aside for the moment his party politics and to come forward and assist in carrying through this great work. Some hon. gentlemen have stated that this is the crowning act in the life of the right hon. leader of the government. I cannot agree with that. It is a crowning act, no doubt about that, it is a great accomplishment on his part, but to my mind the crowning act in his life, as I believe history will show, was when he broke down racial and religious barriers; when he united Canadians in the province of Quebec, in the province of Ontario, and in the provinces down by the sea and the west, in a common brotherhood ; and when he taught them by his example to go forward and develop this country and give it the place in the galaxy of nations forming the British empire that God and nature intended it should occupy.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. R. BROCK (Centre Toronto).

Mr. Speaker, rather an unfortunate circumstance to myself in rising to reply to the speech that we have listened to for the last three hours or more is the very important fact that to reply to the lengthy speeches that we have had on both sides of the House during the last ten days would require some one with a great deal more physical strength and ability than I possess. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Wade) has given us an exhibition of his desire to have good feeling prevailing from one end of this Dominion to the other. The first hour of his speech, and I leave it to the House to decide as to whether I am correct, was taken up in a deliberate attempt to create those very feelings which he says the right hon. the Prime Minister has attempted to allay. To work up the enthusiasm of the maritime provinces he tells us that whenever the maritime provinces made a demand for anything it was resisted by the provinces to the west, that the residents

of the maritime provinces have never had anything but resistance, and that the rest of the Dominion has always opposed them. I contend that such is not the case. [DOT] I contend that there is no feeling throughout the rest of Canada as against the maritime provinces. I have lived as long in this country as the hon. gentleman has. I have met ns many residents of Canada as he has met, I have lived among the citizens of the province of Ontario, I have gone in and out amongst them, I have been doing active business amongst them during the last forty years, and I can assure this House and this country that the statement made by the hon. member for Annapolis is absolutely incorrect. He speaks of the crowning act of our Premier's life. Nobody will be more delighted, nobody will be more pleased than I if the right hon. Premier would crown the various good acts of his life by doing now what he promised to do a few weeks ago; that is, that he would place this whole matter in the hands of a transportation commission, which would take into consideration the wants of this country in the matter of transportation by water and by land. It was promised that they would take the whole matter into consideration, that they would receive expert evidence, that they would report the result of their investigations, that the report would bie laid before the House and that we would then act upon it. I am told the right hon. the Prime Minister has made the appointments to this commission. I merely see it in the newspapers. We asked across the floor of the House yesterday as to whether these appointments had been made, but the acting leader of the House at the time stated that he would rather leave the matter to the right hon. Prime Minister.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) refer to the transportation question ?

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

I am sorry that I was not in the House this morning when the routine business was discharged; otherwise I would have informed the House that we have appointed a commission, to be composed of Mr. John Bertram of Toronto, Mr. Reford of Montreal, and Mr. Fry of Quebec.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

That is locking the stable after the horse is stolen.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

We are not, from this side of the House, going to offer 'one objection to the composition of the commisison. It is my pleasure to know two of the gentlemen very well. I have every confidence in them, and if the Prime Minister will now place this great matter of transportation in the hands of that commission, and let them receive evidence and report upon it, I think I can say that they will get every assistance from this side of the House, and

the Prime Minister will get every assistance from us in having the report of that commission carried out. I do not think that is an unfair proposition. These gentlemen were appointed by the government and if the matter is now referred to them they will take evidence and report upon it, and this side of the House will join with hon. gentlemen opposite in carrying out the report they make.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade); who has held the attention of the House for the last three hours, endeavoured during the first hour of his speech to make it as unpleasant as he possibly could for us on this side of the House. After trying to create difficulties between the two provinces, he then attacked individuals ; he attributed motives-motives that if true would be most unworthy. He made the statement that when the leader of the opposition announced this scheme of his through-connections for a transcontinental road, Mr. Osier, a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway had used his influence with the leader of the opposition to get him to relieve the Canadian Pacific Railway of an unprofitable part of their system. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) had ,no right to say anything of the kind. Mr. Osier is known and favourably known from one end of this Dominion to the other. No greater insult could be offered to the friends of Mr. Osier who know him well-and I believe gentlemen on the other side of the House know Mr. Osier well-than to say that he ever used his influence in any manner whatsoever for such a purpose. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) had a good case, why was it necessary for him to impute such motives to gentlemen who stand high, not only in this House, but throughout Canada. Then the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wade) paid a little attention to myself. It appears that when a certain statement was made from the other side of the House, I referred to it as a humbug. Well, I am going to stand by that; I don't make statements unadvisedly.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

I suppose it is. When I used the expression the Finance Minister was reading a survey of the exploration of northern Ontario which he called a report. Now, we are discussing a great transcontinental railroad to be built from Moncton to the Pacific coast, a' most important undertaking, and the Finance Minister after reading from the introduction of this report, went on to speak of this country as having been explored and having been examined, and he argued that such a road as that described by the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) could be built through this country at a reasonable price ; I think he said $25,000 or $30,000 a mile. I said that was humbug. Those who went into that part of northern Ontario did not

do so to survey for a railroad from east to west, and they have made no report about such a project at all. In fact, if we had such a report I feel confident that the.government would change the location of their railway and adopt the plan of the leader of the opposition. The hon. member for Annapolis denounced me in strong terms, but with these remarks I leave him in the hands of the House.

There has been some little talk about loyalty and some little talk about disloyalty. Well, people can be disloyal without being personally disloyal. They can be disloyal to the best interests of Canada without being personally disloyal. We have gone through strange changes in this country. I am old enough to have listened to some magnificent speeches from Liberal leaders favouring unrestricted reciprocity. But now, their cry is : We must have this road built right away, there is no time to be lost or the Americans will jump upon us and do away with the bonding privilege. But when the right hon. the Prime Minister advocated unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, what was he doing ? He offered to pour the whole wealth of this country of ours over the border ; he offered that the Americans should pour into this country their manufactured goods to the utter ruin of every manufacturer in Canada. That was the meaning of unrestricted reciprocity, and he advocated it with his eyes open. Don't let him talk any more about disloyalty. There never was a more disloyal scheme sprung on this country, but fortunately the people of Quia da knew their own interests too well to endorse it.

The member for Annapolis said amongst other things, that this project of the government was absolutely necessary to maintain this country in its present condition ; that we were two disjointed sections, separated by a hiatus of 1,000 miles. Well, Sir. the day has gone by when Lake Huron and Lake Superior can be called separating barriers. I say on the contrary that they join ns together. We have the best kind of communication with that country every day over these great inland waters, and when members on the other side say that we are separated by these waters they are making a big mistake. You will excuse me, Sir, if I give my views in-a somewhat disjointed way, because I have not had that legal training that would place me in a positiou to answer such an eminent legal light as the member for Annapolis. The hon. gentleman told us that the possibility was that the people of our Canadian west might join their fortunes with the people to the south of us. Well, I don't believe that there was ever any possibility of that. Better British subjects" than those in the North-west do not exist anywhere in Canada ; they are not only thoroughly loyal to Canada, but what is more, they are thoroughly loyal to their own interests. They know

that the whole Dominion is just as much bound up in their prosperity as they are themselves. They will have no cause to complain of our conduct towards them, and there is no object in gentlemen on the other side trying to raise issues of that kind to bolster up a bad case. X think I heard some call this proposition of the government an hysterical scheme, which was rushed into without proper consideration. But, Sir, when I heard the contract read, I could see that there was a guiding hand to it, and I could,1 understand the wisdom of Mr. Hays refusing either to build the railway proposed by the government, or to pay. any rent for it, for seven years at any race. He did consent, and I do not think it required much pressure to make him consent, to build a road from Winnipeg west, and to accept from the government a guarantee of $13,000 per mile. I do not think he refused to do that. But somebody has said that the days for bonuses to railways have gone by. They have. The days for granting bonuses for railways through the wealthy and settled parts of these provinces have gone by. If you are going to grant any assistance, it should be to open up new country. Now, let us see what was the first project sprung upon this country

! think it was thr ugli the 1 Globe ' newspaper- by the Grand Trunk Company ; the hon. Finance Minister rose upon his toes and said to the old Grand Trunk. Bet us see what the old Grand Trunk were goiug to do for the country. They were going to connect their system via North Bay with the great west, opening up a country north of Bake Winnipeg, and thence to the Pacific. The hon. Minister of the Interior was hunting about for authorities to show who were advocating the Grand Trunk Pacific, and he read several interviews, one by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), and another by myself. Mr. Clarke can take care of himself. The hon. Minister of the Interior quoted me as saying that I was delighted that the old Grand Trunk were going to continue their system through the west, north of Bake Winnipeg and on to the coast. He quoted my approval of that scheme as an approval of the present scheme of the government. True he had to take it back ; but it showed his animus ; it showrnd what he wanted to do. I may again have to quote the hon. Minister of the Interior, and I am very sorry he is not here.

Now, this matter has been before this House and before the country for a great many days. We have now two schemes before the House and the country. We have that of the hon. leader of the opposition, a scheme which somebody has said he developed in eighteen days. Well, I consider that he has done good work in that time. He has merely outlined a scheme, and that scheme will commend itself to a man of business, who honestly sits down and studies

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

the situation, taking into consideration the conditions and the wants of Canada. One of the great needs of the day is to place ourselves in the position to bring the grain of the west as far east as we can, through Canadian wmterways and over Canadian railways to Canadian ports. That is the project placed before the country by this side of the House; and, mark you, if the country spends its money upon that project, the country is going to own it. We are not going to wait for eight years before we get any return. We have not got to pay the expenses of these roads for seven or eight years; we have not to lie out of our interest for that time. From the very day the arrangement is made, and these railways are taken over, they will pay their way. There is no doubt about that. With regard to the much talked of line between North Bay and Fort William, over which one railway is running at present, it is said that that piece of road cost $60,000 a mile. The present government propose-may I say to parallel it ?-to build a railway some fifty or one hundred miles north of it, which also they will find will cost them $60,000 a mile. Then there will be two railways there which will have cost $60,000 a mile each. The owners of the Canadian Northern system want to bring that railway down to the eastern part of Canada. If they do, they will have to build another railroad at a cost of $60,000 a mile; and the Grand Trunk Pacific, or the old Grand Trunk, wanting to get ihto that country, would also have to build a railway at the same cost. So you would have four railroads running through that country, all of them costing about the same amount of money. The proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition is to combine these four railways, giving them all an equal right to run over that road, and thus to diminish to each the expense of haulage. Do you mean to tell me that is impossible V Railroad corporations are business corporations. When the Canadian Pacific Railway Company undertook to build a railway from Toronto to Hamilton, how were they met ? They were met by the Grand Trunk Company, who said : Cannot we make an arrangement and save you something and save ourselves something ? And the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway Companies, by a friendly arrangement, both used the tracks of the Grand Trunk from Toronto to Hamilton without any difficulty. And yet, it is said that the Canadian Pacific cannot make a satisfactory arrangement to allow these other railways to run over their line. I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway Company might not be able to do so. The plan of this country is not to let the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have all the say, as the government are allowing the Grand Trunk Pacific Company to'liave all the say. The plan of this country is, either by expropriation or by fair terms agreed upon,

to make the proposed arrangement. It is just as much in the interest of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to have the expenses of that line divided up among the other railways as it is for the other railways to have running powers over it; and it is all in the interest of Canada that all these railways shall be controlled by the government Of Canada.

There is a matter in connection with the country from Quebec to Winnipeg which 1 think is worthy of examining for a little while. We have heard some reports upon it quoted. I may say that some five years ago I had the honour of being appointed by the mayor and corporation of the city of Toronto as one of a commission to have an investigation made of the capabilities of that very country. Mr. Lyman Melvin Jones, the present senator, was another, along with Mr. Herbert Mason, Mr. Robert Davies and Mr. George Gooderham. We came to this House and got a charter in our own names on behalf of the city of Toronto. We sent an exploring party of surveyors up to investigate that country. Have you heard of a road being built since by the wealthy city of Toronto V Some of our friends speak of Toronto as 'Hogtown'; if it were going to be such an advantage to us to open up that country, if there was such a magnificent clay belt there, and if it was so rich in minerals and timber, why did not the city of Toronto have a railway built into it ? I believe the time will come when it will be built for a certain distance; that is, a colonization road. That is the only way you can colonize that country-you have to aim at the fertile spots. It is no use to build a railway 1,800 miles long to wabble about through that country to find its fertile spots. You cannot even locate your stations in the morasses up there. I know the kind of treatment given to any one who wants to tell the simple truth about that country. One of the worst services you can render it is to deceive the people about it. Many people who went to northern Ontario to settle have returned. I do not say they have returned from the best parts of it. They may have been disappointed, and got bad land; but they came back telling sad stories about the winter they passed in northern Ontario. There is, I believe, very good land westward from Lake St. John; but this projected road does not go within 100 or 150 miles of that land. Remember that this is north of the height of land. This is not on the south side where there is any timber, but you have to go north of the height of land; and I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) speak of its being in the Artie region himself this morning. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), understands all about timber and timber limits. He knows how closely people investigate timber limits. Would the hon. gentleman put $100,000 into a timber limit in that country on information which the

right hon. gentleman the First Minister deemed sufficient to warrant the building of this 1,800 mile railway V Would he, supposing there were any timber limits up there send up $100,000 to buy a timber limit, without any investigation ? Would he change his mind in going from one room to the other with regard to timber limits as he did with regard to this scheme when he suddenly became converted from an opponent into a strong supporter of it V

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I shall be happy to answer the hon. gentleman. He asks if I would be willing to put $100,000 into a timber limit in the country though which this road is to pass without examination. I answer no. But I am satisfied, with the information I have, that this road will open up a great many timber limits worth more than $100,000 ; and as soon as that road is projected and well advanced in construction I shall go in there and buy timber lands.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

The hon. gentleman is perfectly willing that the country should spend $50,000,000, $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 on information on which he would not buy a timber limit. There is no doubt about that. The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Mackie) also endorsed this scheme. He has travelled through that country, he has been in a great many parts of it, but not as a railway builder, not with the view of investigating whether we could get there these magnificent grades, without which the hon. member for North Norfolk told us the road would not be any good. Twenty-one feet to the mile or four-tenths of one per cent, I think, was his idea of the grade. Unless they could get that grade, unless it was a first-class road, unless it could carry 2,000 tons to the train, it would be no good. On my responsibility as a member of parliament, and! (as one who has (Obtained everything he has in this world in this Dominion and in this province, I say that a worse scheme has never been devised. It has been called a mad scheme. I have no right to impute improper motives, and have no intention of doing so, but I will say this, that if it be a good scheme, I am strongly in favour of government ownership. The government money is going in to build that road from Moncton to Winnipeg. The government are building that road through a country concerning whioh we have very little information. When the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) says that a grade can be got in that country such as the hon. member for North Norfolk makes compulsory. he says that a grade can be found which no engineer has ever yet discovered there. The engineers may find such a grade; but if they do, as my hon. friend from Pic-tou (Mr. Boll) has said, they will, in order to go a distance of three miles, have to cover twenty-two miles. But X have not got through with that North-west country yet.

X have here the report of a gentleman given as to the quality of that country. He says it is 400 miles in extent. That is a pretty good length to build a railway through. Then he proceeds to say :

Theu we have sections 10, 11 and 12 at the other end of the line, which do not constitute a country which we can call an agricultural country. The last 300 miles, or probably 400 miles, of the line is in a country which it cannot be successfully asserted is likely to be a country which will amount to very much as an agricultural country. There are occasional patches of .good land along the water courses, but they are not large in extent.

This is not the language of an opponent of the government. It is not the opinion of a man who is looked upon as unfriendly to tlie government. It is a statement made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, (Hon. Mr. Sifton). I do not think that the right hon. the Prime Minister can possibly have looked into this matter as he should have done before launching it on the public.

The government started out this year early with another proposition which the Prime Minister did not propose off his own bat, but after deliberation. They started out with a scheme to solve the great transportation problem by land and water. They were going to appoint a commission of experts who would take evidence. There was no talk then of building this road at once. There was no talk about the abrogation of the bonding privilege ; they were going to take time to deliberate and report. In what position is that commission ? In what position is the government at present ? They surely have not appointed men in whom they have no confidence. Should we not take it for granted that the men they have appointed are men in whom they have every confidence ? I know two of them, and will bank upon them myself. I believe that they will do what is right and honest. I would like to have those three men investigate this scheme from Moncton to Winnipeg and submit a report to this House, and I know that they will not bring in a favourable report unless the scheme is a good one. We should have their investigation and report before committing ourselves to this project. Let the government hasten slowly, and have confidence in its own commission. The opposition do not ask to be represented on that commission. The right hon. gentleman must show his confidence in his own commissioners, or how can he expect the country to have any confidence In them or him ? Let this project go before that commission, let the commissioners take evidence and report, and let the right hon. gentleman, if necessary, call an extra session to receive and consider that report Let the government place plenty of money at their disposal for surveys, and let these commissioners find out whether we can build such a road through this country as the hon. member for North Norfolk says we Mr. BROCK.

must, or if not wipe the thing out altogether.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Suppose we find out in the meantime, within the next month perhaps, that we can get just such a line as we want, with four-tenths of one per cent grade ?

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

This scheme, we are told, is very intelligible ; and to show how intelligible it is, the government have placed a map on the Table. This map was brought down here to show that the scheme is feasible and practicable, but I defy anybody to make anything out of that map. All the lines run north and south. There are none running east and west to show that the country has been examined from a railway point of view. The great difficulty about the whole thing, I am afraid, is that our respected Premier has not given it the attention he should have. Internal trouble in the cabinet and quarrels in the Council Chamber have probably urged him forward.

I do not mean to say he did it to get rid, of any of his ministers, but that he was urged into hasty and ill-considered action by the troubles he found rising about him. And I believe he will live to seriously regret what he has done. We have had a good deal of detraction by some hon. gentlemen opposite of very important members of this House who sit on their own side, including efforts to impute motives to these gentlemen. Members of this House who., for years have applauded the ex-Minister of Railways, now get up and find fault with the members on this side because, after being silent all these years we did applaud that hon. gentleman. We did applaud him. and this country is applauding him for the position he took. But it comes with very bad grace from those whom, in many cases he has almost made, to speak of him as they have done. I cannot forbear to refer to one gentleman particularly. He came into this House with a great flourish and was spoken of as an acquisition to our membership. His scholarly attainments were praised in advance and we were led to hope great things of him. I refer to the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell). This hon. gentleman sought to belittle the ex-Minister of Railways. The hon. gentleman ought to know that he does his own side no good by attempting to belittle one who has acted with them all these years. Suppose that a merchant had a man in his employment, who, after twenty years of service decided to make a change, would that merchant raise himself in the estimation of others by seeking to belittle the man who had been with him so long ? After having approved him for twenty years, would he win approval by speaking of him as unfit to tie his shoes ? Nothing of this kind was required from the hon. member for Hants. We will not impute motives, but we will watch and see what the result will be.

I wish to draw attention to one matter in connection with this new commission. It is fair to do that, so that it may be known where we are. One member of this commission is strongly committed to the scheme of the Prime Minister now before the House. I do not know whether he would have been appointed if he had opposed it. If the commission will investigate and promise to report on the schemes on their merits notwithstanding all that has been said, we on this side are perfectly prepared to place ourselves and the interests of the country in the hands of this commission. I think that under the circumstances it will be an evident sign of weakness, or obstinacy, which is very often weakness, if this offer is refused. But if it is not accepted I think the duty of the Prime Minister, as soon as he can get through with the business of this House is to give us an appeal to the country. We are prepared for it. We are prepared to go before the country and let the people choose between the schemes placed before them. X know what the result will be. Efforts are made to show that public opinion has expressed approval of. the government's scheme. The Minister of the Interior showed that certain resolutions had been passed by boards of trade, or rather by councils of boards of trade. I have been a member of the council of a board of trade for twenty or thirty years, and I know that most extraordinary things have got through that council. All you have to do is to have a friend of two advised to attend the meeting, and it is wonderful what you can get through. Of course, you must take good care to bring the matter up in the absence of those who are opposed to it. Somebody once said that he could get petitions signed to have the signers' grandmothers hanged. And so you can arrange to have almost anything approved by councils of boards of trade. Those who passed this resolution probably did not have these two schemes before them. And, like some other people, in the innocence of their hearts, no doubt, they placed some dependence on the statement of the Prime Minister that he had mountains of information about the country through which this road is to run. They supposed, not that he had read a few old reports, but that he had something reasonable in the way of definite information to show we could build a road through that country. It is of mo use to tell us that carrots and cabbages grow at a certain point in that northern country or that oats will ripen in some portions of it. The proposition is to build a railway, and to build a railway such as was described by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who spoke with authority ns to the character of the road required. You need to tell us something more than that cabbages can be grown in that country before you can convince the people of Canada that they ought to build that road.

I must draw these disjointed remarks to a close. I wish they could have been stronger;

I wish they could have been strong enough to impress the minds of lion, gentlemen on the other side. I have only to do the best I can, but 1 think I may fairly say that in making any statements, I have not made them for political effect, or to benefit any political party or any province or section. There has been a little too much of that kind of thing in this debate from the very first. I was in the committee room when this road from Quebec to Moncton was forced on Mr. Hays and upon theli committee. The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) made a most eloquent appeal and let the government know pretty plainly that this road must be made a part of the scheme. So it was that we got to Moncton. In the first jilace, Mr. Hays did not want even to build the line from North Bay to Quebec. The fact that Mr. Hays accepted these propositions one after another naturally arouses suspicion that he was looking to work something in by which he would be made pretty safe. And I think that when the contract comes to be carefully analyzed in this House it will be shown where Mr. Hays will be able to slip out and let the government in. Of course, I won't set up my opinion against those of the clever lawyers who have spoken. But opinions have been asked, and I believe, given, and by pretty clever lawyers too, pointing out just iiow this can be done. I do not wish you to think, Mr. Speaker, that I am by any means attempting to explain the scheme of the leader of the opposition. That hon. gentleman and other members who are better aware than I am how matters can be arranged in connection with the legal difficulties that may arise, will lay the matter fully before you and before this House. But it seems to me a feasible scheme. As I said, the roads are now in operation, and directly the government takes them over they become a paying proposition. We are not to keep running these roads for seven years and lie out of our money during that time before we get any return. Therefore, deliberately and with the best knowledge I have, I give my preference to the scheme which has been presented by this side of the House rather than to this most extraordinary proposal which is being pressed upon this House by the government.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Cyrille Albert Malouin

Liberal

Mr. A. MALOUIN (Quebec Centre).

(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate, I do not propose to speak at any length. I only wish to offer a few suggestions and to give my reasons for supporting the railway policy submitted by the government. This scheme for the building of a transcontinental railway, which is now before the House, has, I think, been considered with care and is worthy of our approval. In the first place, it has, from its. inception, met with general commenda-

tion throughout the country. We all remember that in October and November last, when the Grand Trunk Pacific made public its intention of forming itself into a company for the building of a railway to the coast, the whole press of the country, in giving the news, stated that the undertaking was one of absolute necessity and which would be of the greatest service to Canada. However, two companies were in existence at the time requesting help from the government for the carrying out of such an undertaking. When the scheme for the building of a transcontinental railway was brought forward, all admitted that the plan was a good one and should be carried out. It was recognized by all that before long we should have another railway across the continent.

Subsequently, came the opening of this session ; and the promoters of the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company came before parliament and asked for a charter authorizing them to carry out the undertaking. So, the matter was brought up before the House, and later on before the Railway Committee.

When the scheme was first made known to the public, the starting point was to be North Bay, that is it was to run from North Bay westward to the coast. Then, it was decided to alter the location for the purpose of .meeting the wishes of the people of the maritime provinces and of Quebec. In submitting the matter to the Railway Committee, tiie promoter of the Bill (Mr. McCarthy) thought proper to move an amendment providing that the proposed road should be extended in direct line to Quebec, and from Quebec to the maritime provinces. That amendment was carried. In accordance with that amendment, the road was to be built wholly on Canadian soil, thereby benefiting all the provinces of Canada. At the time, the scheme was received with pleasure, not only by the Liberal members, but by the Conservatives as well. We are all aware of the discussion which took place on that Bill before the committee, and which lasted for three long weeks. I remember that those who exerted themselves tiie most to secure the passing of the Bill, which was finally agreed to. and is now known as a Transcontinental Railway Bill, were members of tiie opposition, and among others, tiie lion, member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). who was very tenacious on behalf of the scheme. Before the committee, tiie lion, member for Montmorency, thinking that tiie motion made by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) had solely for its object to deceive those wlio were in favour of the extension of tiie road eastward, urged that the various sections of tiie railway should be constructed simil-taneousl.v.

The hon. member for Annapolis, as we all remember, introduced a motion which has since been designated as the Wade motion.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Cyrille Albert Malouin

Liberal

Mr. MALOUIN.

That lion, member, in common with the other representatives of the maritime provinces, believed, at the time, that the intention was to frustrate their expectations, and accordingly this famous motion was drafted. As I have just stated, the hon. member for North Simcoe had moved an amendment providing that the said transcontinental railway should start from Winnipeg and run by way of Quebec and Moncton. With a view to ensuring the construction of that part of the road, Mr. Wade moved :

Provided, however, that the work of construction on the Quebec section and east of Quebec be commenced at or near Quebec, and carried on simultaneously east and west, and that the said sections be operated at the same time, and no such section shall be operated without the other.

So that the desire of the hon. member for Annapolis was that the Quebec section and the Moncton section Should be build simultaneously.

In the course of the debate, the hon. Minister of Finance suggested that It was not customary to lay down such terms in granting charters to private companies. He added : Should the government decide to grant some help or other towards building the road, they would be careful to lay down conditions which would ensure its construction. The hon. member for Annapolis complied with the request of the Minister of Finance and agreed to withdraw his motion ; but the hon. member for Montmorency, who was posing as the champion of the interests of Quebec, took exception to tbe withdrawal of the motion and a 'vote was taken. The member for Montmorency, and the member for Laval and Nicolet voted in support of the Wade motion. By that vote they have given their assent to the principle that the railway* should be built, not only to Quebec, but as far as Moncton. As for us, representatives of the province 6f Quebec, we voted against the motion on the ground that we did not wish to lay a heavy burden upon tiie company before it had received any help from tiie government. We said : When the government will have made up their minds to help the company, it will be time then to exact terms ; but until then the company should not be interfered with. The hon. members for Montmorency, Laval and Nicolet said : On the contrary, the company

should be bound at once. These gentlemen laid down tbe principle that the line should he built immediately and an exceedingly heavy burden put on the shoulders of the company, a burden to which it is not customary to subject them. But the Conservative papers of the province of Quebec did ail in their poiwer to make it clear that tiie undertaking in question was of vital importance for the whole province : and at the same time, they taunted the members

from the district of Quebec for not having1 voted in support of the Wade motion. *

In the course of this debate, the views expressed by newspapers in Ontario and various other provinces have been quoted to show what public sentiment was in the various localities. Let me quote, now, front the Quebec ' Evenement ' to show what was the sentiment of the press there at the time. But, before I give these extracts, let me state that the ' Evenement ' is the chief organ of the Conservative party in Quebec. It holds the same position in the district *of Quebec as the ' Mail ' and ' Empire ' in *Ontario. It is the property of Senator Landry and of Mr. L. P. Pelletier, who was recently selected as organizer of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. Let us see what views that paper expressed 'in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill ; *for it should not be forgotten that the ^scheme submitted to the Railway Committee is identical to that brought before this (House by the government and which is now .,under discussion. Neither should it be forgotten that it was distinctly understood .with all the members that the government (Was to grant help to the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. Now, Sir, what happened ? ;The Wade motion was negatived by the .(committee. Immediately the ' Evenement.' -on June 6, published the following article intituled : ' Where are our representatives?'

We urgently draw the attention of our readers to the report of yesterday's meeting of the Railway Committee.

Where are our representatives ?

Once more, where are they ?

Mr. Casgrain fought valiantly, but who supported him ? No other name is mentioned from [DOT]Quebec.

It is obvious that the Grand Trunk Pacific intends to deceive us.

Why should they reject amendments intended to protect Canadian ports, if they really wish to build a Rational line ?

Sir Wilfred Laurier said the other day that great corporations easily evade legislative [DOT]enactments.

That is a further reason for making these stronger, and requiring additional security.

Quebec will he left aside once more, if the [DOT] company is not bound to carry on the work simultaneously eastward and westward from the city.

That is the object of the Wade amendment, and we are thankful to Mr. Casgrain for enere getically upholding our claims. The member for Montmorency stated that should the committee reject that amendment, he would submit it once more to the House.

We notice with pleasure the courageous stand taken by the representatives of the maritime provinces, wTho, heedless of party allegiance, insist on their rights being recognized. Their interest is the same as ours. What force would they not have altogether if the members from the Quebec district joined them. We have twenty representatives, and Mr. Casgrain is the -only one to fight our battle.

Those are the words of the ' Evenement,' the chief organ of the Conservative party in the district of Quebec. As regards ourselves,

we deemed it inopportune to subject the company to unusually burdensome conditions before the government had decided what measure of help they would extend. But, Sir, is it not obvious that hon. members who, like the member for Montmorency, supported the Wade motion, concurred at the same time, and without reservation, in the principle which lies at the very foundation of the scheme submitted to this House ? In the same issue of that paper, its Ottawa correspondent, Who was no other than the member for Montmorency 'himself, or Senator Landry, wrote as follows :

Since the last meeting of the committee, the representatives of 'the Grand Trunk have met a certain number of members from the maritime provinces, and agreed to the line being built from Quebec to Moncton, and from that point connect with St. John and Halifax, by way of the Intercolonial.

But that has not given satisfaction to the other members from the east, and Mr. Wade has moved an amendment, with a view to bind the company to build its line from Quebec to Moncton and from Quebec to Manitoba simultaneously.

Mr. Casgrain has gone over the history of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and shown that the company intends to extend its line outside of Canada, and have its winter port at Portland. It was only after a great deal of agitation in Quebec that the location was changed from North Bay to Lake Nepigon and thence to Quebec. That last link passed through an impracticable country, and he did not believe the company were in earnest, even if they should start building the section east from Quebec. He has in hand information which goes to show that the people in the east will be deceived. The Dominion government should not vote one dollar before the company gives indisputable pledges of its good faith. Mr. Casgrain adds that should the committee reject Mr. Wade's amendment, he will introduce a motion on similar lines in the House, so as to have a vote on the question.

That is What the member for Montmorency or Senator Landry wrote in the 1 Evenement,' as that paper's correspondent.

To carry out his promise, the hon. member for Montmorency gave notice, that same day, that, on the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill being called for its third reading, he would move as follows :-

Provided that in the event of the company receiving from the Government of Canada any assistance, either by way of subsidies, moneys, land grants, guarantees, loans, or in any other manner whatever, the work of construction on the Quebec section be commenced simultaneously with the work on the woodland and prairie sections, and be completed and put in operation simultaneously therewith and before the Company exercise any of the powers conferred upon it by section 33 of the present Act in respect to ' lease and running powers over other railways.'

So, the hon. member for Montmorency was exceedingly anxious that this part of the road should be built. He threatened to move that the company should build the Quebec

9S88

section at the same time as the *woodland or prairie section.

The campaign carried on by the ' Evene-ment ' may, I think, be of use later, when elections are on (I know not when). In the meantime, let us look into the statements made by that paper, in the name of its party.

On June 4, the 1 Evenement ' stated :

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA LINE.
Permalink

THEY ARE AGAINST US.


Yesterday, we put the question : ' Where are our representatives ? ' The answer came to us yesterday afternoon :


August 27, 1903