April 6, 1904

LIB

Clifford Sifton (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. SIFTON.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Clifford Sifton (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. SIFTON.

That is their busine they have to do it under the contract- ^

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGART.

It is not in the c

tract,

. alter

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Edmund Boyd Osler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OSLER.

The government mi%a

the contract next year.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Clifford Sifton (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. SIFTON.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

David Tisdale

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TISDALE.

That' is without rolling

stock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
?

Mr HAGGART.

No ; in that there is an allowance of $3,000 per mile for rolling stock. But the gradients are, m man>

cases, 90 feet per mile going north and from 50 to 00 feet per mile going south. I venture to say that the cost of the road from the interprovincial boundary-that is, from the end of the prairie section-to Lake Nipis-sing will be as great as that of the Canadian Pacific from the interprovincial boundary toward Port Arthur. I have stated before that some parts of that road cost $60,000 per mile to grade. It is through a country just such as my hon. friend describes-he uses the very words I used-a country with knobs of granite interspersed here and there with immense muskegs. It is not a difficult country as regards gradients, yet it is one of the most difficult countries on earth for railway building-a lacustrine country with granite ridges.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGAKT.

Where are they to get! the money in the ' meantime to proceed with the undertaking ? Is that to be furnished by the government ?

Mr. Hays continued :

-and then after that eight years have rolled by, you have seven years yet on the mountain section, a part on which there seems to be some doubt. There can be not the slightest doubt as to what the returns will be from the prairie section, but on the mountain section you have seven years without any claim at all, three years after that only a claim on what is earned, making, therefore, before the mountain section becomes anything of a burden on the railway, eighteen ye,ars.

That is the liability of (lie Grand Trunk Railway Company in reference to the matter. In criticising the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the hon. Minister of the Interior, referring to the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal, from Montreal to the Georgian Bay and if necessary to Winnipeg, and to the western section of the country, said that the evidence to be found in this House is that my hon. friend was bitterly opposed to the extension of the road to Montreal. My hon. friend never did anything of the kind. What he did oppose was a had bargain which was made by the government with the Drummond County Railway Company and with the Grand Trunk Railway Company in order to get Into the city of Montreal. He never opposed the extension of the In ter colon i il Railway to Georgian Bay. The hon. minister stated also that my leader need not be opposed to the conditions made with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, because the General Railway Act makes provision in reference to the tolls and rates that are to be charged by all railways in the country, that the control of rates has

been given to the railway commission ami that it would be useless to embody such a provision in the agreement made with the Grand Trunk Railway Company. But in the same breath he said that this government had acted differently on another occasion, that when they had the opportunity they made a bargain in reference to the Crow's Nest Pass railway, fixing the freight rates. If it were a work of supererogation in reference to the Grand Trunk Pacific, why embody this provision in the bargain with the Crow's Nest Railway Company ? It is true that we have control over freight rates. It is true that we have the right to expropriate railways. We have the general power of confiscation, of taking them absolutely without remuneration. The parliament of Canada is invested with these powers, but we have never exercised them except on reasonable grounds. We could not take into consideration the $150,000,000 given by the government of Canada for the purpose of building this road and fixing the freight rates, nor could the commission do it. This is a gift from the people of Canada under the conditions embodied in the contract, and the fixing of rates and tolls must take into consideration, not the gift of the people of Canada of $150,000,000, but the actual value of the undertaking itself. Therefore, the condition as proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was a perfectly proper one to be embodied in this Bill. What are we doing ? We are giving $150,000,000 for the purpose of completing this line. The parties who are the beneficiaries only give $15,000,000. We make no conditions as to freight rates or anything else. The hon. Minister of the Interior says that there is no necessity for it, that the board of railway commissioners, presided over by the best railway authority in Canada, will fix the rates nolens volens on the line of the Grand Trunk Railway. No necessity for embodying it in the contract ? There is just as much necessity for embody, jng it in this contract as there was for embodying it in the contract for the construction of the Crow's Nest Railway. Then it is proposed to alter our position as to our security for the money that we advance on the prairie and western sections of the road. The reason given by the hon. Minister of the Interior, is that we want to allay the apprehension of the stockholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company and show to the world the confidence of the people <,f this country in this undertaking. These are the reasons given by the hon. gentleman for changing the securities. They may be patent reajsonsf. They may ,be j-estsons which influenced the government of this country, but fancy the parties to an arrangement of that kind, business men, asserting these as reasons for the purpose of modifying the security and giving to ( tlier securities an equality with them.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
?

Mr. E. B.@

That is, getting into the Northwest.

-we caused a Bill to be introduced into the Canadian parliament for securing a charter of incorporation for the creation of a company with an independent organization, but in close connection with and under the control of the Grand Trunk Company for the purpose of building a lino of railway from a point of junction on the Grand Trunk line, passing through the most fertile districts of the Northwest and terminating at a port on the Pacific coast.

So, the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company tells his shareholders that his company caused the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill to be Introduced into this House. He said he was in negotiation with the government for it eighteen months ago. The Grand Trunk were at the back of the Bill. Through a dummy, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, they carried on negotiations with this government. That is the statement of the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company to his shareholders, and I presume that it. Is correct. He says also :

When I addressed them

The shareholders,

-in the month of April last year, it might reasonably be expected that such a scheme might be carried through without engaging in any way the credit of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Company.

Now, Sir, I appeal to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Finance and to every member of the government, if they did not, in the House last year, state that this scheme was backed by the Grand Tiunk,

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

No mouth organs.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Edmund Boyd Osler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OSLER.

That is evident, because, ns my hon. friend from East Simicoe (Mr. Bennett), says, there are no mouth organs in this business. I commend and highly compliment the government upon the decision they have arrived at, that none of tlieir supporters are to get up and attempt to *justify tliis bargain.

Some lion, members. Oh, oh.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Edmund Boyd Osler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OSLER.

We hope they will cluing >

tlieir minds, because tlio more this contract is attempted to be justified, the more its hideous colour will be disclosed. Let us take tlie contrast between the speech delivered by the right lion. Prime Minister this session and the .speech which lie delivered lust year. Why liis speech last vear carried us all off our feet ! There was

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
CON

Edmund Boyd Osler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OSLER.

That is the Grand Trunk Railway caused a Bill to be introduced.

We caused a Bill to be introduced into the Canadian parliament for securing a charter of incorporation for the creation of a company with an independent organization, but in close connection with and under the control of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, for the purpose of building a line of railway from a point of junction at or on the Grand Trunk line, passing through the most fertile districts of the Northwest and terminating at a port on the Pacific coast. Under the natural impression that a scheme of this nature would' commend itself to the approval, and would obtain the support and encouragement of the government and parliament of Canada, so liberally accorded to other railway enterprises. I ventured to suggest to the shareholders, when I addressed them in the month of April last year, that it might reasonably be expected that such a scheme must be carried through without in any way engaging the credit of the Grand Trunk Company shareholders.

Now, Mr. Prime Minister, what have you to say to the statement that I think was made by yourself and by every member of the government, that the Grand Trunk was behind your scheme body and bones.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

Of it and in it.

.Mr. OSLER. Yes, of it and in it. The president of the Grand Trunk Company in addressing the shareholders last month states, that that scheme which he negotiated with this government, according to his idea, did not commit the credit of the Grand Trunk shareholders to one dollar.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

William Mulock (Minister of Labour; Postmaster General)

Liberal

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

That is not what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) read. Sir Rivers-Wilson says that when he introduced it it was of that character.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Edmund Boyd Osler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. OSLER.

Exactly ; he refers to the scheme that was carried through last year.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink

April 6, 1904