March 30, 1909

CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

My hon. friend has a perfect right to ask questions and I will answer him to this extent, that it is beyond all peradventure-and the application for $10,000,000 in addition to the indebtedness and liabilities we have incurred is a proof- that it would have been far better for this *country if the government had held its hand and allowed the Grand Trunk to build the road as they wished, from North Bay through to the Pacific Coast, so that long ere this the crops would have been hauled out of the great Northwest over that road. If my hon. friend knew as he should have known, that all the government was asked to give was the ordinary bonus of perhaps some $13,000,000 or $14,000,000, and that in consideration thereof the Grand Trunk Pacific had offered to hand over every pound of freight from the west to the Intercolonial Railway at Montreal, then I think my hon. friend will admit it would have been better for the country had the project been accepted. The more closely we look into the comparison made by hon. gentlemen between this scheme and the Canadian Pacific Railway project, the more remote the two schemes seem to be from any resemblance or propinquity to one another. The Minister of Finance says that the government in this case is acting as a banker. If he means they are acting as the manager of a bank would act, I agree, but if he means as a banker in the sense of putting up the cash I would be inclined to say that the railway is coming to the people of Canada and not to the government for this loan. This is a pure business proposition. It is impossible perhaps to discuss such a question entirely without party sentiment, but I regret that that is the case if it is the case, as this is an important national question, and we ought at least to try to discuss it on its merits.

If any hon. gentleman opposite really believes it is in the interest of the country, after weighing the facts and arguments, he has a perfect right to support the resolution. But if, on the other hand, any hon. member of this House, I care not on which side he sits, honestly believes that it is not a business proposition-and that is the ground upon which the hon. Finance Minister laid it down before the House- if any hon. gentleman opposite says that this is not such a proposition as a banker should accept, then, I do not think he is doing his duty to himself, and he is certainly npt doing his duty to this country, if he vot.es for that loan believing it to be wrong. Supposing now that we were to put ourselves in the position of bankers for a moment-and it would be rather a pleasant supposition for each of us to think of a needy mendicant coming to us and asking for a loan of Mr. CONMEE.

$10,000,000-let us see what inquiries we would make before we advanced this amount of money. Supposing the railways came to the people of Canada and asked for a loan of $10,000,000; would it be untrue if the people said: 'We are very sorry but we have not $10,000,000 to loan?' It is customary for bankers, when they have not the money, to go out and borrow it at a higher rate of interest to loan it to another man? Is that the custom? If this is a Conservative attack on a government scheme, I would ask calmly, is that the custom of bankers and would bankers say that it is good business? If a person came with ample security and said that he wished to borrow $10,000,000, if the bank had not $10,000,000 and if the banker had been trying to borrow many millions of dollars in the past year and was only able to borrow forty per cent of what he wanted in the markets of the world, does it strike any one as a business proposition that the banker would entertain any such project? We will suppose that the banker was good natured and, like some other bankers, wished to do business regardless of whether the business was profitable or not, and he undertook to raise $10,000,000 and to lend it to you at four per cent; would that be considered a business transaction? What is your security? First the security of the Grand Trunk Pacific and then the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Railway Company which owes the country millions and millions of dollars, which has not paid a cent which it does not have to, and which has not paid its preference bonds. Would not Miss Canada be apt to say to the members of the government who have been introducing this deputation: 'You have been here before with these same gentlemen; I will just look up my notebook and see what you told me upon the other occasions when you were here and see if you knew then what you were talking about.' Supposing that Miss Canada turned up ' Hansard ' and saw what these gentlemen had told her when they came to her in 1903. Every supporter of the government must believe that if Miss Canada were acting intelligently, if she knew nothing about this transaction except that the members of the governjnent had come and asked for a loan, and if she wanted to see what was their business capacity she would say to them: 'We will see how your promises in the past have been fulfilled.' It is only fair to say that the fulfilment of these promises would justify their loan. Miss Canada would say: 'It is true you gave us a lot of promises in 1903, but I will look at the statute-book and see what I have of them there.' She looks at the statute-book and finds that what was pledged to Canada in the form of contracts and in other ways was, in 1904, blotted out of the statute-book of Canada. Would not Miss Canada be likely to receive with suspicion a proposition from gentlemen who came so

accredited? But the Minister of Finance, in laying that proposition before her says: 'Oh, Miss Canada, you should not be afraid of us; look carefully into the section and you will see that you have your first mortgage on this great system of railway.' And then, when Miss Canada looked in and saw that she did not have a first mortgage, that she had not a first class mortgage, that she did not have a mortgage that any lawyer in Canada would take for any client, except the Laurier government, would she not be justified in declining with thanks to enter into such a bargain ? But then, the Minister of Finance may say that they have a statement showing the large amount of money that has been spent by this virtuous corporation. They show that $8,000,000 has been put into rolling stock. Would it strike Miss Canada as being any certificate of business integrity, of business ability on the part of this insolvent corporation, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which seeks to borrow $10,000,000, that it had put $8,000,000 into rolling stock for a road that had not been opened? Does it strike one as a business transaction? When we find that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, which has no money, which is getting all it can get out of the Grand Trunk, has spent $8,000,000 on rolling stock and loaned that rolling stock to the Grand Trunk Railway Company at 4 per cent, when we remember that the lifetime of rolling stock would not at the most be more than fifteen or twenty years, and when we find this insolvent corporationpaying its debt back to its friends the rich no less poor corporation in this way, we can judge whether it is a transaction that would appeal to any business man in this country. Do you thinkMiss Canada would be inclined to treatwith such a company as that ? MissCanada might well say: 'I wonder if everything has been honest and square about this road from the beginning to the end? You gentlemen are coming here for $10,000,000, and it is a case of your honesty or nothing.' This corporation is honest or dishonest. It is not for me to say which. No honest man objects to letting his books be looked at. No honest man who wants to borrow money is ashamed to show where the money that he has already borrowed went.

Will the right hon. Prime Minister say that the Grand Trunk Pacific are so secure in their honesty, so proud of their expenditure that they are willing to allow their books to be looked into? Many hon. gentlemen in this House remember that when we took evidence before the Public Accounts Committee we found that it cost a Grand Trunk official thousands of dollars to come from Montreal to Ottawa although he travelled in his private car and probably lunched at the Rideau club and paid his

bill at the end of the month? We remember how thousands were paid to lawyers in the city of Ottawa, we remember how $150,000 were spent before the charter was granted and although the evidence before the committee showed that the Grand Trunk had charged this amount against the Grand Trunk Pacific, and that when they were asked for the vouchers they preferred to allow such items as $30,000 or $35,000 to go by the board rather than show the vouchers in reference to them. In addition we remember the fact that supporters of the government refused to allow gentlemen on this side of the House to probe these accounts in order to find where this $150,000 went. If any men or any company were to come and ask for a loan and knowing that they had made charges in their books, that they had rendered their accounts, that these had been submitted to an auditor and that when the auditor had asked for vouchers they had voluntarily withdrawn thousands and thousands of dollars rather than show their vouchers. I would like to ask the Premier himself if he would not insist upon a proper audit of their books before he advanced any money? We have had rumours throughout the country. My attention has just been called to the fact that after they had withdrawn the vouchers the evidence before the Public Accounts Committee showed that they had carefully burned them. At all events, these vouchers were recalled, the Grand Trunk Pacific were willing to forego the payment of their accounts, the vouchers were destroyed by the order of an officer of the company and when the Public Accounts Committee tried to secure the presence of an officer of the Grand Trunk Railway Company who could have told us about these matters he started for the Mediterranean on the first train and the man they sent up knew nothing at all about them. I think that the right hon. gentleman, if he himself were aware of such facts, would be inclined to be sceptical about advancing any more money if it is a business transaction as the Finance Minister says it is, and we are looking at it as bankers and asking ourselves if we can in justice to the country make such a loan. There have been rumours in the country and there has been evidence given in the Public Accounts and other committees which would lead people to think that neither on the government division nor on the western division has the road been economically constructed. Is there a single man in this House that believes that the fcuilding of a prairie road would cost $36,000 a mile. Why, Mr. Hays ought to be flayed alive; the government ought certainly to discipline him for daring to taunt them as he did when he writes about the

improved character of the road, when we remember that the justification given by the government originally for the high estimate of cost was that they were going to build a road equal to the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto which is universally admitted to be one of the finest pieces of railroad on the American continent. There cannot be any improvement on the character of the road which was guaranteed when the original money was advanced, and therefore I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that Charles M. Hays when he gives that as a reason is telling something he knows is not true, just as well as he knows of the burning of the vouchers and the refusal to show the accounts.

There is another feature in this: The Grand Trunk is mainly owned, I believe, in the old country. I am sorry, and every Canadian must be sorry, that the investment of the original Grand Trunk shareholders has turned out so badly. But does the government think it has any right to run the risk of making the position of the shareholders more desperate than it is, by lending money to a company that has so thrown away money in construction that when it comes to begin operations there will be such a burden of interest that the rates they will have to charge for transportation of freight and passengers will put them out of business in competition with other better managed railroads? Will not the last end of the English investors be worse than the first? Could anything be more calculated to injure the credit of Canada in the old country than to have our government hand and glove with a corporation that has not kept its word, that is so grasping that it wants everything in sight, that is so determined to make something out of nothing that without having put up anything themselves, they have walked off with twenty-five million dollars of the common stock of this railway? That stock is worth something or it is worth nothing; if it is worth nothing what are we to think of these gentlemen who perpetrate what I might cal] petty larceny in taking a worthless stock, and, if it is worth something, why should not the country have control of it in view of this advance of ten million dollars. It has been said that this road has gone so far that it must be completed. What has that got to do with the question now before the House. Here is a railroad which made certain promises in 1903 and which broke these promises one after another in 1904, and we paid the bill. Here is a road that made certain other promises in 1904 and which has been breaking them religiously, consistently, and persistently ever since, and which now comes and asks for ten Mr. NORTHRUP.,

million dollars, the first of probably half a dozen more ten millions for all we can tell. What guarantee can we have that a corporation that has deceived us every time up to date is suddenly going to reform and lead another and a better, and to us, a more satisfactory life. It seems to me, Sir, that after all the proposition is a simple one. We on this side of the House wish to preserve the credit of Canada, to do everything that is proper to attain that end, but when an insolvent company comes to us and says: 'If you

don't advance us ten million dollars the work will fail,' I would answer: 'Are you the only company in the world; are you the only people who can build a railway; are we absolutely dependent on the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk that we must put our necks under their heels and let them crush us into the ground? No, if you cannot build it somebody else can.' Sir, there is nobody in this country so poor or so simple or so ignorant that if you give him one hundred per cent of the cost of a railway he cannot build that railway. And when you think of a company which has been given one hundred per cent of the cost of construction, and then think of its magnates cooly and deliberately buying the town sites all along the line at $3 per acre, and when you think of them holding up municipality after municipality and saying they won't put their yards or their tracks here or there until blackmail is paid, when you find all this on top of the 100 per cent of the cost of the road we have given to them, are we to be blamed if we are a little suspicious of the honesty or the business capacity of the company that in face of all that comes and asks us as a first instalment for ten million dollars more?

Now, Sir, if on the prairie section, which every one will admit should be enormously less expensive than the mountain section, calculations were so far astray that they were ten million dollars out, who will dare to say they can build the mountain section for the sum they promised. Is it not a moral certainty that this is but the beginning of the end; is it not certain that this government will find they have an old man of the sea on their shoulders who every year will be here kicking for another ten millions or twenty millions? Why the day may not be far distant when we shall be thankful that the Grand Trunk Pacific will let us off for ten millions a year when they reach the mountain section. If that is to be, why should we not as a business transaction apart from all sentimental feeling, say to this company: ' There are other companies that can build this road; you have

had the grandest opportunity any company ever had in this world, first to build the road and next to make a fortune for everybody in connection with it; you failed utterly in the first, though rumour says you succeeded admirably in the second, after all the advantages you have had.' Then, would it not be the common sense view, would it not be the view of the man who has confidence in Canada and Canadians to say: 'If you, mainly foreigners, have fallen down, we have have good native Canadians who have the brains and the brawn to build that road and we will see it is built whether the Grand Trunk Pacific Company turns another sod or not.'

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
LIB

William Melville Martin

Liberal

Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of attention to the speeches delivered by the leader of the opposition and by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), but I have failed to discover whether these gentlemen are in favour of this loan or opposed to it. The fact is, Sir, that the interests of all Canada and the interests of western Canada in particular demand that this loan shall be granted by the government to the Grand Trunk Pacific in order, if possible, to complete the prairie section from Winnipeg to Wolf creek before the end of the present year. The transportation problem is the most important we have to deal with in Canada to-day, and it is of supreme importance to the west. There are settlers in that country cultivating land who live as far as 100 miles from a railway, and these men for whom we should have consideration cannot possibly make the profit out of their industry which they should. The hon. member for East Hastings stated that there have been some discreditable disclosures before the Public Accounts Committee, and although I was not here last year I presume that statement is on a par with the statements made throughout the length and breadth of Canada by hon. gentlemen opposite during the last campaign. I presume it is about as true as the statement of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) who went throughout the country telling what was absolutely untrue with regard to our western timber lands, and carrying with him his little magic lantern, taking upon himself to teach the people of the west what they should do with respect to their resources. If I remember correctly, the hon. leader of the opposition made a statement that the building of this road had been conceived in haste. I want to say that the people of western Canada are of the opinion that the building of the road was not conceived hastily enough. We think it ought to have been conceived three or four years sooner than it was; and if hon. gentlemen will take

the trouble to inquire in western Canada, to read the papers there, and even to read 'Hansard' of those days, they will find that the opinion was unanimously expressed throughout that country that there was absolute need for another transcontinental railway. I have here copies of two or three resolutions which were passed in western Canada in the years 1901, 1902, and 1903; and I want to call the attention of this House to these resolutions to show the incorrectness of. the statement of he hon. leader of the opposition, that the building of this road had been conceived in haste. The 'Regina Leader' in 1903 said:

For many weeks past first one merchant and then another has in vigorous language, drawn the attention of the ' Leader ' to the fact that the condition of railway traffic in the west is continually getting worse. The situation last year was had enough, when for days and sometimes weeks, merchants were completely out of certain lines of goods because the railway could not get them in. This year it was infinitely worse, for many business houses have been completely sold out of certain lines for weeks and months, notwithstanding the fact that their orders were placed in plenty of time and the goods promptly shipped by wholesalers in the east.

If that was the condition of affairs in 1902, it was equally so in 1903; and I speak from personal knowledge when I say that it was equally so during the years that succeeded. The legislature of the Northwest Territories in the fall of 1902 passed the following resolution, which I believe was forwarded to the Governor in Council at Ottawa:

The prospective increase in the volume of traffic, which largely increased cultivation and settlement of lands in these territories will gradually create, will further tend to congest ti affic between these territories and the provinces to the east, and unless it is held desirable to divert pant of the traffic through foreign channels, adequate facilities for transportation must be immediately provided. That this assembly does therefore humbly pray that Tour Excellency may be pleased to take such action as may be necessary or expedient to insure that the people of these territories are provided with an efficient transportation system as contemplated by the contract made between the people of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

With respect to the question whether or not cattle and grain produced on the western prairies were being diverted through American channels, I may say that I know of my own personal knowledge that cattle have been driven by farmers in Saskatchewan across the boundary line into the states of Montana and Dakota to be shipped on American trains; and thousands of bushels of wheat have been drawn during the past year by farmers in the southern portion of the province of Manitoba across the boundary and shipped by American

lines. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) informs me that 150,000 bushels of grain from the southern part of his own constituency were drawn across the boundary and shipped by American lines during the past year. I could give you other expressions of opinion in regard to the need of more railway facilities in the northwest prior to the time of the making of the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Here is a statement made by Mr. Wm, Whyte, the present vice-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, made in 1903, when the Grand Trunk Pacific contract was under discussion:

There is lots of room for the Grand-Trunk Railway in the Northwest. 1 am glad to hear they are coming. You must remember that the Grand Trunk Railway is a national road and it is far better to have it than an American road. If the people of the east had any idea of the rapidity with which the country is settling out there, they would not be surprised to hear me say: 'There is room for

the Grand Trunk Railway and others as well/ The conditions of affairs has completely changed even since a year ago. The traffic is not only abnormal east-bound but also west bound. It is this fact which has simply ren dered it impossible to handle the crop with the despatch which was necessary.

I could give you statements to the same effect from other western papers. The Winnipeg Telegram ' and the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' agreed that another transcontinental railway was necessary. In the face of these facts, I was somewhat surprised, as a resident of the western provinces, to read at that time statements by prominent members of the Conservative party in this House that they were absolutely opposed to a third continental railway project.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

No, no.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
LIB

William Melville Martin

Liberal

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

If hon. gentlemen will permit me, I will quote from 'Hansard' statements made by prominent members of the Conservative party to that effect. I must say that it did occasion a good deal of surprise to residents of the vicinity in which I reside to find that there were men in the House of Commons so absolutely ignorant of western conditions as not to know that we were so hampered for the lack of transportation facilities that every farmer lost possibly an average of 10 cents a bushel on his grain because of that lack, as he is doing at the present time and will continue to do, so long as adequate transportation facilities are lacking.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
CON

William Wright

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WRIGHT.

May I ask the hon. gentleman this question: when he speaks of farmers drawing their grain across the boundary, does he mean to give this House to understand that they will now draw it up to the Transcontinental Railway?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
LIB

William Melville Martin

Liberal

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

If my hon. friend knows anything about railway transporta-Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

tion in the western provinces, he'knows that every railway built must necessarily relieve the tension that exists.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
CON

William Wright

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WRIGHT.

I know that the building of the Transcontinental Railway will not cure the difficulty he refers to.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
LIB

William Melville Martin

Liberal

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

The hon. gentleman will have plenty of time to reply in a few moments. I want to refer, for instance, to what was said by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), who I am sorry is not in his seat at the present time. Referring to 'Hansard' of 1903, vol. 4, at page 8761, that hon. gentleman spoke as follows:

Let us examine for a short time the reasons they give to justify this undertaking. The first is the urgent need of the west for increased facilities to handle its grain. Now, this brings up the question whether such urgent need in the west exists to-day. Where is the urgent need for this new railway in the west, a need so urgent, as the Premier says, we cannot wait another day, another hour, re cannot put it off till to-morrow, we have not a moment to spare; and he expressed the hope that we had not waited too long already. Now this suggests the question, how are the products of that country handled to-day? Is there such urgent need at the present time? I do not think so. If we look into it carefully, I am sure we will not come to that conclusion.

That surely is a definite enough statement in opposition to the main project of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Another statement made by the same hon. gentleman, in the same volume of 'Hansard', at page 8770, was as follows:

I have said that the sentiment of the country. in Ontario at least, is against the subsidizing of railways largely in the future. Has the government had any mandate from the people to put through this project? No. I challenge the Prime Minister to-day to dissolve this House and go to the country upon this scheme. Dare he risk it? If he should do it, and if the people should return him to power, then he may carry out his scheme and 1 shall not offer any objection.

At page 8775 of the same volume, the same hon. gentleman denounced the project in the following very strong terms:

Let them ask themselves whether they will be justified in endorsing that undertaking, that baby policy, that monstrosity of politics, that has been launched upon the world in connection with this scheme. When the people of Canada have digested this policy properly I am quite sure what the result will be. Sir, once more I dare the government to dissolve this House and appeal to the country to-day. Dare they ask a mandate from the electorate for this heavy undertaking? They dare not do it, I challenge them to do it.

As far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, the main issue discussed in the election campaign of 1904 was the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Did the

people endorse that scheme? There can be but one answer to that question. One of the main issues discussed by the people during the election campaign of 1908 was the Grand Trunk Pacific project. Did the people endorse it in 1908? I venture to say that there were two Liberal votes cast in that province endorsing the Grand Trunk Pacific for every vote cast against it.

Let me refer to what was said by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) in the session of 1903. I am quoting from 'Hansard,' page 8810. He said:

Go where you will, and the preponderating voice, the overwhelming voice will be, when the scheme is fully understood, an absolute condemnation of this measure.

Well, since this statement was made, I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite speaking in western Canada on political subjects, and I never heard one of them condemn the Grand Trunk Pacific project. The reason is obvious. They knew they were in a country where the people were all in favour of building the road and recognized it as an absolute necessity. I challenge any Conservative member from the west in this House to say he is against the loan of $10,000,000 to pay for the completion of the prairie section. I challenge the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) to say that he is adverse to that loan for the completion of the prairie section of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I challenge any Conservative member from Manitoba to say that he is adverse to that loan. They dare not oppose it. There would not be a Conservative returned in Manitoba at the next election if they took that position.

I do not intend to take up any time of the House discussing the securities which are being obtained by the government from the Grand Trunk Pacific. The majority of members from the west have sufficient confidence in the growth of Canada in the next few years to believe that the Grand Trunk Pacific will be a huge success and be able to pay back all money borrowed by it from the government.

The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) drew some comparisons. He called the Grand Trunk Pacific an insolvent road, and contrasted the securities got from that road with those we got from the Canadian Pacific Railway. Well, all the security which the Canadian Pacific Railway eculd give to this country was the land and the money and the six hundred miles of railway given to that company by the Conservative party. This government took certain precautions before deciding do grant this loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific. As appears by the papers laid on the table, a request was made for the loan by Mr. Chas. M. Hays on behalf of the Grand Trunk Pacific. At that particular time, Mr. Hays submitted a statement- showing the actual cost of the western section and "the amount

of money put into it up to the present. The government took the trouble to have their own engineer, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, go carefully over the figures and report as to whether this statement of Mr. Hays was correct or not. He reported that it was. As regards the security, I am content to leave that matter in the hands of the government. Any man who has any confidence in the growth of Canada cannot fail to admit that we are bound to grow to such an extent in the next few years, that the Grand Trunk Pacific cannot help but be a success and pay back any amount borrowed by it from the government to build the prairie section.

Look at the position which the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta occupy as contrasted with other grain producing countries. Every one admits that Canada is bound to become possibly the greatest wheat producing country in the world. One of our greatest competitors is the Argentine republic. How does the Argentine republic compare with Canada in the matter of transportation facilities ? The republic has something like 240,000 square miles of area and 8,000 miles of railway. It is said that the average Argentina farmer is 10 miles distant from a railway. In Saskatchewan and Alberta, the total area is

300,000 square miles, and we have_ 2,800 miles of railway. And the average distance of the average farmer from the railway is much greater than 10 miles. It costs the average Argentina farmeT two cents or three cents a bushel to get his grain to the initial shipping point and it costs the average farmer in Saskatchewan six cents or seven cents a bushel. It costs the Argentina farmer 16 or 17 cents a bushel to get his grain from the initial shipping point to the Liverpool markets, and it costs the Saskatchewan farmer 30 cents a bushel. How can the farmers of our country compete in the European market when they have to pay rates of that description? The only solution of the difficulties under which the producers of the west labour is to get railways into that country. Every railway must necessarily relieve a certain amount of traffic handling by other companies and assist more and more our farmers each year in getting their crops promptly to market and obtaining the best market prices.

One more point, and this is a matter which affects particularly the western grain producer. According to the best authorities I have been able to consult, one of the difficulties our farmers have to contend with, in shipping their grain, is the spread between the track price and the street price on the western wheat market. Take the markets in any locality, as soon as a farmer has his grain loaded on a car, he gets what is known as a track price.

But if he has to put his grain into an elevator, he,gets the street price, and the difference between the two is something like 30 cents a bushel. Let me point to the evidence taken before the Grain Commission last year and Sir Bichard Cartwright. You will find that the farmers who appeared before Sir Richard Cartwright said that in some instances they knew the spread to be as high as 30 cents a bushel. What is the cause of this spread. The late Mr. Drink-water said it was the difficulty in getting cars.

If I wished to take the time I could read extracts from the statements made; but the consensus of opinion was that this difference in price, which is a total loss to the western farmer, was caused by the difficulty of getting cars. And railway men and elevator men went so far as to say: Give us cars and we will reduce the spread to three cents a bushel. Take a production of 100,000,000 bushels of grain, and suppose you save seven cents a bushel to the western farmer, you have there a saving of $7,000,000 per annum; save ten cents a bushel and you have a saving of $10,000,-

000. I do not mean to say that the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific will do away with all the difficulty, but I do say that the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the building of branch lines by the Grand Trunk Pacific and the other railways will alleviate the conditions to a very great extent.

I might go on and give reasons why I approve the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific through western Canada, and to point out many provisions in the contract which are decidedly in favour of the people of Canada and of the west in particular when you compare them with those of the contract for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway with its iniquitous tax exemption on land, rolling stock and roadbed placed, as a burden, upon that western country by the late Conservative government. I do not intend to take up time to deal with these questions, but I -may say a word with regard to what has been said concerning the Temiskaming & Northern Ontario Railway. I am informed on good authority that the riches of the Cobalt district were only discovered through the actual construction of the Temiskaming & Northern Ontario Railway, that before the railway was constructed the mineral wealth was not known. That being the case, it is not unreasonable for us to believe that the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific will open up new wealth yet undreamed of. In the great northland we believe that there is territory which, when opened up, will yield great wealth. If the Temiskaming & Northern Ontario Railway has opened up so rich a new territory for this province, we are justified in believing that the Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

National Transcontinental will open up northern Ontario and the northern parts of the west as well.

I approve of a loan being made to the Grand Trunk Pacific to aid them in the completion of the line, because it means railway competition in the west in a measure we have not at the present time. It means increased railway transportation facilities. It means reduction of freight rates-where there is competition we must have reduction. It must assist in placing Canada in a favourable position in the European market. It means the completion of a great national undertaking tending to promote national development, national expansion and national solidarity.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
L-C

James William Maddin

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. J. W. MADDIN (Cape Breton South).

The resolution before the House has for its object the handing over to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company of a sum of $10,000,000 for the purpose of completing the prairie section of the transcontinental line. The object sought is, in effect, to make the government of this country bankers for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to the extent of this sum. It is a unique position in this country; there is only one partial parallel to it in our history, and that was when the government of this country granted assistance in a somewhat similar manner Jo the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1884. Some hon. members have suggested that hon. members on this side were opposed to the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. I submit that hon. members on this side of the House will be found as faithful to their obligations in respect of public contracts as hon. members on the government side. There is no member on this side who does not feel that the people of Canada are bound by this contract and wedded to it, and they will favour the carrying out of the contract in full. There is no member on this side who is opposed to carry to its fullest completion the building of this railway. There may be a difference in method, but there is no member on this side of the House who has offered any suggestion that will delay the completion of this road for a fraction of a day.

The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) in his remarks this afternoon pointed out, as a precedent for this position-and sc did the mover of this resolution-that in 1884 the Liberal-Conservative government had advanced the sum of $30,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The member for West Lambton said that the resolution now before the House was 'on all fours '-to use his own words-with the resolution brought down by Sir Charles Tupper in 1884. I take issue with the hon. member when he makes that statement. There is little or no similarity in the circumstances of 1884 and those of 1909 with regard to these railway lines. Let us look at the preamble of the Act of 1881 by virtue

of which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was incorporated:

Whereas by the terms and conditions of the admission of British Columbia into union with the Dominion of Canada, the government of the Dominion has asssumed the obligation of causing a railway to be constructed^, connecting the sea-board of British Columbia with the railway system of Canada.

Until British Columbia entered confederation, we had no outlet on the Pacific seaboard. The American boundary line came down from Alaska, running along a great part of the Pacific coast, and there was only, proportionately, a small strip of the Pacific coast on British soil. It was necessary, in order to reach British dominions beyond the Pacific that British Columbia should be induced to enter Canada. And one of the inducements offered was that a railway would be built from ocean-to ocean. As one hon. member pointed out, there was then a p jpplation of less than 20,000 white people between Lake Superior and the Rocky mountains, and less than 11,000 beyond the Rocky mountains in British Columbia. The hon. member (Mr. Pardee) asks us to have faith in our country and in the resources and wealth of our country. I may tell my hon. friend that there were found among the pioneers of this Confederation in 1881 men who, under circumstances that called for deep faith, undertook the building of a railway of greater magnitude than that which is sought to be built at the present time.

The leaders of the old Conservative party were never lacking in faith in their country and the hon. member failed utterly in his attempt to draw a parallel between the resolution of 1884 and the resolution now before us. I have spoken of the population of the Northwest in 1881 when the Canadian Pacific Railway was being built. At that time the Liberal leaders then in opposition in this House said it was folly to undertake to build a railway through that country, that it contained nothing but buffaloes and wild Indians, and that a railway through it would not pay for its axle grease. The Canadian Pacific Railway commenced the work of construction. The government built the eastern part of the road at a cost of $28,000,000 and gave it to the Canadian Pacific Railway, they gave them a grant of $25,000,000 and 25,000,000 acres of land The railway was to be finished by May 1, 1891. In 1884, Sir Charles Tupper moved a resolution in the House to grant to the Canadian Pacific Railway a loan aggregating practically $30,000,000. What were the circumstances? The promoters and stockholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway had then spent $10,000,000 of their own money. Of their $100,000,000 of capital stock they had sold $65,000,000 and had thus raised

$63,000,000, every cent of which had been spent in the work of construction. They had then used the subsidies and had sold more than three million acres of the land grant given to them by the government. They had left on their hands stock to the value of $35,000,000 and more than 21,000,000 acres of their land grant in the west. Sir Charles Tupper in moving the resolution in 1884, submitted to the House a statement prepared by the Canadian Pacific Railway setting forth the amount of money expended, the amount of railway completed, and showing resources from which this money was derived, demonstrating to the satisfaction of the House that the moneys which had been raised from the sale of the stock of the company had been used in the construction of the road. As a matter of fact they had then not less than 1,370 miles of road completed and actually running, notwithstanding that it was only three year3 from the time they had entered into the undertaking. They were not obliged under their contract to finish the railway until May 1, 1891. Before submitting that statement to parliament, Sir Charles, Tupper sent two auditors to Montreal, Mr. Colling-wood Schreiber, now chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and Mr. E. Miall, to make an examination of the books and vouchers of the Canadian Pacific Railway in order to satisfy themselves that the report submitted by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Minister of Railways was a true and correct report. The minister instructed these gentlemen to make such a close and accurate examination of the accounts as a business or banking concern would require before advancing or loaning money or entering into a partnership with a reliable business firm. The books of the company and the company's auditor and his staff were placed at the disposal of these two auditors. After a careful examination they certified the statement submitted to the minister to be correct.

Then it was shown that with the depression existing at that time, the railway presumably having no great future before it, the prospects not being very bright that the railway would ever be a paying concern and that the railway had received financially a black eye in the English money markets, that cablegrams and letters had been sent to the English money markets which affected the credit of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It must be remembered that the Canadian Pacific Railway did not have freight lying at the side of the track with which to begin earning dividends when the road was completed. You will see the vast difference between it and the Grand Trunk Pacific to-day. The Prime Minister in proposing the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific urged

that whilst Canada had a sufficient number of open harbours, it had not enough railways to carry the freight to those harbours, and so it was proposed to build this great national highway. This railway was designed to go from coast to coast. It was submitted by the Liberal party in 1903 that the Grand Trunk Pacific would follow along the coast of Lake Superior and would seek a northerly route from that point, thereby opening up a new and heretofore untouched portion of Canada. What do we find in fact? From Port Arthur to Winnipeg the Grand Trunk Pacific practically parallels the Canadian Pacific Railway. From Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains it is at no time more than 100 or 150 miles distant and for much of that distance it is only from two to four miles distant from the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. To the north of it lies the Canadian Northern Railway which was built through the industry and business capacity of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, with merely the government subsidies. To the south of it lies the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the day the Grand Trunk Pacific is completed the freight is there for it to move. In 1884, when Sir Charles Tupper's resolution was before the House, the condition confronting the Canadian Pacific Railway was that when they completed their line their first freights out into that country were to be the immigrants and farming materials for the breaking of the soil to commence to raise the first crops to be moved. No such condition obtains with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Their routed freight is lying there.

When the Prime Minister spoke of having this railway reach more of our seaports did he forget that before the Grand Trunk Pacific was undertaken we had a railway running into Vancouver, and into Quebec and Montreal on the St. Lawrence, that we had the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercolonial Railway running into St. John, that we had the Intercolonial Railway running into Halifax and Sydney, and that with railway connection via the Intercolonial Railway between Louisburg and Halifax on the Atlantic, and Vancouver on the Pacific, we had outlets all the year round with the existing railways.

But, what is proposed to be done by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company? They wish to have the building and owning of this railway out to the Pacific coast in order to have a feeder from the west and from the prairie provinces for the eastern section of their road. They have an object in view. They have as their Atlantic seaports the towns of New London in Connecticut and Portland on the Atlantic seaboard and the object in view of this railway company is to run in between the Canadian Northern on the north and the Mr. MADDIN.

Canadian Pacific Railway on the south, grasp the freight that is routed by these two lines and which would carry it to a Canadian seaport and translate it to the American seaports of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. If that be the object of the Grand Trunk Pacific it is nothing short of treason to this country that our own seaports should be robbed of the freight from the prairie provinces. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company had exhausted their resources, they had spent $10,000,000 of their own money, they had spent the proceeds of the sale of $65,000,000 of their stock, they had spent the money derived from the sale of over 3,000,000 acres of land, and every dollar was invested in the road and they had 1,370 miles in actual running order. There was a depression in the money markets of the world. The depression was not, however, even in the minds of the people at that time, of such a character as to seriously interfere with the Canadian Pacific Railway living up to their actual original contract. There was! nothing apprehended at that time that would interfere with the Canadian Pacific Railway completing their road on the 1st May, 1891. But, rather than go into the money market with their bonds at that time they proposed to surrender to the government the stock which they held and that portion of the railway that was completed, upon which there had been expended $63,000,000 from stock as well as the government subsidies paid up to that time. This was offered as a guarantee for the repayment of the sum which was asked to be loaned. One of the strongest considerations that moved the Liberal-Conservative party in 1884 to grant $30,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway was that the railway would be completed in 1886, five years earlier than the contract called for. This railway was actually completed in 1886. What do we find in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific? They were to have had their road completed by the 1st of December, 1908. Up to the present time we find, by looking at the returns handed down the other day by the Minister of Finance, that the amount of railway completed at present is 667 miles from Winnipeg to Wainwright and it is completed and working under construction, not absolutely completed but working under construction. After over five years of operation by this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company they have not one single mile of that railway completed and passed by the government engineers. They are operating, it is true, 667 miles under construction, but they have not one single mile of that road completed, whereas the Canadian Pacific bad 1,370 miles of railway completed be-

sides 239 miles of branches and 160 miles north of Lake Superior, which was very heavy work, was almost completed. The result was that the road was absolutely completed in 1886. In 1884 the Canadian Pacific Railway came to the government not pretending to be in the embarrassed condition that the Grand Trunk Pacific is in. All they said was that if they could get an advance of this money they would complete the road five years sooner than they had promised to do it. Bear in mind that time was an essential element entering into the contract at that time. When the people of Canada undertook to build the Canadian Pacific Railway the American transcontinental railway companies looked upon the undertaking as a huge joke. They did not think it would be possible for the people of Canada to finance and build a railway across the continent, but as time rolled on and and they saw that the work was being carried on they began to be apprehensive that they would have an active competitor in the Canadian Pacific Railway and it was they who were principally responsible for stampeding the stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway and making it hard for them to sell the last $35,000,000 of it. The railways of the western states thought that the Canadian Pacific Railway would be an important competitor of theirs and the Union Pacific sent out agents to canvass the country and get pledges of freight from Canadian territory for the American railway lines. It was of paramount importance that this railway should be finished five years earlier than the time specified in the contract in order to get Canadian freight routed over the Canadian route and brought eastward to the Atlantic sea-board. As a security for this loan in 1884 the Canadian Pacific Railway handing over absolutely all they were owners of in the world. I quote from the remarks of Sir Charles Tupper at this time. He said:

If there is default in payment of interest or prmapal, if by the 1st of May, 1892, every dollar of interest and every dollar of prin-oipal is not refunded to the government of this advance, they (Canadian Pacific Railway Company) propose that we shall become at once the possessors of the entire property of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

I ask hon. members of this House to compare the conditions that obtained in 1884 with the conditions that obtain in this year-1909. As my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) has pointed out this evening this government is not in a position to become bankers for the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific are so wedded together financially, by contract and otherwise, that they are, for the purposes of this resolution, inseparable, and I submit that our relations in the past with the Grand Trunk Pacific have been of such a character that we cannot accept from them in good faith the representations which they have submitted to this House at the present time. As far as has been made known to this House no steps have been taken by the mover of this resolution or any one upon the government side to verify the statements submitted by the Grand Trunk Railway. These two companies are practically inseparable and the people of this country should not undertake to be their bankers on such poor security as is being offered at the present time. Since this House opened on the 20th January last it has been a common thing, when estimates were being put through, to be met by minister after minister from the different departments with the complaint that the finances of the country were in such a condition that much needed as many public works were they were unable to undertake them at the present time. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia important railway undertakings have been laid over by the government on the pretense that the country has no money. And if we cannot afford to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on important public works, what grave reasons are there why we should place ourselves under an obligation to plunge into the money markets of the world for ten million dollars to tide

company over The financial

the Grand Trunk Pacific their financial difficulties, statistics of Canada show that there are $400,000,000 belonging to the depositors of Canada in the various banking institutions of the Dominion, and I would like the Minister of Finance to tell me if any financial concern in Canada would advance one million cents on the security offered by the Grand Trunk to the government. I think not. We have been told by gentlemen opposite that the country endorsed the policy of the government in 1904. It is true that while approving in a general way of the construction of the Transcontinental Railway the Conservative party took issue with the government as to the best means to accomplish that end, and in a sense that became the main issue before the people. But the right hon. the Prime Minister on every platform assured the people solemnly that it would not cost them one dollar more than $13,000,000 to build the transcontinental railway from ocean to ocean, and the people took him at his word and endorsed his administration. But now these same people realize to t.heir great discomforture that the road is to cost $250,000,000. So long as Canada remains a borrowing country she must live religiously up to her public contracts, but every contract we have made with the Grand Trunk Pacific from 1903 down to the present moment has been flagrantly broken by that company. It was

improvident on the part of the government to enter into the contract of 1903; it was improvident on the part of the government to have changed that contract from time to time; it is improvident on the part of the government to do what they now propose. The contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company was conceived in unwisdom, conducted with unparalleled extravagance and improvidence, and we are now reaping as we have sown. The government has pledged the credit of Canada to relieve the broken fortunes of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company until we have now invested in this concern not less than $200,000,000.

We are meeting with the fate of the gambler who foolishly only buys stock on margin and who must buy out the stock if he is not to be ruined. Why not let Canada buy out the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company without risking any more margins on it? I say, Sir, that _we _ can consistently live up to our obligations with the people of the west and the 'people of the east by saying to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company: * Every contract we have made with you, you have flagrantly broken; your contractual obligations with us are at an end, give us your vouchers for the money expended by you and we will pay you every dollar you have put into the enterprise, hand us over the railway and we will build it ourselves.' Anyway, if the country is to pay nine-tenths of the cost of construction, why should not that railroad become a national asset of the people? I would go further and say, that after we have completed the railroad, if need be we could hand it back to the company to operate, always providing certain restrictions with regard to the routing of the freight in order to preserve our Canadian seaports. In view of the disclosures made in the Public Accounts Committee with regard to the item of $162,000, and as to which the vouchers were subsequently burned, the government and the people of Canada should hesitate before advancing ten million dollars more to such a company. In the estimates brought down by the Minister of Finance it is shown that a further sum of forty-eight millions will be required, ten millions of which are being asked now. Why does not the Minister of Finance muster up courage enough to ask parliament for the full sum at once? Is it pretended that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company can raise the forty million dollars more which is required to complete this road; is it not common sense to suppose that if they were financially in a position to do that they would not now be knocking at the door of the government asking for this money? I regret to have to think that this is not the last ten millions that will be demanded. What guarantee have we that the Grand Trunk Pacific can finance the other forty millions estimated Mr. MADDIN.

as required to complete the mountain section? Failing to get a satisfactory answer to that question, we discharge them from any further obligations with respect to this road, and assume the obligation of finishing it, and do it promptly, for the people of Canada. Let us lease it to these people, but let us build and own it ourselves.

The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) said that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was wont to say that a great stage had been prepared for Canada and that we were the actors upon it; and he went on to ask, shall we raise the curtain and proceed to act, or shall we halt for a paltry $10,000,000 ?_ I would say, Mr. Speaker, that he might raise the curtain and show us vouchers for the expenditure of all the moneys that have been raised by the sale of stock, or all that have been paid bv this government by way of subsidy. He might show to the satisfaction of this House that these moneys have been spent legitimately for the purchase of right of way, for railway material or railway construction, and that there are no vouchers that_ they will be ashamed to show or be obliged to go and burn.

In conclusion I have only this to urge. Hon. members on this side of the House are as anxious for the hasty completion of this road as hon. members on the government side of the House; and it is, as I conceive, the duty of this government to cut loose from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, that company having violated every contract that it has entered into up to the present time, and take possession of the road, reimburse those people for every dollar they have spent on it, with interest up to date, and complete the road ouTselves and own it as a national asset for the people of Canada in the future

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
LIB

John Gillanders Turriff

Liberal

Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia).

Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter that affects to a very large extent the province from which I come, I would like to take ten or fifteen minutes to express to this House and the- First Minister my complete sympathy with the action that the government is taking at the present time. I do not think it is worth while to spend half an hour or an hour, as some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have done, in discussing the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We all know that the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was a necessity, and we all recognize-I believe every member on the other side of the House just as much as members on this side-that the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific is just as much a necessity to-day, and was when it was undertaken, as the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was at the time it was.

undertaken. If that is the case, why waste time discussing the advisability of the construction of these roads? What we have to deal with to-night is the motion before the House-the advisability of making a loan of $10,000,000 to enable the Grand Trunk Pacific to complete the prairie section of the road in a better manner and with less strain on their credit and with more credit to the Dominion of Canada than it could be completed in any other way. That is the point we have to deal with, and I would ask if any hon. member on the other side of the House would say that that money should not be advanced to the company to enable them to complete the road? I do not believe, when it comes down to the fine thing, that any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House will take the position that we should not make the loan to enable the company to complete the prairie section, and to complete it before the end of the current year. What does that mean? It means that if the prairie section of the road is completed during the present year, the section between Fort William and Winnipeg will be completed also, so that by the time the next crop is ripe, we shall have a third outlet for the season's crop to the lakes. It was pointed out by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) what a great advance had taken place in the country during the last five years, since the inception of the Grand Trunk Pacific. If that line was a necessity then, and no one will deny it, it is doubly a necessity at the present time. It is all very well for gentlemen who live m the east to criticise the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific; but we who come from the west and who represent men living thirty or fourty miles from a railway, know that the advent of another railway in the country means an increase of transportation facilities, because the construction of the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific means the construction of feeders through all parts of the grain-growing districts of the prairie provinces, and every one of these branch lines will bring railway facilities to hundreds of men who haven't them now.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES.

Will the hon. member please give the House the names of a few points east of Edmonton thatt are even twenty miles, much less thirty miles, from a railway?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
LIB

John Gillanders Turriff

Liberal

Mr. TURRIFF.

I would like to inform the hon. gentleman that the whole country does not lie east of Edmonton. There are parts of the country a thousand miles from Edmonton which are in dire need of railway facilities at the present time.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES.

Will the hon. gentleman name a point west of Edmonton that is

going to be touched by this railway that is not now within ten miles of a railway?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
LIB

John Gillanders Turriff

Liberal

Mr. TURRIFF.

There is a great stretch of prairie country between Winnipeg and Edmonton, 800 or 900 miles in length and 300 miles in breadth, that is greatly in need of railway facilities. Fifty or 100 miles west of Edmonton you get into a different kind of country. You are in the foothills of the mountains, but it is a different country from the country to the south, where the Canadian Pacific Railway passes through the mountains. You are in a country where the mountain ranges are lower and the valleys wider, and where there are hundreds of settlers on farming lands to one along the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. So that in running the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific through that country, you are running it through a country that will yield largely of farm produce, as well as of timber, minerals and fruit.

The Grand Trunk Pacific is a necessity, and a great necessity. I am not going to take up time considering the securities that we are going to get for this loan. All I need to do is to point to what, the hon. leader of the opposition said this afternoon. He spent some time criticising the securities the government were getting for the advance of this $10,000,000, and how did he wind up? By saying that, the common stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific was worth from 100 to 150. If the common stock is worth 50 per cent above par, there is not much danger of our not getting the interest on the bonds for the money advanced to help to complete the construction. Is there any man in this House or out of it, who has knowledge of that western country, who will say that a road built over the line of the Grand Trunk Pacific, with all its branches in that country, the greatest wheat producing country in the world, and in the great farming valleys of British Columbia, with their vast timber and mineral resources, will not earn interest on the cost of construction? When the road is built through British Columbia, through the great farming valleys and vast timber resources of that province, will any man in this House say that it will not earn interest on its cost?

Hon. gentlemen opposite have criticised this road from the point of view of its cost. Let me say that if a mistake was made some years ago, when the government made an estimate of its cost, I am very glad that mistake was discovered and rectified before the road was built and that a road is being built which, when completed, will be the finest on the continent, and not such a road as the Canadian Pacific Railway con-stiucted, when they built their main line, and as the Canadian Northern is constructing. We are having a road built which will stand for hundreds of years. Look at what is taking place to-day both on the

Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern. We were told in the Railway Committee this morning that the Canadian Pacific is spending $18,000,000 on its road. But the great bulk of that is being spent on the main line in cutting down grades and straightening out curves. Why is this expenditure _ being made? _ Because the company was in such a position that it could not haul freight cheaply. Every one knows that in building a road now, great attention is paid to the road bed and the grades. The Grand Trunk Pacific are constructing a road superior to any transcontinental line that has yet been built and are getting a maximum grade of four-tenths of one pei; cent. What does that mean? I have here a comparison of what that grade, which the Grand Trunk Pacific will have from Edmonton to Prince Rupert, will enable one engine to do compared with what is being done by one engine on other transcontinental roads. I saw the complete figures given by Mr. Hays in one of the newspapers, but in that paper, which was friendly to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway figures were left out, so that I cannot give an exact comparison. Here is what an engine will haul on the Grand Trunk Pacific when completed. It will be able to haul over the worst grade between Edmonton and Prince Rupert 2,041 tons. What is done on transcontinental roads in the United States? An engine on the Great Northern hauls 572 tons, on the Northern Pacific 572 tons, also on the Union Pacific, and on the Santa Fee Railway 376 tons. With the grades existing on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway up to a year ago, the amount that an engine could haul was less than 200 tons. So that it is advisable, when making a road bed, to get the grades right and spend whatever money is necessary, rather than have to change your grades, location and curves after the road is built. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about what the Canadian Pacific Railway has cost. There is no man living who can tell what that road cost. You cannot tell what we have paid, and no one can tell what we will pay, because we are paying to-day for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway and will continue to pay for many years to come. What about the exemptions from taxes for all time to come on their lines? What about the 10,000,000 acres of land which they hold at present, the patents for which are in their pockets and on which they are not paying a cent of taxes? That is what we are paying to-day and what we will continue to pay so that we cannot compute what the Canadian Par Mr. TURRIFF.

cific Railway has cost us. And while the Canadian Pacific Railway got millions of dollars and millions of acres of land, the Grand Trunk Pacific do not get any bonus or subsidy except the interest on the cost of capital during construction. Whatever else is advanced they have to pay interest on. I thought myself that the government had driven too hard a bargain with the Grand Trunk Pacific especially when we consider that it will have to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was practically built by the government, and with the Canadian Northern which has been built by subsidies from both the federal and local governments. The Grand Trunk Pacific has not been treated nearly as favourably as either of the other transcontinental roads.

I do not think that our hon. friends opposite need be in the least degree afraid of the Grand Trunk Pacific not being able to pay back this money. Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan said some years ago that anybody who took the bear side on the United States market would eventually go broke. Well, anybody who takes the bear side on the market against Canada will meet with the same fate. No one can tell w'hat the future of our western and our eastern country is going to be. The Dominion is just beginning to grow. A moment ago we heard an hon. gentleman talk about the Grand Trunk Pacific borrowing $10,000,000 from the Dominion of Canada just when we are in an impoverished condition, and in the very next breath he told us that there are $400,000,000 on deposit in the banks of the people of Canada. Does that look as if the country was impoverished? Not at all. The country was never in better shape than it has been for a number of years past.

As to the necessity for this Toad, I might point out that in all parts of the country every year there are freight blockades. Two years ago we could not get cars to haul coal and wheat. A friend of mine in Medicine Hat had a lot of cattle to ship and he drove in two hundred or three hundred head, and kept them around Medicine Hat two months without being able to get any cars to shin them in. He had to take them back to his ranch and during the hard winter he lost three or four thousand dollars worth. In the face of that condition of things, will any one say that this road is not a necessity? The question is, as I said before: What is the best way? I claim that the government has taken the proper course in lending the money. We lend it for a period not exceeding ten years; we shall get as much interest as it costs us; and we shall get our money back. Something was said by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) about the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Grand Trunk being bankrupt. Where would the Canadian Pacific Railway have been in 1884, when Sir

Charles Tupper came to this House for a loan of $30,000,000 if that sum had not been advanced?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
CON
LIB

John Gillanders Turriff

Liberal

Mr. TURRIFF.

Yes, they gave simply what the government had given them, the completed road, and 25,000,000 acres of land. Will any hon. member point out what else they gave? Hon. gentlemen opposite need not be a bit alarmed about the Grand Trunk Pacific being able to pay back this money and pay it back before the ten years' term is up. At the present time, the Grand Trunk Pacific have 670 miles in operation. This road may not have been finally accepted by the government, but for months the Grand Trunk Pacific has been running trains over that line from Winnipeg to Drinkwater. The Grand Trunk Pacific has a much greater mileage in proportion to the amount it is borrowing than the Canadian Pacific Railway had in proportion to the amount it borrowed. If the Grand Trunk Pacific does cost a considerable sum of money, we will get the interest of the money, and as we only guarantee the bonds on three-quarters of it, the country is absolutely safe.

Representing, as I do, a western constituency, I want to say to the House and to the government, that the west at all events, is right behind the government in this matter. The people of the country endorsed the leader of this government on this question in 1904 and again in 1908. and I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that they will endorse him when he goes to the country again either on this or any other question.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink
?

Mr. H. B.@

AMES (Montreal, St. Antoine) moved the adjournment of the debate.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


ADJOURNMENT - BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.


Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


March 30, 1909