October 21, 1919

UNI L

William Stevens Fielding

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. FIELDING:

Mr. Chairman, I wrant to offer my congratulations to the Government on the return to sane proceedings in relation to treaties wdth foreign nations. This is a Canadian treaty dealing with Canadian business, which is very properly submitted for the consideration of this House. It does not give us any knowledge of the affairs of the Czecho-Slovakia, it takes no account of the skull of the Prophet or of the missing Koran. It deals with Canadian affairs and does not contain any manifestation of national swellheadedness; it does not assert any new statues; it does not make any claim to new nationhood-it is just-an ordinary common sense treaty of the old-fashioned or common garden variety of treaties such as we have engaged in from time to time. There is not a word in this treaty that it is between Canada as a new nation and the United States; there is not a word asserting our right to make treaties as an independent nation. This is just a treaty between His Majesty the King and the President of the United States-the King representing not Canada alone but the whole British Empire, and inasmuch as the treaty does relate to Canada a gentleman representing Canada- named by the Canadian Government, I presume-has been chosen as one of the parties to it. I take it for granted that Mr. Justice Hazen was chosen not only because of his eminent ability but also because he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries when these negotiations were begun, but I merely want to congratulate the Government on getting back to the sensible, common, old-fashioned way of making our treaties.

Topic:   SALMON FISHERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Subtopic:   APPROVAL, OP CONVENTION FOR PRESERVATION BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY AND THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
CON

George Green Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

I think it is too bad that such a compliment should not be acknowledged. I therefore beg as Acting Prime Minister for the time being to thank my hon. friend for the compliment that he has paid to this Government. It has been an exceedingly reciprocal arrangement as between my hon. friend and ourselves. The occasion has enabled him to pay us a great compliment. It has also given him an opportunity to pile another criticism upon the criticisms which he w'as so very profuse with during the earlier periods of this session. One would have thought that he had said sufficient on that ground. But if it pleases him, it does not hurt us, and as long as it is accompanied with a compliment we thank him for both.

Topic:   SALMON FISHERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Subtopic:   APPROVAL, OP CONVENTION FOR PRESERVATION BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY AND THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
UNI L

William Stevens Fielding

Unionist (Liberal)

Mr. FIELDING:

It is a case where wre can agree on reciprocity.

Resolution reported.

Topic:   SALMON FISHERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Subtopic:   APPROVAL, OP CONVENTION FOR PRESERVATION BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY AND THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
UNION

Newton Wesley Rowell (Minister presiding over the Department of Health; President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

I beg to move that a*

message be sent to the Senate informing their Honours that this House has passed this resolution, and requesting their Honours to unite with this House by filling up the blank therein with the words " Senate and."

Topic:   SALMON FISHERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Subtopic:   APPROVAL, OP CONVENTION FOR PRESERVATION BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY AND THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink

Motion agreed to. ,


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.

BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.


The House resumed the adjourned debate . on the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid for the second reading of Bill No. 33, respecting the acquisition by His Majesty of the Grand Trunk Railway system.


L LIB

Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin

Laurier Liberal

Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):

(resuming from yesterday) Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was stating that I was opposed to this Bill for several reasons, one, because under the circumstances I am opposed to public ownership. Another reason was that owing to the maladministration of our national affairs for the last few years I was at a loss to find where we were going to get the money to pay for these added obligations. I said that I was not alone in that opinion, but that it was the opinion of Boards of Trade throughout Canada and of the press and of the people of Canada. Since the House adjourned certain events have occurred

I do not wish to transgress any rule by referring to them-tout certain events have occurred at our very door which should lead the Government to stop, look, and listen, before entering into any further large expenditures which are not for the direct or even the indirect welfare of the people. I have said that the press and the people of this country are opposed to this transaction, and I think in view also of the events to which I have alluded it would be well for the Government to consider whether the handwriting is not already upon the wall which should warn them to go very, very slowly in embarking on further gigantic expenditures which will fall upon the people in the way of taxation and will not confer any benefit upon them.

Sir, this is the people's day, be they farmers, labourers, merchants, traders, or members of any other class. This is essentially the people's day, and the people intend to carry on in this country a government for the people and by the people, and before this Government increases taxation they should consider whether the expenditure proposed is in the interests of the people. I want to call attention especially to the fact that it has been pointed out by the financial editor of the London Times that this transaction is viewed with favour by the citizens of London because they are the investors in the Grand Trunk railway, and they are looking to Canada to help them in their investments and are not in any way considering the taxes that this obligation will place upon the people of Canada. To the Government then, I repeat, consider not the investors in England at the present moment, but consider the investors in Canada, who are the taxpayers of this country and who must meet the obligations which the Government is incurring at every step.

I do not want to refer to any past extravagance on the part of the Government. Their history since they took over the reins of power in 1911 is a record of the most extravagant expenditure that this country has ever witnessed. Nor do I wish to go into the details of that expenditure. I do not want to recriminate, but I would urge this upon the Government: Before you impose upon the people of Canada this gigantic obligation, especially at this juncture, when the Acting Prime Minister has said to the returned soldiers in writing that this Government is unable to help them further because Canada is passing through a most serious financial time, when the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has publicly stated that the financial position of this country, whilst not critical, is serious. I appeal to you to consider the words of advice given to the people of Canada through the Prime Minister of this country and not take advantage of the Prime Minister's absence to commit the country to this gigantic undertaking which will not be for the benefit of Canada. I repeat, it would be solely for the benefit of the investors in England.

How much is this going to cost? There has not yet been a clear statement from the Government of what we are called upon to sanction in the way of dollars. We had a report tabled a few days ago entitled "A Memorandum in regard to the Grand Trunk Railway System" showing that the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific have a total mileage in the United States and Canada of 8,138; and 'total securities with the public amounting to $707,929,817. The financial statement for 1918 shows that the Grand Trunk had a surplus available in that year for dividends of $8,760,

and the Grand Trunk Pacific a deficit of $875,640, or with fixed charges and loss on branches, amounting to $9,442,739, a gross deficit of $10,316,379. For the first six months of the present year, the gross revenue of the Grand Trunk was $29,601,321; the expenses were $28,058,018, and the net $1,543,303, an increase of $691,053 over last year. The operating percentage for the six months was 94.78. On the other hand, the statement which has been brought down to the House shows that the interest which this country will have to pay annually will amount to about $16,000,000, or between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000, and current liabilities coming due within three years amount to $75,000,000. Then according to the Drayton-Acworth report (page 36) $30,000,000 is required for immediate repairs. As to indirect liabilities, the exMinister of Finance stated in the House the other day that they would amount to $145,000,000. Without wearying the House with any more figures, I want to ask this question: whatever may be the amount of the arbitration award on the preference and common stock-and it may be a *terrifically large amount; it certainly will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars-where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

At the present moment the Government are issuing a call to the people of Canada for a loan of $300,000,000 to endeavour to meet current liabilities. This loan is called a Victory Loan, and it is essential and absolutely needed by the Government if the government of this country is to be carried on. But at the very same moment the Government are telling the people: We are going to impose further obligations upon you, and if the current revenue be not sufficient to meet those obligations we must appeal to you again next year for a further loan. I said yesterday; let me repeat it today: Where is the money coming from, and where are we going to? I appeal to the judgment and intelligence of hon. gentlemen in this House, who are independent in character, who are not swayed by party affiliations, but who claim to possess some degree of independence: Are you going to allow the people's money to be squandered as it is being squandered, in face of the verdict which we have had throughout Canada, a verdict which has been pronounced by the most important boards of trade, by every class of the community, by the people themselves, and which has been asked for simply by two parties-should I say three parties? I will if I include the Minister of the In-fMr. Devlin. 1

terior (Mr. Meighen)-the parties asking for it being the Grand Trunk investors in England and the Canadian Northern railway, which wants to get this road. The Minister of the Interior said in this House within the last few days that one of the reasons which prompted him into deciding upon the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway was that they should not fall into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Whether or not the Grand Trunk railway falls into the hands of the Canadian Pacific is a matter of total indifference to me; but if the Canadian Pacific, a privately-owned railway, can carry on their business through the stress of the circumstances of the war and show dividends at the end of the war, then the quicker our other railways are carried on by the Canadian Pacific or similar corporations the better for Canada and for the taxpayers of Canada. If Canada must help her railways let her help them, but do not add to the obligations of the people at a time when Canada is groaning under her heavy indebtedness'. Be fair to foreign investors, but do not cripple Canada's credit out of sentiment for foreign investors. Our duty to-day-and it is one preached by the Government and by all economists in the country-is to retrench and to economize. If we are to retrench and to economize let us not get into any further wild railway schemes. Do not cripple the Canadian people because of fear lest the Canadian Pacific acquire the road. While it is true that Canada is rich in resources, as we are told by the Government from time to time, and that she will be able to pay all present indebtedness, if the Government continue emptying our mines, cutting down our timber to the last tree, getting rid of our fisheries, which form the capital of this country, imposing upon our farmers obligations which render life practically impossible for them, imposing upon our labouring classes obligations which are making for them a tremendous problem of how to meet the cost of living, then the Government are getting rid of the wealth of Canada.

My concluding words to the Government are these. If the Government for some purpose, unknown to me or unknown to a great part of financial interests of this country, are bound that they shall expend still more of the money of the Canadian 4 p.m. people instead of economizing and retrenching, stop class legislation, stop helping solely manufacturers and railway corporations and railway promotors and railway stockholders, and

bonus farmers and labourers who are the taxpayers of this country and who are entitled to cent for cent of their holdings in this country. Let us get rid of class legislation; let us legislate for the people of Canada, that the Government of this country may essentially become a people's government for the benefit of the people.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
UNION

James McIsaac

Unionist

Mr. JAMES McISAAC (Kings, P.E.I.):

Mr. Speaker, 1 desire to say a few words on this question which is of paramount importance to the people of Canada, which is indeed one of the most important matters that has come up for discussion in this Parliament for some time. The debate has taken a very wide range and many things have been said. Some things have been said that have had direct bearing on the question under review, and quite a number of things have been said that seem to have very little connection therewith. I will endeavour, in my brief remarks, to confine myself as nearly as may be to the subject matter of the Bill before the House. I believe that I shall be able to understand the subject better myself and to present my thoughts clearer regarding the question if, with your permission, Sir, I briefly review the history of this railway matter and inquire what are the steps and what are the different changes which have brought about the conditions in which the Grand Trunk Railway Company now finds itself. It is proper too that we should inquire why this legislation is before us; why this company comes to this Parliament seeking aid, and why the Government of Canada are now negotiating with the Grand Trunk Railway Company and are putting this legislation through Parliament in order to meet the request that has been made in this connection.

At. the risk of repeating words that have been said probably more than once in this debate, I shall endeavour to give the House a resume of the history of this question. The original intention of the Grand Trunk Railway Company evidently was to build a western line commencing at Winnipeg and extending through the western provinces in order to compete for the increasing trade in that section of Canada, a trade that was looked after very successfully by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It seemed quite reasonable that the company should desire to extend their lines to secure as large a proportion of trade as possible in the western provinces. But for some reason or other when they approached the Government in 1903 to obtain their charter they were persuaded to consider a more comprehensive scheme than they at first entertained, and instead of simply building a branch westward to the Pacific Coast from Winnipeg they conceived the idea of building eastward as well, from Winnipeg to Quebec and Moncton, thus committing themselves to the construction of a transcontinental line. When this matter was presented to Parliament by the then leader of the Government, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that gentleman certainly painted a most roseate picture of the wonderful things that were to come about as a result of this new undertaking, and the enormous benefit it was to prove to Canada. It was to cost Canada very little to complete another railway from ocean to ocean. In the debates of that time, tho Prime Minister on the first reading of the Bill on the 30th July, 1903, is thus recorded in Hansard:

The sum total of money to toe paid by the Government for the construction of that line of railway from Moncton to the Pacific Ocean will be in the neighbourhood of $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 and not a cent more.

Further on he says:

The surplus of this year will pay for the construction of this line.

On the same date, at page 7695 of Hansard, he made use of these words:

The cash subsidy which is promised and which is to be given under this contract to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will not exceed $13,000,000 or thereabout.

That certainly looked exceedingly promising. Canada was to have a complete transcontinental line from coast to coast for practically nothing, but this entrancing picture proved to be not quite in accordance with the facts. It was agreed that the road should be built in two divisions, one from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast and the other from Winnipeg to Moncton, that portion of the line from Winnipeg to Moncton to be known as the National Transcontinental railway and the other portion, extending to the Pacific ocean, as the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. The Government were to build the portion from Winnipeg to Moncton, and the company the other section. The National Transcontinental line, having been built by the Government, was intended to be operated by the company after a few years, and a nominal rental was to be paid. To dispose of this branch of the road which does not enter into the question to any great extent at the moment, it is sufficient to say that it cost this country, according to the Drayton-Acworth report, about $160,000,000; and, further, that the company completely failed to carry out their

part of the agreement. They never operated the road, the Government having had to do so from the beginning. It will be interesting to see just how the branch extending from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast fared, whether or not it was a success, and what assistance the company were obliged to seek from the Government. Parenthetically, I may say that another road was subsidized by the Government running west-the Canadian Northern railway. This was a handicap to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, and it would almost seem that the Grand Trunk Railway Company deserve some sympathy in view of the difficulties and handicaps with which they had to contend in any endeavour they might make to carry out their contract and build the road from Winnipeg to the Pacific. The proposition that was submitted to them apparently mesmerized them, but it was a Utopian scheme that did not stand the test of practical investigation. It was a railway mirage and the Grand Trunk Railway 'Company seem to have been lost in a maze of ramifications which completely confused and discomfited them. The Grand Trunk Company were not long engaged in their construction work before they were compelled to come to the Government for assistance.

They continued seeking aid again and again, until, to use the words of the ex-Finance,Minister-and I am sure I cain refer to no better authority-the Government of Canada were under obligation, in the connection with this Grand Trunk Pacific, to the extent of $145,000,000 directly and indirectly. In addition to that, the parent company, the Grand Trunk railway, are under obligation to the Grand Trunk Pacific to the extent of $100,000,000. That is the history in brief of the financing of this great road. We are not saying that it may not bd great, but it has cost Canada a very large sum of money. We are disappointed "because it was emphasized when the road was about to be built that it would make practically no demand upon the finances of Canada beyond $13,000,000.

Then, reverting for a moment to the Canadian Northern, it, too, got into financial difficulties and was obliged to come from year to year knocking at the doors of Parliament in order to secure financial aid to carry on its business. There were poured out or loaned from year to year millions and millions of money, till at last the Government of our day decided that no more money should be given to them unless the road should belong to the Government. The time Rad come when no more risks should be

IMr. M.-Isaac.]

taken by loaning and giving millions of money to a corporation which did not seem to have any near prospect of being able to pay any portion of the money back. The Government had taken over or assumed $40,000,000 of the stock of the road, while the proprietors, or those responsible for the company, had $60,000,000. In 1917 it was decided that no more money should be given to the road unless it became the property of the Government. Legislation to that effect was introduced and passed in 1917. In order that the Government might find out what was the reasonable value of the property or of the $60,000,000 of stock that remained in the Company, a hoard of arbitrators was appointed. While on that I just wish to dwell for a moment on something that took place then. In connection with the legislation of 1917 on this question, the Government had agreed, as I have said, that they would appoint arbitrators to determine the value of the remaining stock. I find that the then leader of the Opposition, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in discussing this question, placed himself on record, as will be found in Hansard, August 13, 1917, to the effect that he had no objection to arbitrating, but he raised the point that

" No assistance should 'be given to the Canadian Northern railway unless at the same time It is provided that the Government have power within a reasonable time to acquire the ownership of the entire stock of the company at a price to be fixed by arbitration, not to exceed $30,000,00-0.

What I wish to establish is that the Opposition, through their leader, made the statement in Parliament on the 13th August, 1917, that they would not object to the award of the arbitrators provided it did not exceed $30,000,000. I wish to mention this because I may take occasion a little later in the course of my remarks to refer to this particular part of the question again.

In connection with the legislation of 1918, reference to which will be found in Hansard of May 15, 1918, page 1996, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), discussing the question and alluding to the matter of the arrangement with the Canadian Northern, stated that:

By the arbitration agreement subsequently made it was provided that the price should not exceed $10,000,000.

You wrill observe that this is one-third of the amount of money that the Opposition had stated, through their leader, they would be satisfied the arbitrators should fix. They were willing to go as high as $30,000,000, while here we find that one-third of that

amount, or $10,000,000 is the amount awarded by the arbitration. I wish to make that statement at this particular stage because I may have occasion to make some reference to that particular point a little later on.

We know that subsequently to the session of 1918 the Canadian Northern railway became a part of the Canadian National railway system. We will leave that aside for a moment and consider what has happened to the Grand Trunk Pacific.

They went on borrowing money from the Government until, to quote the statement of the ex-Finance Minister who dealt with this question in an excellent manner a few evenings ago, the borrowings from, or the obligations to, the Government, direct and indirect, in connection with the road, amounted to $145,000,000. A11 will remember that early in the first Parliamentary session of the present year it was m/ade known to the Government that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, who were and are the owners of the stock of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, would be unable, after the 10th day of March to meet their financial obligations, and that they would be obliged to cease operating that railway. We all know what happened. The Government took immediate action and placed the Grand Trunk Pacific in the hands of a receiver. It must be said that the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern railways, which encountered these financial difficulties, were really not, correctly speaking, transcontinental lines; they were only parts or wings of a great transcontinental railway. It does not appear that the time had come when Canada should have practically three transcontinental railways. The development of trade, and the growth of the country's population had not arrived at the state when Canada could sustain any such plethora of railway mileage. How has it happened that we have come to the stage that the Grand' Trunk railway is to be taken over by the Government? Hon. gentlemen opposite have expressed surprise, indeed indignation, that this great and paramount question, this question of such very great importance to Canada, should, as they say, have 'been sprung upon Parliament without any previous intimation that the Government had any intention of taking over the Grand Trunk. But, Sir, it is a matter of fact that negotiations in this direction had been going on between the Government and the Grand Trunk Railway Company for a year and a half or thereabouts. As early as the 15th May, 75

1918, when the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, was making a survey of the general railway situation, he intimated quite positively the existence of the possibility that having taken over the Canadian Northern, and as we have seen the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk itself might also be taken over. While the discussion was going on the position of the Grand Trunk came up in the course of the debate, and no serious objection to that possible consummation was taken by the then leader of the Opposition, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, because he said on that occasion:

I think that the Grand Trunk Railway system should be productive of good results. For the present I do not condemn the idea of taking this railway over.

The two competing railways in the West- the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific, finding it impossible to successfully continue operations, had to succumb and the Government had no option in the matter hut to take them over. These railways have absorbed millions and millions of the people's money, and in ordei that they might be preserved and utilized for the benefit of Canada there was only one thing to do-the Government were faced, as a matter of necessity, to take these railways over. Now let ns see what the facts are with regard to the parent company of the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk. As I have already said, negotiations had been going on with the Grand Trunk. Intimations had been given in the House with respect to the matter from time to time, and numerous questions on the subject had been asked by the Opposition. I remember very well that not only during the present session but last session, hon. gentlemen opposite inquired whether any progress had been made in the Government's negotiations with the Grand Trunk, dr whether or not the Government had any announcement to make with regard to the project. Any hon, gentleman who was present on those occasions cannot fail to have a distinct recollection that questions of that kind were asked and from time to time the Government answered, and could only answer that no definite conclusion had been reached and that there was no information to make public. Eventually a stage was reached in the negotiations when, the Government practically gained their ultimatum, although the company made various overtures in order to learn whether it was not possible to obtain better terms. The Government, however, considered that the terms they had offered were

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):

I have closely followed the discourse of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mclsaac), and while I have never stood in awe of his great ability I always used to give him credit for a desire to place the facts before this Parliament. Now I am sorry to say I have to change my mind and hold not only my old opinion that my hon. friend does not possess an overwhelming amount of ability, but also that he is not scrupulously particular as to his facts. His account of the railway history of this country reminded me of a gentleman who was compiling a dictionary on fish. His definition of a lobster was A lobster is a fish, red in colour, and it walks or crawls backward." He showed this definition to a friend who was a better authority on fish than himself, and his friend said "That definition is all right except that this creature is not a fish, is not red in colour, and does not walk backward." I think that the history of the railways of this country as given by my hon. friend from Kings is about as true as that definition of a lobster. It was abso-

Tutely wrong from start to finish, and set forth not one scintilla of fact on which you [DOT]could rely. He made the extraordinary statement that we on this side of the House, and, indeed, the late leader of the Opposition, had said that we were willing to submit the value of the stock of the Canadian Northern to arbitration provided it did not exceed $30,000,000. It is most extraordinary that any hon. member who professes to understand his duties in this House and to represent an intelligent people should stand up here and undertake to say that we made such a proposition. As a matter of fact, the whole opposition was bent upon seeing that the matter should not go to arbitration at all. We relied on the Drayton-Acworth report which said that the stock was not worth one cent, and we contended that it was therefore ridiculous to submit the value of the stock to arbitration. The argument was: What is to be arbitrated? This Government and this country have found a court of capable commissioners whom the Government have appointed to ascertain the value of the different roads in this country, and that competent board have brought down a report in [DOT]which they say that this stock is not worth one dollar. The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mclsaac), in the face of that report and in the face of the discussion that took place upon it, puts himself on record as saying that my late distinguished leader, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said that lie was willing to submit this matter of straw, old straw at that, to arbitration, provided that the result would not net any more than $30,000,000. That is absolutely absurd, absolutely wrong and absolutely without the slightest foundation in the parliamentary history of this country or of this House. What has happened?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
UNION

James McIsaac

Unionist

Mr. McISAAC:

Will the hon. member

permit me a question?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIB:

I have the floor. What has happened and what is the history of this matter? Hon. gentlemen in this House will remember that in the early stages of that discussion, the Hon. Dr. Pugsley, then member for St. John, who spoke in the House on this question before the hon. member for Kings had a seat in the House, moved a resolution that the matter as it stood then should be submitted to arbitration, and that a proviso should be embodied in the Act that the result of the arbitration was not to exceed $30,000,000. What has happened since then? Millions upon

millions of dollars have been lent by the Government to this company. The proposition of the Hon. Mr. Pugsley was made on a discussion on the question before the House of lending $45,000,000 to the Canadian Northern. That proposition of arbitration was not accepted, and the $45,000,000 was lent, all at one slap, or $15,000,000 more than the award of which we were speaking. Millions of dollars were lent after that discussion in regard to the $30,000,000. Yet the hon. member comes here to-day, and he forgets the loan of $45,000,000, the loan of $10,000,000, and the loan of $7,500,000 which were made to that company after that proposition of arbitration was made, and he squares himself with the truth by saying that we said that, upon the same basis as the stock was worth when the last arbitration was made, we were willing to give $30,000,000. Those are the circumstances, and the hon. member forgets entirely to take the slightest notice of the millions and millions of dollars that we lent after that proposition was made. If the hon. gentleman wants to be fair about this thing, he will take an account of tne $45,000,000, the $10,000,000 and the $7,500,000 that were paid over to the company after the arbitration proposition was made. If he does that, he will he correct in his history and in the figures that he might submit to the House.

Leaving the speech of the hon. member at that, I do not know that I shall pay any further attention to it just now. The hon. member says that we knew all about this legislation; that we knew that this business was coming up, and that there was nothing of surprise about it. Why should there be, he says, I venture to think that the right hon. gentleman who leads this House (Sir George Foster) understands Parliamentary procedure equally as well as the hon. member for King's (Mr. Molsaac). His education and Parliamentary experience are at least equal to that of the hon. memlber, and as the leader of the Govern- , ment and as the Acting Prime Minister just now, I think that he knew more about the business before the House and the purpose for which this session was called better than the hon. member. If the hon. member for King's, who is fond of history and fond of reading, I will say parts of the reports of the proceedings of the House, will look at page 858 of Hansard of the present session, he will find that the leader of the Government said:

This session of Parliament was called, not for private business, hut for one special purpose, and it has been confined largely to that, and

I think the general sense of the House has been that it should be confined to that.

And the right hon. gentleman went on to say that we should close; that we had conne here for a special purpose; that we had finished that special purpose; that the country expected us to con-5 p.m. fine ourselves to that purpose and then to go home. That was the view of the Acting Prime Minister expressed in this House on the 3rd October and appearing on page 858 of Hansard, and on the strength of that statement many hon. members left Ottawa; some of them are today on their way to the Old Country, some of them are in the West, and some of them are in other places, believing that the right hon. gentleman believed what he was speaking about, and I have no doubt that was his judgment at the time. But, of course, the hon. member for King's wipes that aside and says: Why should we take any notice of the statement of the leader of the Government? Why should we take his opinion? Did he not at that time know that there was something up the sleeve of the Government which was going to come down, and that we were not going to get away when we expected? We had, however, a right to believe the leader of the Government; we did believe him, and I am not accusing him at all, because I think he told us what he believed at the time. But somebody could not wait; some big interest thought it was well to strike the iron while it was hot; that it was well to rush this thing through, possibly while the Prime Minister was away or for some other reason. The Government no doubt consulted the hon. member for King's, and he told them that it was all right, and here it is.

I do not wish to take up very much time of the House at this stage; but occupying -the position that I do and realizing the very grave importance of the business that is before the House, I wish to state as concisely as possible the views which I hold upon this question. There is no wiping aside of the great question of transportation in this new and large country of ours; it must be attended to properly and well. No party, no Government, no Opposition, can afford to treat lightly dealing with the question of railways in this country, and hitherto both parties, Liberal and Conservative, have been giving their attention to this question to the very best of their ability. Mistakes may have been made; but if so, they were possibly mistakes of the head rather than of the heart and intention of public men of this country. The party to which I belong have nothing to take back

and nothting to -apologize for on the question of railways.

When the railway policy of the Liberal party was formulated in 1903 by Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada, the scheme was fully discussed in Parliament and thereafter submitted to the people. An election was held in 1904, in which this question was comprehensively discussed and its minutiae were presented to the people from coast to coast. The people enjoyed the benefit of the discussions on the question in Parliament the winter before. The newspapers had opportunity to deal with the subject from every standpoint and to publish everything in regard to it they deemed desirable. The railway question was also discussed on the hustings, and the Opposition of that day, led by the present Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) dealt with it in every part of the country. Every candidate, whether for the Government or for the Opposition, discussed it as completely as he desired. Altogether the people were in an ideal position to understand the subject in all its bearings. Fully comprehending it, they went to the balftt box and voted upon the question, giving their well considered judgment. You, Sir; I believe, were a candidate at that time, and I submit to you that the only question that was before the people in that election -at least, the only question worth talking about-was whether or not the Government should undertake Jhe building of the Transcontinental railway and the further extension of it under the name of the Grand Trunk Pacific. The people of Canada passed judgment decisively upon the question. They sustained the Government, virtually saying to Sir Wilfrid and his Government: " We have considered your scheme and are satisfied with it. Go ahead and carry out the policy which you have submitted to us." Weil, astart was made and in 1908, four years afterwards, the Government was again on its trial. An opportunity was given, both in and out of Parliament, for ample discussion of'this question. The general election came on, but very little was said about it. In any event, the Government was again sustained. In 1911-and the building of the road was progressing rapidly between 1904 and 1911-an opportunity was afforded the people of learning how things were getting along and what the Government was doing. Another question, an entirely new one, was before the people in 1911, knd not a word was said by the Opposition of that day criticising the building of the road. .Nothing was said adversely in regard to enter-

The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mclsaac) -'and he will pardon one for referring to him again-spoke of this as a very slight affair. It was a very small thing and he thought that it was ridiculous that hon. members on this side should discuss it at all. The matter was so plain, so simple, so palpable, and what we were offered was such a bargain that we should all rush at it, wait not for one word of criticism or inquiry as to what the price was going to be, what it consisted of or anything else about it, but just grasp at this wonderful pearl of great price .that the Grand Trunk are laying on .the bosom of the Canadian people. That is the idea that we get from the hon. member and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who undertake to criticise are told that they are really wasting the time of the people and of the country and that they should not discuss such matters at all.

I myself, Mr. Speaker, am not of that view. My own position is that the Canadian people should get possession of every facility in this country that they possibly can get, provided they can do so at a proper price and provided they are able to operate that utility as much to the advantage of themselves and the country as it would be worked if it were in the hands of a corporation or private owners. There is no disguising, and I am not trying to disguise, where I am on this question-I am on record a hundred times in this House on the question of a man's individual ability and results when he is working for himself compared to his ability and results When he is working for a government. There is no question whatever about that. I always look for the best results when a man is working for himself, as compared with the results obtained when he is. working for a government. When a man is working for himself he is ambitious, he is keen, he has got all his wits about him, he knows that the prize is for himself, *and he wants to use his brain and his ability to the very best advantage. On the other hand, we find that a man is sluggish, indifferent, and careless when working for a government; he is only a cog in a wheel, there is not very much notice taken of him. He knows he is a cog and he will remain in that wheel-he will do the work of the wheel and that is all he will do. That is what is happening in this country and that is where the vast difference comes in between the results of the operation of concerns publicly owned and operated and the results of concerns privately owned and privately operated. In the great majority of

cases, I am happy to say, we find privately-operated concerns making money, but that is not the case with public utilities. Of course, there are towns and Cities who supply their own water and light, and some of them are making money-some of them are making ends meet and some making a profit-but that is entirely different from the working or exercising of the right of running a railway some eight or nine thousand miles long or dealing with such almost incomprehensible things as the operation of such systems. I suppose that, as in the past, a great deal of fault will be found with me because I express these views. I care not about that at all; I hate now, and will always continue to hate, Pharisaical hypocrisy; and if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to take shelter in the camp of a Pharisaical hypocrite, they can stay there-I will not.

Now, I am a single individual. I might on this question 'be absolutely wrong. I am not speaking as the leader of a great party, I am speaking for myself. That is my view, although I may he wrong. Before I sit down I hope to be able to prove to the House and to the Canadian people that I am right in saying that we get the best results from people handling their own. business as corporations rather than from the loose way of government ownership and government operation. Mr. Speaker, we are told to be very much afraid and to pass by on the other side for fear we may touch the institution known as the Canadian Pacific railway. We are told to avoid it as far as we can; and indeed it is dangerous for a public man to express an opinion with regard to it because he is at once branded as being in sympathy with that concern and in their service, and as not being honest. Why that great public organ, the Globe, is calling myself to task for being in the service of, and in improper sympathy with, the Canadian Pacific. I have been in public life, Mr. Speaker, for thirty years. Fourteen years of that time have been spent largely in the service of the town and municipality to which I belong. Twenty years-five of them in Halifax and fifteen of them here- have been absolutely in the public service. I have been elected four times to this House, twice to the legislature of Nova, Scotia, and fourteen times in municipal elections. That is a fairly .good test, Mr. Speaker, d invite the Globe to look over those years, to look over that history, and if they find one single blemish, or anything that looks aught but what a public

man's public -service should exhibit of public honesty, they will have some license to attack me as being in favour of private ownership. That 1 is ray position, Mr. Speaker, and with that history, Sir, I think I have a right to say to hon. gentlemen in this House that whatever my views are they are honest, and there is nothing behind them except what I deem to 'be regard for the best interests of the Canadian people.

Now, supposing the taking of the Grand Trunk system is a good bargain. There is many a poor boy who walks along Sparks street on -a cold day and sees nice boots in the shop windows and nice coats hanging up inside. He is very cold; he would like to get boots; he would like to get clothes; he would like to be well clothed to stand the severity of the weather. But he has no money to "buy boots or clothes; the condition of things forces him to go without. Now, supposing this railroad bargain is all right, have we got the necessary money to carry it out? I submit, Sir, that we have not. I give no evidence of my own on that point except to s-ay this: That while we talk about two billions of money as being the public debt of Canada I am informed on very good authority that it amounts to $2,270,000,000

that is the aggregate public debt of this country. We also have a railway debt of '$400,000,000 which we now pass over in the name of the Canadian Northern; that is ljot added to our public debt although to all intents and purposes it forms a part of it, for we have taken over the road, we have assumed the obligation, and we might as well be honest with ourselves, add it. to the general debt of Canada -and reckon it in that way. On the authority of good financiers in this country who -have gone into this matter, I received the . figures just as I have given them to the House, and they constitute the main block of our indebtedness. Before coming down to details I appeal to the people of Canada and I appeal to hon. gentlemen if it is not a time when we should pause and examine the situation and determine whether we are in a position to impose such burdens upon the country. We are but a small group here representing about 8,000,000 of people, and commissioned to look after national affairs, and our friends at home rest at ease, believing that we will not enter into any contract or obligation but what is in the best national interest. Our constituents are busy about other matters, and when we take upon ourselves the responsibility of representing them they leave to us the duty of seeing

that nothing shall be done here except what is in the best interests of the country. For that reason, Sir, I submit that it is the duty of every hon. member to ascertain -the financial obligations of the country, and to consider carefully whether it is proper, that we shall force on the people anything which they can do without. I contend, Sir, that we can do without this Grand Trunk for the present, and that the financial condition of the country is such that we should not attempt to take over the railway.

I was isaying -that the financial state of Canada was -such as not to justify the position the Government is taking. Up till to-day who is there that we should look to as the best authority on the financial condition of the country? I submit that for the last seven or eight years the lion. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) has known more about the finances of the Dominion than any other Canadian. What is his advice? When he was talking upon a subject which involved the assumption of some further financial responsibility by the people, his advice was: "You cannot do it. If you take my advice you will not add another dollar to the obligations of Canada." And, Mr. Speaker, I have here a summary of what was put forward in support of that advice:

$30,000,000 is required this year for pensions ;

$25,000,000 for soldiers' land settlement;

$10,000,000 for soldiers' civil re-establishment;

$102,762,000 for interest on the public debt;

$350,000,000 for war expenditure for 1920

A total of $517,762,000.

And the same authority -tells us that that is only a portion of what we have to provide, for -in the session which closed on ,the 7th of July w-e passed estimates totalling $550,000,000. That immense sum of money has to be provided for, and the items mentioned here are but a very few of those aggregating the $550,000,000 which we -then threw upon the shoulders of the people. But taking it as it is here, we find the items which I mention aggregate $517,762,000; and we are told by the very excellent authority that the aggregate revenue expected from every source this year will be $224,000,000. That, hon. members will observe, leaves a deficit of $273,762,000. Now, supposing that one-half of the "$550,000,000 estimates we passed are yet- to be provided for-I will not take half, I will say that we have $250,000,000 not yet provided for. Add that sum to the $273,762,000 and we have a deficit of $523,762,000. That means that this country during the current year must find

$523,7623000 for which we have not one cent

of revenue, because our revenue was exhausted long ago-and it must be remembered that our actual revenue often falls short of the estimate made by the Finance Department. But at the very best we are now confronting a situation where $523,762,000 must be borrowed, not so much for public works, but for the ordinary expenses of the country. There is no camouflage about that, these are figures given by the best authorities that the Government can put forward, they are the records of the Department of Finance given to us without question on the authority of officials of that department, including the ex-Finance

Minister himself.

In the light of that situation would not sane, wise men say: Well, anything that Canada can do without for the present should not be acquired, but should be left over to be dealt with later under better circumstances; unless it can be shown that it is a very good proposition and something which will bring money to the coffers of Canada instead of placing us under new obligations. I submit, Sir, that if there is any fact in the present life of Canada which should receive our sympathetic support and careful consideration it is this fact of the returned soldier and his wife and children; tl^ey. should receive as much consideration as anything else that could possibly come before this Parliament. We have been advised by the Government, and it is a matter of record, that there is nothing they can do for our returned men. We have been told on the floor of this House by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who was then leading the Government, that it had already been decided that nothing could be done. Of course, there is something going on now-I do not know what it will amount to-but the record of the Government and the letter of the Prime Minister to the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association, which was read here yesterday, are to the effect that the financial situation of the country is such that not a dollar can be raised to relieve those worthy sons of Canada who have done so much for the Empire and for this Dominion. If we have no money for the soldier-if his baby must cry for bread and we have no bread to appease its hunger-have we money to buy old railway stock? That, Sir, is the situation. We have been told by the Prime Minister, no doubt on his honour and what he thought was the fact, that much as he would like to help the soldiers he had not the means and dared not undertake to do

anything which the financial situation of the country would not justify. But to-day there seems to be plenty of money to buy old stock that is worth nothing, to buy a railroad that is hopelessly insolvent and has not paid a cent of dividends for years.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue; Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Mr. J. D. EEID:

That is not so. How can the hon. gentleman say that?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

If it has paid a dividend, Sir, it has paid it out of the life blood of the road, out of money that should have gone into the upkeep of that road, according to the Drayton-Acworth report which is the Tory gospel.

That report says that $.36,000,000 was taken out of the earnings of the road and paid in dividends, whereas it should have been put into the road. I am not responsible for the truth of that statement; it is in the Drayton-Acworth report. The report has been public now for nearly two years, and we have not heard that statement called in question by any Grand Trunk official. They admit that they have allowed the road to run down, taken money to pay dividends, and played the market-I say that advisedly

with the road, hoping when it has gone to rack and ruin to pile it on the shoulders of the Canadian people. A copy of the Drayton-Acworth report has just been put in my hands, and I find this (page lxxxvi, section 10):

The Gra'nd Trunk Company proper has made unjustifiable charges to capital. Its lines have not been adequately maintained. More than $31,000,000, which ought to have been spent on maintenance in past years, has not been spent. New capital expenditure of over $30,000,000 is immediately required. The country is suffering from the company's inability to give adequate service. The Grand Trunk railway ought to be managed in Canada, and not from' London.

That, I think, is sufficient justification for what I said, but in another part of the report it is actually stated that the sum of $36,000,000 which should have been put into the road to keep it in proper shape was paid out in dividends.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue; Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Mr. J. D. REID:

That has been denied by the Grand Trunk officials.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

It may have been, but woe betide any man on this side of the House who says that the Drayton-Acworth report is not literally and actually correct as to every word and every figure. Well, I have found those figures in that report, and I take them as being correct and shall stand by them until the Drayton-Acworth Commission tells this House and the country that they were mistaken and that that

money was not used in the way they stated.

1 was dealing with the question whether tins was a good bargain or not. Whether oi not it is a good bargain, I submit that we are not in a position now to launch into an expenditure of this kind, but we should get along as cheaply as we can consistent with present circumstances and the times in which we live. We have been told over and over again by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) that this is just as much a war year as any of the five years during which the war was on. If this is a war year, if it is necessary for the purposes of the war to borrow $350,000,000 this year and another $350,000,000 next year to square the account, is it not reasonable that we ought, if Canada can raise the money and we have money to spare, to look after our soldiers in the most sympathetic and generous manner? But out of that $350,000,000 we have not got a dollar for the soldier. We cannot give the soldier any because there are other demands. We are asked in some quarters to be generous with the shareholders of the Grand Trunk. I say that we have been generous with them for over sixty years in this country. If there is any generosity in the hearts of members of this House or the people of this country those who have the first claim upon it are the soldiers of Canada and not the shareholders in the Old Land. If we cannot be generous with our own flesh and blood I do not think there is any room for argument for generosity for wealthy men and women in the Old Country. We are anxious, of course, to give a fair deal to every man and every woman in the Old Land who chooses to put money in any of our enterprises; that should be our desire, and we should do it for the sake of our reputation. But the Drayton-Acworth report says that there was bad management in connection with this company. It declares that the road was badly managed both at the operating and the financing ends, that the management were, practically speaking, playing the market and neglecting the requirements ot the road. Now that they have let the road go to rack and ruin, is that the time for the people of Canada to step in and pay for all the blunders and mistakes and shortcomings of the management of this road during the last sixty years? I submit that we have stronger calls upon our generosity and upon our finances. There is a greater need elsewhere for any generosity and energy that we possess. The proper thing now is to see how public ownership of railways is going to

work out before we take over' this system. Then, if public ownership of the railways is found to be good business, and if our finances will permit of it we can take the road over when public ownership has been made a success. To take an illustration, if one of my farmer friends in this House or outside buys a Jersey cow from a man to-day and is asked to buy another Jersey cow from the same man to-morrow, would not a sensible farmer say, ''Let me see how the cow I bought from you yesterday is going to turn out, how much milk and 'butter she gives? Then, when I know what sort of a cow she is, I can talk to you about buying another one." That is business. Why not apply the same principle to the public ownership and operation of railways? We have from 14,000 to 16,000 miles of railway on our hands now. Surely we should be permitted to see how the operation of this mileage works out before we are asked to take over another 8,000 miles without knowing whether public ownership and operation of railways is good business or not. I submit that in view of these considerations and the facts I shall ' give later on, it is not a fair proposition to ask us to take over this road at this stage.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

(Resuming) Mr. Speaker, just at six o'clock, I was making some reference to the bargain with which we are dealing as not being a good one, and also to the financial condition of Canada, and I was drawing the inference that the purchase proposed was not a wise one nor a good bargain, and that the Canadian exchequer was not in a prosperous condition that would warrant entering into a speculation of this kind. A good deal of credit is claimed by the Government in connection with public ownership, and they have been trying to make out that they are pioneers in this matter and that they are doing it as a ma/tter of policy and in the best interest of the country. I wish to quote from a cablegram which appears in this blue book which is endorsed "Grand Trunk Railway Company Acquisition and Memoranda respecting the same," published by the Government and placed in the hands of hon. members a few days ago. The very first cablegram 'which appears on page 3 is one from the Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden to the Dominion High Commissioner at London. It is marked "confidential," and reads:

Following for Smithers, President Qrand Trunk. Begins. Most Confidential. Public opinion greatly exercised by proposed increase of railway rates. We are hearing appeal to-day from Railway Board's decision. Having regard to all conditions which confront the Government it seems highly probable that circumstances will compel us to take active steps toward nationalization of Canadian railways in immediate future.

I quote that, Sir, to show that the view of the Government at that time was not that they were entering upon a promising business or upon something that was inviting, but that they were confronted with a condition which would compel them in the near future 'to take over the railways. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that a business man does not enter upon a business venture in a spirit of that kind if he believes it to be a good one. He enters upon that business because he believes it is going to he profitable and that it will be a good investment for his money, or if he is investing somebody else's money, because he thinks it is a profitable venture for the person whose money he is handling, and he will not make use of such language as the Prime Minister uses here, namely, that he finds himself in a condition where, .in the immediate future, he must deal with those railways as a national-owned railway.

I find a little further on in this book, at page 7, a reference in a letter which the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) wrote on the 11th July to Sir Alfred Smithers. I am quoting that letter only to show that the Government regarded [he Grand Trunk railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway at that time as one and the same company and one and the same property. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) in this letter says:

This latter company-

That is the Grand Trunk Pacific.

-is in every sense subsidiary to, and its stock is wholly owned by the Grand Trunk Company.

A little further on, he says:

Throughout the negotiation and indeed prior thereto, it has been made clear to your company that the obligations of the 'Grand Trunk company to the Grand Trunk Pacific company could not be ignored and that the Government could not undertake to assume the indebtedness of and to operate the Grand Trunk Pacific and branch lines thereof, and to relieve the Grand Trunk of responsibility therefor, while the Grand Trunk itself, as a subsidiary of which and indeed as an extension of which the Grand Trunk Pacific was built, r emained in independent hands. .

This clearly shows that the Government and the Minister of 'the Interior at that

date regarded the Grand Trank and the Grand Trunk Pacific as mutually responsible for the obligations of the one and the other, and that the Grand Trunk was not going to get out from ,the responsibility which devolved upon it by reason of extending its road, as the minister said at that time, and building a branch to the West, and the Grand Trunk Pacific was at that time regarded as an extension of the Grand Trank railway. I am mentioning that in connection with the horror with which the Government now view the idea of putting any railway into the hands of a receiver. The Grand Trunk Pacific is a road which the Government regard as part of the Grand Trunk. They .say it is to all intents and purposes an extension of the Grand Trank, and they immediately, without the slightest hesitation, put that branch, that part of the road, of the same company, into the hands of a receiver.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue; Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Mr. J. D. REID:

Might I suggest to my hon. friend that they put themselves in that position because they refused to operate?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

I am talking about the question of receivership.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY 'SYSTEM.
Subtopic:   BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE SYSTEM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Permalink

October 21, 1919