October 21, 1919

UNION

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

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

'Not only do these considerations which I have mentioned support the proposition of public ownership and justify the country in enlarging its railway holdings, but I share the view expressed by the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) with reference to the general principle of public ownership as applied to our railway system. Therefore I cordially support this proposition on that ground.

But coming back for a moment to the other aspect of the question, even if I did not believe in public ownership, even if I were opposed to public ownership, I would support this proposition on the plain business ground of national necessity. I support it on this ground, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons: First, as an operating proposition. The only way in which we can fairly carry out the obligations we have assumed is by adding this railway-to our present system, thus making, in a measure, a complete transportation system, and thus be in a position to enter into competition on fair terms with the other great railway transportation system, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. My second reason is that even if my hon. friend's view be correct, that we cannot successfully operate a system of railways in the public interest by public ownership, if we wished ultimately to dispose of these railways we would have a vastly more valuable asset with the Grand Trunk added than if we endeavoured to dispose of them without such addition. Test it on any ground, Mr. Speaker, and the acquisition of the Grand Trunk is an advantage to the country. I know it is the view of some business men in the East who are opposed to this proposition that as an asset our national railway system is vastly more valuable with the Grand Trunk added than it is in its present severed condition. And that the additional value of the whole system will be vastly more than the amount we have to pay to acquire the Grand Trunk.

I wish to make that point clear, Mr. Speaker. The combined system is worth vastly more than the separate portions of the system added together, and we only get the real value by combining. It does not need any argument to establish that contention. The reason the Grand Trunk Pacific was built was to give an outlet to the West to the Grand Trunk system in the East. . And if you have the Grand Trunk Pacific, with all the burdens and obligations incidental to it, without the Grand Trunk system in the East, you have the burden without the compensation-you have the liability without the asset to make it good. I can quite

understand men opposed to public ownership, if they wish to see public ownership fail in Canada, would be bitterly hostile to the acquirement of this Grand Trunk road, because they know that without its acquirement public ownership is bound to result in a heavy financial loss to the country; but with this Grand Trunk railway acquired, with our national railway system in a measure complete, it may be possible to make public ownership of railways a success in this country. I know that many people do not want to see it a success; hon' estly and sincerely they are opposed to the principle. They believe that in the long run it would be a mistake. They say it leads to Socialism. We have heard that argument during this debate, that public ownership of railways is only leading on to other public ownership of all other kinds of business and to Socialism. Therefore they are opposed to the whole business and want to see it fail. I think I'see the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pelletier) who referred to the danger of socialism approving. I see my hon. friend confesses that he is responsible for that statement. Some hon. members think public ownership is going to lead to these dire consequences, and therefore they would like to see it fail. For that reason they are opposed to our taking proper measures to make public ownership a success. Well, that is not the view of the people of Canada. They have got this great undertaking on their hands, they want to see it made a success, and they want the Government to take the necessary means to that end.

Now I come' to another point. My hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) said that this bargain was not a good bargain in itself. Well, I am not going to add much to what I said the other evening in Committee, neither am I going to add to what the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) have said, except to point out that we have as the basis of this proposal the Drayton-Acworth report to which my hon. friend referred. iBased on this report we proposed a cash payment of $2,500,000 for the first three or five years-[DOT] I have forgotten which it was-a higher sum for the next few years, and then $3,600,000 for the balance of the term. These figures have been before the House and the country for months, I have come back to it again, because no hon. member has up to this time ever challenged those figures, has ever said that our offer was too high, has ever suggested that our proposition was unfair to the people of Canada. And hon. members must bear in mind that

there is only one way of acquiring this road, and that is by negotiation. We cannot get it by expropriation for we cannot expropriate the lines in the United States, the Grand Trunk refused that offer but they are willing to arbitrate. Having regard to those facts, the question is have the Government negotiated a fair deal in this present agreement:

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

Frank S. Cahill

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CAHILL:

No.

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

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

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

Well, if my hon. friend wishes to know the view put forward by the Grand Trunk Company as to their rights and position, he can find it in the statements from time to time issued by them. They not only challenge the proposal, they said it vras confiscation to endeavour to force them to agree to it. My hon. friend knows that our proposal means tens of millions of dollars less for the Grand Trunk, so far as their shareholders are concerned, in our actual outlay to acquire this stock, than we have already given to the Canadian Pacific railway and to the Canadian Northern Tailway by way of bonus and subsidy, speaking of the subsidies granted both by the Federal and Provincial Governments. My hon. friend will see all those subsidies set out in the Drayton-Acworth report, showing the amount which the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific railway have received from the Federal Government. And I submit that in view of the position of this road, in view of its earnings, its possibilities, and its relation to our national railway system, it is well worth the offer which the Government has made for it. The people of Canada are getting a bargain on a fair and sound business basis and on reasonable business terms in the agreement which has been negotiated and is now before the House and covered by the Bill now introduced.

Then my hon. friend said that we had not the money wherewith to pay the purchase price, and he drew a touching picture of the condition of the soldier's wife and child. My hon. friend need not appeal to members on this side of the House to give attention to the soldier's wife and child. They have been giving that consideration and attention ever since this Government was formed. They are giving it to-day. A committee of this House is at present giving that consideration and that attention to the soldier and his dependents. And my hon. friend wholly misinterpreted and misquoted-not intentionally-the

statement of the Prime Minister in con-

nection with that matter. The Prime Minister's statement was that the country could not afford an additional cash gratuity such as had been asked, and therefore it could not be granted; but he never said and never suggested that the widow and orphans of the soldier in need of care and protection would not receive attention from this Government and from this country. A committee of the House, composed of members on both sides, on the motion of the Government-and I had the honour myself to make that motion-are now considering that whole problem with a view to making such recommendations as they may consider wise to meet the situation in so far as it is not at present adequately met. My hon. friend knows that the widow of the soldier and his orphan child will receive at the hands of this Government, will receive at the hands of this Parliament,-for I am sure members on both sides are desirous they should-all that is necessary for their care and protection.

But my hon. friend says that we have heavy liabilities. So we have. And he says that we should not spend a dollar that will not bring us a dollar or more in return. We should not spend a dollar that we do not need to spend. I concur in everything my hon. friend has said about the duty of economy. I agree that it is necessary. We have a heavy financial obligation; we have a great burden of debt; we have a serious annual charge to meet, which will be a burden upon us for years to come, and we can only meet it by economy on the part of the Government and by thrift and increased production on the part of the people. We must devote our energies to these tasks. But my hon friend wholly misapplied the argument he advanced in speaking of this proposition as it exists. I take the argument he advanced in favour of economy and conservation of the resources of the country, and 1 say that under existing conditions we must pay out millions of dollars every year to maintain the railways which we are responsible for maintaining without any adequate return. We are taking over the Grand Trunk, not to add to our liabilities, but to contribute to the relief of our liabilities, to reduce our interest charges, to put our transportation system on a basis where we can see daylight-and we cannot see daylight at the present time. It is because of the necessity of getting relief, because of the magnitude of the burdens we have to bear, that we should complete this undertaking in order to have a trans-

portation system which can pay its own way when normal conditions are restored after the war, and which, as the country develops and as population increases, and the extent of the services it renders to the country increases from year to year, will cease to be a liability and will become an asset of the people of Canada. I believe that is possible if we go ahead with this contract and place the system under efficient management and operate it solely in the public interest.

My hon. friend has said this is not an opportune time, that an intimation was given the House that, we expected to adjourn a week ago, and that therefore we should not take this matter up now. It is difficult for me to understand the point of view of my hon. friend. I frankly confess I cannot understand it at all. At the time that intimation was made, as has already been pointed out, it was not anticipated that this agreement would be concluded. But it is concluded. How will we be in a better position to deal with it in February next than we are to-day? My hon. friend has not given us a single suggestion on this point.

We have now all the data we will have next February, and all the information, we need to reach a conclusion on the whole proposition. Then what is the object of delay? There can be only one object gained by delay, and that is to give .those who are opposed to the country acquiring this road an opportunity to organize their opposition more _ effectively, and to defeat what we believe to be' in the public interests, which require the Government to acquire the road.

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

Louis Audet Lapointe

Laurier Liberal

Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:

I say that you had this all prepared before the end of the session and were simply holding it by strings. That was the protest of the Montreal Board of Trade.

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

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

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

I had the pleasure ol

being present when a deputation from Montreal Board of Trade waited upon the Government, and not a member of the deputation made any such suggestion or anything that bears any relation to it.

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

Louis Audet Lapointe

Laurier Liberal

Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:

I can show you an item in the Citizen where they represented that you were all along prepared to bring down this measure.

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

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

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

All I have to say is that no deputation that waited on the Government suggested it, and if any man does suggest it he suggests that about which he

has no knowledge and which is absolutely untrue.

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

Ernest Lapointe

Laurier Liberal

Mr. L. A LAPOINTE:

May I ask why the deputation from the Montreal Board of Trade was received in a dark room, with nobody there except the ministers and five or six of the delegates? Nobody knows what passed at the meeting.

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

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

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

All I can say to my hon. friend is this.: It may be that the deputation from the Montreal Board of Trade made a very great mistake when they did not include my hon. friend in the deputation, and that it was an oversight on their part. We are not responsible for that; my hon. friend will have to settle that with the members of the Montreal Board of Trade. I am quite sure had they included my hon. friend in the deputation and had he heard the discussion, that took place he would 'be less satisfied with his opposition to this Bill, and would be more tempted to back up the Government in support of it when he had heard the good reasons advanced why the Government should go on with this legislation.

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

Louis Audet Lapointe

Laurier Liberal

Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:

Did the Government satisfy the delegation?

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

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

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

I do not think we did.

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

Joseph Archambault

Laurier Liberal

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

Like the farmers' delegation last year.

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

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

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

They frankly stated their hostility to public ownership under any conditions. There is no policy this Government could take consistent with serving the public interest at this critical time that would meet the views of the Montreal men opposed to public ownership. Therefore, although these are men for whom we have great respect and whose business judgment commands consideration; and although nearly all of them were supporters of the Government-

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

Louis Audet Lapointe

Laurier Liberal

Mr. L. A. LAPOINTE:

Yes.

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

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

Unionist

Mr. ROWELL:

-the Government could not at the same time serve the public interest as they see it, and meet the views of their friends in Montreal. So the Government decided to support the public interest as they see it at this time.

I come back to the question, what is the object of delay? There can be no gain by delay except to permit the interests that are opposed to the consummation of this bargain to organize more effectively to defeat it, and if the Government believes that this bargain is in the public interest,

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

Francis N. McCrea

Laurier Liberal

Mr. F. N. McCREA (Sherbrooke) :

I have not a great deal to say on this question, Mr. Speaker, and as the hour is late I may as well express my views now, for I shall not take up very much time. In the first place, so that there may he no misunderstanding as to where I stand in this matter, I desire to say that I am absolutely opposed to the principle of government ownership of railways or any other utility that can be better managed privately, and I shall give my reasons. I asked the President of the Privy Council if he could mention any country that had made a success of government ownership but he did net answer. He said that English-speaking nations probably could or would, or had done so. but I asked him to name any single nation that had made a success of government ownership and to this definite question I received no reply. Now, I am opposed to government ownership for -the reason that other countries have tried it and in every instance it has proved a failure, and I cannot see that it could be other than a failure. I

think that the President of ithe Council will admit that government ownership and management of railways under the political system is bound to be a failure. Patronage will creep in and render it impossible for a government-owned railway to be successful. How, do hon. gentlemen opposite propose to manage a public utility of any kind? Imagine an aggregation of men subscribing a large amount of money for the development of any enterprise-be it a railway or any other concern-and, having completed the preliminaries, handing it over to a few private persons, saying: " This is your property, and you can do as you please with it. Take no notice of us; you are under no obligation to accept any advice we may offer. The people who put their money into it and own it will have absolutely nothing to say about its management: you are virtually the owners." Could any undertaking conducted under such circumstances be at all successful? The best way in which the Civil Service or any other business naturally within the purview of the Government can be conducted is undoubtedly by the direct control of the Government itself. But a railway is a different proposition and must be handled on business lines, and it is unthinkable that any combination of men subscribing a large amount of capital for any business would surrender all interest in its operation. I cannot conceive how a railway can be conducted successfully under public ownership. We represent the people and are supposed to know something about what the Government is interested in, whether in the matter of railways or anything else. The experience of every country that has tried government ownership has been decidedly that of failure and not success.

Taking these two things together, I maintain that it is unthinkable that the Government of Canada or of any other country can handle a railway proposition, give the service and give the attention to it.that can be given by the men who actually own the railway. It cannot be carried on as successfully as the Canadian Pacific and other well managed corporations are. The people who have their money in it are the people who direct it and carry on its management. It must be done in that way if it is to be successful and it cannot be done in any other way.

There are a good many reasons put forth why this road should be taken over. We are told that one is that some years ago, when the Grand Trunk Pacific was organized and became one of the lines of transportation, the Grand Trunk Railway Company

entered into an agreement to take over and operate the road. They became financially responsible for some $125,000,000, and it is said now that the Grand Trunk, who guaranteed this loan, are not in a position to respect and take care of that guarantee. Therefore, that is advanced as a reason -why wre should take over the Grand Trunk. Yet, in taking over the Grand Trunk as proposed now, what are we going to get? What assistance are we going to get to pay the prinr cipal or interest of the road that has been guaranteed by the Grand Trunk? If I understand this agreement properly, and I think I do, we are proposing to assume a very heavy obligation. According to the Montreal Star of last Thursday, the interest at 4 per cent on the first mortgage bonds which the Government undertake to guarantee will amount to a little over $G,000,000 a year. On the second mortgage bonds the interest will be $2,500,000, while the third set of bonds or securities are supposed to be arbitrated upon, and that is as yet an unknown quantity. The arbitrators will fix the value of the third class security, but putting them all together, the first mortgage bonds at 4 per cent and the second mortgage bonds at 4 per cent, the total which the Government will have to pay will be $8,500,000, which, with the other obligation that will rest upon the sholders of the Government, will make an amount of $10,000,000. That is more than the Grand Trunk has been able to earn. In what way are we going to get any relmburse-pient of the loan or guarantee made by the Grand Trunk to the Grand Trunk Pacific? I cannot see any advantage in the proposition.

We have heard from both sides of the House that the Grand Trunk proper was in a deplorable condition, that the chairman of the Grand Trunk was appealing to the Government to take care of and protect his shareholders. As I understand it, the first duty of this Government is to protect the taxpayers of Canada; their sympathies should go out to the taxpayers of this country. If the Grand Trunk have operated this road for sixty years under the best management they could put forth, if they have not been able to make any dividends or revenue for their stockholders, if they now come to the Government of Canada and say: "Come to our rescue; take care of our stockholders," if they have been crying for mercy, if they have been saying that they have been receiving no remuneration or revenue in the way of dividends or interest on their stock in this road, I think that is one of the greatest

reasons that could be put forth why this Government should be careful. If the stock is worth nothing and brings no revenue to the people who, own it, why do we want it? We have trouble and obligations enough on our hands without undertaking to carry the burdens of the stockholders of the Grand Trunk.

It is said that the Grand Trunk put up the argument that they were misled when they were induced to go into the construction and operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I think this House and the people of the country are aware that Mr. C. M. Hays, who was the manager of the Grand Trunk at that time, was one of the ablest men on the continent, and if he made a bad bargain for his people is that a reason why the taxpayers of this country should be called upon to relieve them of that burden? Not in my judgment. If the Grand Trunk as it now exists is not able to meet its obligations and pay dividends to its stockholders, why should Canada take it over and why should we pledge the credit of Canada to pay that interest whether the road earns it or not?

One of the arguments put forth is the same as the argument which was put forth in connection with the Canadian Northern when it was a question of taking over that road, It was said that it ought to be done, and done quickly, because if it were not done and done quickly the apple would fall into the mouth of the Canadian Pacific. The Canadian Pacific were standing ready, we were told in this House, to take it over. I want to tell the House that the Canadian Pacific never had any intention of taking over the Canadian Northern or the Grand Trunk under any such conditions as we are taking over the latter road now. It may be true that the Canadian Pacific had entered into some negotiations, but you will find that the proposition about negotiations came from the seller, not from the buyer, the reason being that they wanted to get a bugaboo to bring before the House and to make the House believe that the Canadian Pacific wanted to get these roads. I can tell the House that the Canadian Pacific never wanted to buy the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Northern for any such money as this country is paying or proposes to pay.

But, suppose that either one or both should fail into the hands of the Canadian Pacific! The hon. the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) told us, speaking on this question from his place in the House last week, that the Canadian Pacific was one of the best managed institutions

on this continent, that it was one of the best manned and operated roads, and that it gave a good service. Would it have been a calamity if the Canadian Northern had fallen, or if the Grand Trunk should fall, into its hands? You have the record of the Canadian Pacific as one of the best-managed institutions on this continent. If it had become the owner of either one or both of these roads and had given us the service that it is giving to the country to-day would any harm have come to the country? Suppose this road falls into the hands of the Government which has not the record of the Canadian Pacific as one of the best managed institutions on the continent? I am not throwing any stones at this Government, but I say that no matter what party is in power it is impossible for the Government to operate and handle the affairs of a railway as economically or as wisely as they can be operated and handled by any well managed railway company.

Now that is the difference. They tell us: "Oh, that would be a monopoly ; one corporation controlling the whole railway system of this country would be ruinous." It might have been in years gone by, but now we have a Board of Railway Commissioners whose duty it is to see that no injustice is done to any person and that we get a proper service. How are we to get that proper service, or that cheap service, if we have two transcontinentals doing the same business? The more freight and the more business there is on a railway, or any other institution, the cheaper it can operate-the less its overhead charges, and its charges for maintenance of road-bed and everything else. Hon. gentlemen opposite told us that the Grand Trunk was in an excellent condition. I want to state that -whatever the rest of their equipment may be the Grand Trunk have put in less than fifty per cent of the ties they should have put in-ties that they wanted to put in and did not have. Not having put those ties in, the road is consequently in that much poorer state, and I think that practically every part of the whole system is about in the same condition.

As I said, I am opposed to government ownership first, last and all the time; not from mere theoretical considerations; I am guided by the experience that all other countries had. I am opposed to arbitration because of our own experience in that regard in the past. We had an experience of arbitration with respect to the value of the Canadian Northern Railway stock. The

report of the commission which examined into the railway situation pronounced the Canadian Northern stock to be absolutely of no value; it had never contributed a dollar to the construction of that railway. Not only that, but the same report says that the Canadian Northern had received from this country in the way of assistance from all sources more money than the road was worth. That means that the money granted by the people of this country was not put into the construction of the Canadian Northern. And in the face of that, and regardless of the fact that the owners, and operators of the Canadian Northern had received more assistance from the people of Canada than they had ever put into the road, the arbitrators agreed upon $10,800,000 as being the value of the stock. With that experience in arbitration I do not want any more of it. But this Government evidently do not profit by the experience of the past, they do not see the handwriting on the wall. I was in hopes that they had seen that handwriting as denoted by yesterday's elections in Ontario, and that they would take a little notice of what was happening and begin to reflect whether they represented the people of Canada or; not. I do not believe this Government have the Confidence of the Canadian people either in railway matters or in anything else. It would be well, therefore, for them to move slowly until they have found out whom they represent. "C'ox can't wait," I believe, at all events somebody can't wait.

Now we are told the 'Grand Trunk are not asking for any mercy. I notice they are asking to be relieved of their obligations with respect to the guarantee which ^they gave in the matter of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific; but they are n'ot asking this country to take over the Grand Trunk proper. What are we getting out of this transaction? Are we getting anything towards the reduction of the guarantees given to the Grand Trunk Pacific? As I understand it, not a dollar. The Grand Trunk are getting, or are going to get, from the taxpayers of this country actually more money than their own operations show the road has been capable of earning for the last ten years. Where, or in what respect, are the people of this country being helped out in regard to the guarantees that the Grand Trunk entered into on account of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific? If we were going to be relieved of part of those guarantees then there might be some reason for this bargain. But, as I understand it, we are not.

We know that the earnings of the road will not amount to the sum] that we are binding ourselves to pay. If the earnings do not reach that sum the taxpayers of this country will be called upon to make good the deficiency.

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 inform the hon. gentleman that the statements contained in the blue-book presented to the House do not show that at all. They show that the Grand Trunk has earned, since it was incorporated, interest on its debenture stock and on its guaranteed stock. It is true that it is not shown that during the 1st two years of the war the Grand Trunk Company have paid any dividend. That does not say they did not earn dividends. I want to say to the hon. member, interest was earned on the guaranteed stock although it was not paid.

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

Samuel William Jacobs

Laurier Liberal

Mr. JACOBS:

Not in the 90's.

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:

Yes.

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

Samuel William Jacobs

Laurier Liberal

Mr. JACOBS:

Excuse me.

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

October 21, 1919