Hugh Havelock MCLEAN

MCLEAN, The Hon. Hugh Havelock, K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Royal (New Brunswick)
Birth Date
March 22, 1854
Deceased Date
November 22, 1938
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Havelock_McLean
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8dfefd55-ad19-4012-a2c9-b6c83a73227a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Sunbury--Queen's (New Brunswick)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Sunbury--Queen's (New Brunswick)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Royal (New Brunswick)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 19)


October 22, 1919

Mr. H. H. McLEAN:

Supposing I read to the Minister of Railways these particular items; or still better, the Minister of Railways, I am sure, is willing to give us all the information possible; I am sure he is very anxious that we shall have correct information, and I am sure he will during recess look carefully over the statement to which I refer-that will take him only a few minutes-and point out to me before I go on wherein that statement is not correct and wherein the figures made up from the statement are in error, because that will be a fair thing to do, as I am relying on the correctness of this statement which was made a number of days ago by an hon. member and to the correctness of which no objection was taken.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Full View Permalink

October 22, 1919

Mr. H. H. McLEAN:

According to the Drayton-Acworth report the Grand Trunk paid dividends-a great many million dollars, I forget the exact amount-which they should not have paid, which money should have been put into the road. That means that -for a great number of years past the Grand Trunk Railway Company have practically been bankrupt. If that company is not bankrupt, if they can go on as they have been going on without assistance or help, what is the necessity for our stepping in and grabbing that road from the shareholders'-paying them back part of their stock investments and carrying on the railway as a government concern? Further than that, we know that the reason

the Canadian Northern was not successful was its unlawful ambition, so to speak, to parallel other lines of railway in order to get a terminus on the Pacific coast. And it is the same with the Grand Trunk Pacific; they have made enormous expenditures in order to be able to say that they went to the Pacific coast. That is also the reason why we are assuming these great obligations at the present time-simply to say that we have got a road from the Atlantic to the Pacific owned by the Government of Canada. I will speak a little later as regards one aspect of the case, the Grand Trunk terminus at Portland, Maine, but now let me resume where I left off when my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) interrupted me to ask a question.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Full View Permalink

October 22, 1919

Mr. H. H. McLEAN (resuming):

It seems to me that every one who knows Sir Henry Drayton, who made this report, knows what a careful man he is in making statements, knqws also the advantages that he has had from having presided over the Board of Railway Commissioners, and when he and Mr. Acworth, the great English authority who was associated with him, made that statement, we have a right to assume it is correct.

I wish now to draw the attention of hon. members to a statement made by Mr. A. H. Smith, President of the New York Central Railway Company and Chairman of this Royal Commission. He stated, concerning what we call the Drayton-Acworth report, that the plan proposed by Sir Henry Drayton and Mr. Acworth of taking over the railway would add about $1,000,000,000 to the debt of Canada. The interest on this, he says, would be about $40,000,000. He also points out that the fundamental defect of their plan is in placing the Government in the railroad business in which they would be operating railways not only in Canada but in the United States where they would be subject to both Federal and State regulations. That will be found at page ci. Mr. iSmith as we know is a man of great experience. He is the head of one of the greatest railway systems of the United States. He and Sir Henry Drayton went over every part of this system and made a careful personal examination. Mr. Acworth came later and did not go over the system.

There you have the opinion of a railway expert with a thorough knowledge of United States conditions, and in his opinion the amount required would be $1,000,000,000. He further points out the fundamental defect of a plan under which the Government of Canada would endeavour to operate a system of railways with such a large mileage in the United States where they would be subject to Federal and State legislation. Mr. Smith proposes, at page cii, a plan or scheme by which this operation could be carried on. As I remember it, without troubling the House by reading the report, briefly it was that the Government should get the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific in the West, that they should make a traffic arrangement with the Grand Trunk in the East and that with the Grand Trunk they should operate these systems. Then we have an alternative plan proposed at page civ. It is to form a private company and to give the company an opeiating lease to induce private enterprise to undertake the management with a profit sharing plan which would give the public a share in the profits. You will of course under-

stand that Mr. Smith was against government ownership. His alternative scheme was to get a private company to take over the properties. They would be under the control and subject to the regulations and orders of the Railway Commission; they would be induced, of course, by the agreement that would be made, to embark capital in this enterprise, and any profits made would be shared with the Government. That seemed to me to be a practical scheme, a good scheme, and one that I think it would have been wise for Canada to adopt -it would have been wise for this country to take Mr. Smith's advice on that point.

I will not detain the House with any further figures in connection with these enormous obligations, and interest obligations, that we will have to assume on taking over this road. The figures are so big that a person can hardly grasp them. We are accustomed now to speaking about millions, and then we get up to billions, and we toss these figures about as if they were merely dollars. Really, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for a man to grasp or to take account of the enormous sums of money which we have expended, and which we will have to raise in the future to meet further obligations.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Full View Permalink

October 22, 1919

Mr. H. H. McLEAN:

Is the statement in detail of the different companies, the bonded indebtedness and the rental to be paid, correct?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Full View Permalink

October 22, 1919

Mr. H. H. McLEAN (Royal):

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Full View Permalink