August 13, 1903

?

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.

Mr. Castle. The statement I have is a statement of the amount of grain that went from the west by rail as compared with the amount that -went by water, and that is the point with which we are concerned and with which we have to deal in connection with this argument. Ntnv, the figures I have given do not include the shipment of flour, and the advantage which wheat has in shipment by water is not applicable to flour in the same degree. 1 find in the Inter-State Commerce Commission report for 1901 (page 13) that the subject is fully discussed, and it is pointed out that when it comes to the shipment of flour, the water route has not the same advantage over the rail route that it has in the shipment of wheat. It is well known by those who ship these commodities, that the water route cannot compete in the same degree with the all rail route in the shipment of flour. I do not think there is a difference of opinion as to that. Now, a very large quantity of flour will be shipped from the Nortli-west Territories and Manitoba as time goes on. I do not think that it ever can be said that any large percentage of the crop will be shipped in the shape of flour, but no doubt an enormous quantity of flour will be shipped, a quantity which will furnish an appreciable traffic for a railway. I find further in connection with these shipments, that there is a very substantial am-272 ' .

ount of wheat that goes from different points by rail as opposed to the water route. 1 will give these figures, not with the object of showing that the facts will be paralleled in connection with the railway we are speaking of. but I will give the information because it bears upon this discussion, and as I think, because it will lead to a certain conclusion in connection with it. From the city of Chicago in the year 1901, 31,523,000 bushels of wheat went by lake and rail, and 13,969,000 bushels went by all rail. In 1902, from the city of Chicago 22,000,000 bushels went by lake and rail, and 8,190,000 bushels went all rail. This will show that the lake and rail route even when most advantageously situated lias not by any means yet a monopoly of the business. Now, let us take the shipments of flour. In the year 1902, 1,0S6,000 barrels of flour went from Chicago by rail and lake, and 4,752,000 barrels went all rail, showing that when it comes to the shipment of flour the railway has a great advantage.

We have some times very indefinite ideas as to what rates could be made by railways when they want to make a good rate, and when they get down to a competition basis and find they cannot get any more. I shall give two or three rates as an illustration of what railways can do. I am not going to say that this new railway will open with a rate of this kind, I am not going to say that this railway will carry all its business on a rate of this kind ; but the railway we are going to build is going to be a good railway ; it is going to be just for the express purpose of carrying heavy loads and giving low rates, and being able to compete with a low rate. Therefore it is proper for us to consider what low rates have been given and can be given on similar commodities as those which we shall haul, in other parts of the continent. I find that the average distance from Kansas city to Chicago by the three roads : The Santa

Fe, the Burlington, and the Rock Island is 488 miles. By the report of the Inter-State Commerce Commission for 1901 (page 15) there was in the previous year a rate of five cents per hundred pounds between Kansas city and Chicago. If you take the distance from Winnipeg to St. John via the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway you will find that the equivalent rate from Winnipeg to St. John would be 111 cents per bushel, and if they can haul wheat for 111 cents a bushel they can get plenty of it to haul. The Inter-State Commerce Commission report for 1900 (page 22) points out that there had been previously a rate from Buffalo to New York of two and a half cents per bushel. That is not the average rate upon which the wheat is carried, but that was a rate which obtained and under which immense quantities of wheat were carried, and which the railway companies were prepared to maintain if circumstances did not alter. The average distance from Buffalo to New

York by six routes is 443-12 miles, and on this basis the rate from Winnipeg to St. John would be 10-56 cents. Now, to come nearer home, during the past four years the Canada Atlantic Railway has hauled grain from Depot Harbour to Montreal as follows : highest rate four and a half cents; lowest rate two and a quarter cents. There is a break in the route from Depot Harbour to Montreal. It is all rail to Coteau and then there is from 42 to 45 miles of water-carriage to Montreal. This rate is what the Canada Atlantic Company charged to haul it over the all rail route and then tranship it and take it down the 45 miles and deliver it at Montreal. The transhipment and the handling and the carrying for the 43 or 45 miles was certainly as expensive to them as it would have been if they had their own line into Montreal and had taken it through by rail.-I fancy there is no doubt that if they had their own line into Montreal they would prefer to carry it in, rather than tranship it and take it 45 miles by water. The com-paris.u therefore is a fair comparison. The distance from Depot Harbour to Montreal is 38S miles, and as I have said, the Canada Atlantic Railway during the past four years has hauled grain from Depot Harbour to Montreal ; highest, four and a half cents a bushel ; lowest, two and a quarter cents per bushel. If you take the lowest rate of two and a quarter cents, then on that basis the rate from Winnipeg to St. John via the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would be 10-85 per bushel. Now, I want to compare that. I talked with a prominent member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange the day before yesterday, and I asked him, how that 10 85 cent rate would compare with the rates which he is now paying from Winnipeg to New York by lake and rail. He tells me that, taking into account the rate by lake and the rate by rail, and a small additional charge for extra insurance which they have to pay by reason of this mixed carriage, the rate to-day from Winnipeg to New York is 10j cents. And, mark you, if the proposed railway can haul wheat as cheaply as the Canada Atlantic line, it can carry it from Winnipeg to St. John for 10-85 cents per bushel. My hon. friend says in emphatic terms that this railway is not going to haul any wheat. I do not say whether it is or not; but the hon. gentleman must get over these figures before he can convince the public that it is not. They are set forth in the official report, except as regards the Canada Atlantic, which I procured privately, and, as they are in accord with the information received respecting the Canada Atlantic, there can be no question of their accuracy.

When I speak of the traffic which this railway is going to handle, I point to the fact that 1.000 miles of this line from Quebec to Winnipeg are going to be in the province of Ontario and the whole merchandise traffic which now goes by rail from Grand

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Hon. Mr. SIFTON.

Trunk points in Ontario and Quebec, except that on the new line west of the city of Quebec, will go via North Bay and Ternis-caming over 1,000 miles of this useless line, and through the fertile clay belt to Winnipeg. In the face of that fact it is childish to talk of this railway having nothing to do. Within a week after the railway is opened, it will be busy hauling merchandise from eastern Canada. Let me call attention to the fact that the distance, as estimated by an expert officer of my department, from Toronto to Winnipeg by way of Chicago and the American lines over which much of the traffic has gone of late years-especially before the last two years, when the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway made some arrangement about taking the freight northward-is 1,400 miles by one line, and 1,304 by another. The distance from Toronto to Winnipeg by way of the Grand Trunk line to North Bay, from there by the Temiscaming line, and around by the projected line, is estimated at 1,171 miles, or some 200 miles shorter than the main route by which the great business was done for many years by way of Chicago. It may be that the estimated length of the new line is a little short. It is difficult to estimate exactly what it will be, but certainly it will not be more than 1,200 miles. If you take the route by the Canadian Pacific Railway from the city of Toronto to Winnipeg, you find that the distance from Toronto to North Bay is 220 miles, and the distance from North Bay to Winnipeg is 1,060, or a total of 1,286 miles, as against 1,200 miles by the projected road. So that, making a fair allowance for deviations, the length of tlie new line will be substantially the same as that of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Therefore, we have the city of Toronto plifeed in communication witli the west by this system as directly as it is now by the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have that competition and its increased facilities established. From the city of Montreal and from the city of Toronto the distances will be practically the same. So that we have these connections established on the most favourable terms.

There is another line of trade to which just one word of reference may be made. It is the cattle trade. I want to call the attention of this House to a fact or two with which I think they are not acquainted, because they are not likely to have ever been brought to their attention. I want to call attention to the fact that one of the great industries of the North-west Territories is grazing cattle, as contrasted with raising cattle. Last year we imported into the North-west Territories no less than 50,000 head of what are called Stockers, that is, young cattle, bought by the ranchers for the purpose of being finished and perfected for the English market. Where did they get them ? They got 25.000 from the good province of Ontario, and our friend Mr. Craw-

ford, tlie Conservative member for one of the Torontos In the provincial legislature, says they have not at present facilities for sending their cattle to the North-west, and he wants the Grand Trunk Pacific built so that they will have more facilities. Where did they get the rest ? They got them from Mexico. Cannot the farmers of the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces raise cattle to supply the stock grazers on the Northwestern plains ? Why, Sir, it only needs to be stated for us to understand what a profitable business it would be for the farmers of the eastern provinces, who can raise cattle, but who are not able, on account of the want of pasture facilities, to finish them for the English market. Here we have 25,000 stockers in one year coming from far away Mexico, because we have not the shipping facilities to take them from eastern Canada. Not only have we not the shipping facilities to take cattle in, but we have not the facilities to take the cattle out; for X find that Mr. J. T. Gordon, in an interview says that his firm had last year to ship no less than 3,000 head by an American line because they could' not get facilities over the Canadian line. And the cattle business in the North-west Territories is simply in its infancy. Last year we shipped out 42,000 head of cattle. That in itself is a pretty substantial business; but it is only a trifle as compared with what is coming. A necessary part of this business is the handling of stockers, and this is a business which the new road will do on an enormous scale, and in which it will be difficult for any other line to compete with it. It will pass through a northern country which will abound with cattle and through which they can be easily and favourably shipped. So we have in that business a large and1 important item, which will prove a great and substantia] source of revenue to the new railway when it is constructed.

I want to say a word or two in regard to the prospects of this enterprise from a financial standpoint ; and I speak as one who has had a considerable personal knowledge of the development of the western country, and of the differences that have been produced in the financial conditions of the railway companies owing to that development. The net profits of the Canadian Pacific Railway during the year ending the 30th of June, 1902, were $14,085,000, and last year its net profits were $15,000,000. The company have made of their railway enterprise a magnificent success, and if they were called upon to-morrow to incur the liability to pay back every cent of public subvention which they have received, and all the money which they have received for lands, notwitstanding that, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would be a good, sound, and solvent concern. Compared with that enterprise, the route from Quebec to Winnipeg by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway is a better route. For perhaps one-half of 2721

the way there will be a considerable business, particularly in the line of timber, which will constantly contribute to its revenue. And throughout that district, there are good agricultural lands from which we may expect, within a reasonably near future, a fair amount of traffic. The Canadian Pacific Railway, on the contrary, was built around the north shore of I.ake Superior. It was built through a rocky country which did not then, and does not now, produce a single pound of traffic, and which is difficult to operate on account of its grades and the sharpness of its alignments and curves. The Canadian Pacific Railway along the north shore of Lake Superior is absolutely unproductive. Then speaking of the Canadian Pacific Railway line across the prairies, it runs through the very worst portion of the territories: You could not select a line that could be very much worse unless you got right down close to the international boundary. But this new line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway will run from Winnipeg to the Mountain pass through a territory, every mile of which is fertile and productive. It is hardly conceivable that such could be the case, yet the information in the possession of the government amply justifies the statement I have made. There is no such fertile stretch of country in the world. Now take the British Columbia part, for some reason best known to themselves, which nobody has ever been able satisfactorily to explain, the Canadian Pacific Railway chose the Kicking Horse pass, which is the worst pass in the whole lot, and it went through a line of territory which perhaps, of ail the different belts that could be opened up through the Rocky mountains is the least productive. And it suffered In consequence. For years it got no traffic, except what its own construction gave, out of that portion which goes through the eastern part of British Columbia. The Grand Trunk Pacific, on the other hand, will go from the Rocky Mountain pass to the coast through as rich a timber and agricultural country as there is in Canada-a country rich in timber, mineral and soil. Then we must not forget that when the Canadian Pacific Railway was projected, there was no movement of settlement from the outside. There were no farmers coming to Canada in 1881 from foreign countries. At any rate their number was inappreciable, and the Canadian Pacific Railway suffered from that fact. That company had dozens of agents out trying to initiate movements of population into our western country but did not succeed to any considerable extent, and for years later there was practically no immigration of any serious volume into tire North-west Territories or upon the lands from which the Canadian Pacific Railway had to draw its traffic. What movement of population there was came almost entirely from the eastern provinces. But what is the position now ? We had an immigration

into the North-west of 125,000 people last year. If it keeps on at that rate for the* next ten years, think what that will mean for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Think of the difference in the position of that company as compared with that of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which went travelling on for years and years before there was any appreciable influx of settlers. Let it be remembered also that when the Canadian Pacific Railway started- business, it had no connections with eastern Canada and no way of getting business. What had it to do ? It had to go to Montreal and set to work at an enormous sacrifice to parallel the Grand Trunk Railway by connections all over Canada. The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, on the contrary, will start with a magnificent system of connections, ready to open business the very day the road is finished. What does that mean ? It is impossible for us to conceive the difference that will make in the volume of business which the railway company will do. Consider these facts. Consider the prospects of this railway, and ask if there is the slightest reason why any sane, reasonable man should think this company will fail in its obligations to the government.

I have extended my remarks, Mr. Speaker, at much greater length than I had anticipated and must apologize. I have only one point further to call to the attention of the House. We have had in the North-west Territories, ever since this government has been in power, a state of affairs, under which the great bulk of odd-numbered sections of public lands have been held locked up by our obligation to furnish large quantities to railway companies. Many years ago the system was adopted of surveying the country into odd-numbered and even-numbered sections, and of holding the odd-numbered sections for railway purposes, to be given to railways as government land grants. The even-numbered sections were kept as homesteads. We have not been able to deal with the odd-numbered sections in the Territories*or Manitoba, because of the fact that we had large obligations outstanding binding us to furnish certain specified quantities of land to various railway companies, under arrangements made by the previous government. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether that was wise or not, but that was our position. Rut we are now arriving at that position when, I fancy within the next two or three weeks, a final arrangement will be closed, under which the railway companies which have claims for land grants, including the Canadian Pacific Railway, will have those claims finally settled. I am pleased to say that as a result of this, an enormous quantity of odd-numbered sections will come back to the government and be available for disposition in any way which the government may be authorized by parliament to adopt. We shall have no doubt in the neighbourhood of 50,-

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

000,000 acres of odd-numbered sections to dispose of in such manner as parliament may authorize. I propose at an early day to submit a measure providing for the disposition of these lands. The first principle will be that the actual settler on an even-numbered section alongside an odd-numbered section shall have the preference' in buying that piece of land at a price to be fixed in the manner provided in the Act. But I would point to the fact that we shall enter upon the business of selling something like 50,000,000 acres of land in the territories in a short time, and if we watch the manner in which the business of selling land by railways and land companies, has been going on, we have no reason to doubt that, if we choose, these lands will be disposed of with some degree of rapidity. What I desire to say is this : There is probably, out of that 50,000,000 of acres of odd-numbered section-the even-numbered sections are kept for the poor man's homestead-20,000,000 or 25,000,000 at present so far removed from communication as to be absolutely of no money value whatever. But in my judgment. within ten years from the time this railway is completed, 20,000,000 acres of land owned by the government at present will have acquired a value at least of .$3 per acre. That is not a thing about which there is any question. We have seen it happen before, and we know it will happen again. I have quoted this to the House to show that, so far from the railway costing the people anything, the fact will be that the enhanced money value of the property of the government will be four times as great as will be necessary to pay for the road. I simply desire to add that whether you consider this scheme in its broad outline, or its comprehensive and careful details, or whether you consider the manner in which it achieves great results with a minimum of cost, I am satisfied it is a scheme which ought -to commend itself to the enthusiastic support of this House.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Eecess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).

Mr. Speaker, some days ago, on the introduction of the Bill, I made some remarks in reference to the question now before the House. I dwelt upon the points of the scheme laid before us as well as I could, considering that I had only had an opportunity to see the Bill after the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who leads the House, had risen to move the first reading. I have had an opportunity since of looking into the whole Bill, and I intend to supplement the remarks I made by a brief statement, as brief as I can make it, of the reasons which induce me to oppose the measure. Before entering upon

a discussion of the general merits of the Bill, however, I may be pardoned if I make reference to statements made by the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) and some other hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate. The Minister of the Interior prefaced his remarks with a criticism of the speech of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair). I shall go more fully into the history of this measure later on, but, without doing so now, I may refer to one point. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals stated that he had heard of the Bill only a couple of weeks before it was introduced in this House -that is the measure of the Grand Trunk, which was discussed at full length in the committee. He afterwards said he never heard of the proposition to build to Moncton until nearly the middle of the session, and that this was tacked on to the original proposition of the Grand Trunk, which was to build the road from North Bay or Graven-hurst to north of Winnipeg, or to Winnipeg, passing over the prairie section and through the mountains to Port Simpson, and a branch from the main line to Lake Superior. To my astonishment I hear now from the Minister of the Interior that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) had the full proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway before him, and was appointed a member of the sub-committee of the council for the purpose of drafting the Bill which is at present before the House. If the hon. gentleman were a party to the whole scheme, he must have known of this line from Winnipeg to Quebec and Quebec to Moncton. The hon. gentleman gave the most emphatic denial, at any rate, to that j>art which includes the building of the line from Levis to Moncton, The whole proposition arose out of a request of the Grand Trunk Railway for power to extend their road so as to get the trade of the prairie region of our country. To that proposal I do -not suppose there would have been any serious objections by any member of this House. It might be duplicating lines, it might be passing over a section of country over which we are now subsidizing a line, but the feeling of the country was that if any road was to be built into the prairie region, the Grand Trunk Railway should have an opportunity of extending its lines to that country. But, to our astonishment, after the Bill had been delayed from day to day before the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, there was tacked on to the proposition of the Grand Trunk a line from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton. The necessity of that road and the probability or the possibility of its being utilized as a commercial undertaking has never been explained. It is evident that, as the first element, if that proposition is to have any chance of success, it must observe the conditions suggested by my hon. friend from North,Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). If that road is to command traffic, it must be a modern road, with easy grades and curves and heavy construction. Over this section of the road we have no survey at all. The possibility, of, if possible, the cost of constructing a modern road through that country has not been explained by any gentleman on the other side. We have had a great deal qf poetic talk about the development of the west, the teeming myriads of people going to settle upon the prairies, the millions of bushels of grain which are to be taken out of that country and poured into the eastern market-but we have had no statement from any authority as to the possibility of building a commercial road through that country. The hon. Minister of the Interior tries to explain the matter. He states that the modern way of building roads is to apply to this House and get a charter and then go into the undertaking. Let me show him the difference between that and the present proposal of the government. It is true there may be a walk over a section of the country. The possibilities of the road may be considered by the incorporators, and they apply to this parliament for a charter for the purpose of building it. But they have had surveys made before they go into the undertaking. In the present instance parliament is asked to grant an enormous sum of money for the construction of a road of which not even a preliminary survey has been made.

The hon. gentleman who preceded me, and the right hon. gentleman when introducing the Bill, tried to show that there was abundant information before the government in reference to this proposed plan. They stated that explorers had gone through the country and had made a partial location, that Sir Sanford Fleming had made an accurate location of that portion from Levis to Moncton which the government propose to construct. I propose first of all to deal with these statements of the right hon gentleman and of the Minister of the Interior. The present distance from Levis to Moncton was stated by the Finance Minister as 497 miles. The estimated distance by Sir Sanford Fleming from Chaudifire to Moncton was nearly 400 miles, or, adding ten per cent for curvature, nearly 440 miles, or a saving of nearly CO miles. He read to the House what he said was information which justified him in adopting this route. He read extracts from a report Sir Sanford Fleming made in 1864 describing the country, but he carefully eliminated from that, any description of the curvature or gradients. The route proposed in the Bill runs from L6vis paralleling the present Intercolonial as far as Rivi6re du Loup, or perhaps Riviere Ouelle. The shortest point of departure on the Intercolonial Railway for the purpose of making a detour to Moncton around the upper part of the state of Maine, would be at a distance of nearly 100 miles

from Levis. Then' the road from Levis to that point 100 miles away must pass at a distance of not more than fifteen miles from the presently constructed Intercolonial. A line from Riviere Ouelle or Riviere du Loup to the boundary of the state of Maine, or to the impassable lakes that lie directly to the north of the state of Maine, would be at a distance less than fifteen miles from the Intercolonial. Then he proposed, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, to pass around to Edmundston and from Edmund-ston by a route which he described as passing at or near Cliipman, and thence to Moncton. Sir Sanford Fleming, in his report, shows the absurdity of passing from Edmundston to Moncton. The only possible way of constructing that line is to run down by a road which is at present constructed from Edmundston to Woodstock. When you arrive at Woodstock you must make a turn easterly to a place called Gibson, where there is a road at present constructed, and from Gibson to Chipman and thence to Moncton. If you will take that line and scale it from Point Levis round these points down along the valley of the St. John river at or near Woodstock over towards Gibson, from there by Chipman to Moncton, you will not shorten the distance of tlie present Intercolonial Railway by one mile. In the surveys that were made in the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, we all remember that the Grand Trunk Railway had a road constructed to Trois Pistoles, and the New Brunswick government were building tlie European and North American road, and bad it built to Moncton. The Nova Scotia government had a road constructed at that time to Truro. Then these -were the objective points to make a connection between Moncton and Trois Pistoles, Rivi&re du Loup, or Rivi6re Ouelle, cutting off a portion of the Grand Trunk Railway to make connection from Truro to Moncton. This line would constitute nearly an isosceles triangle between these three points. There were numerous surveys made over tlie northern slope of the St. Lawrence for the purpose of finding a route to Moncton. There were numerous surveys made for the purpose of making a connection between Truro and Moncton. After all the surveys were completed, the present line of the Intercolonial was found to be the most practical. Let me read the information procured by Sir Sanford Fleming upon the subject, since tlie Finance Minister and the Prime Minister gave him as an authority for the location of this particular line of road. He says :

An air line drawn from 'Moncton to Rivi&re du Loup passes entirely within British soil, although near Little Falls it comes within two or three miles of the American boundary. This line is 260 miles in length.

Hon. Mr. ROSS, (Victoria, N.S.). What does he say about tlie road from Truro to Moncton ?

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Truro to Moncton- I beard tlie lion, gentleman speak about that subject. I heard tlie bon. gentleman remark that he could locate it more accurately with his eye. I heard the hon. gentleman state that the engineer told him in conversation that there would have been a better location from Truro to Moncton than the one at present, if it had not been for the powerful influences of Sir Charles Tupper who diverted the line in the direction of Springliill. It is curious that the hon. gentleman did not find it out till seven or eight years afterwards.

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

William Ross

Liberal

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).

Would the hon. gentleman excuse me ? I knew the history of that road and everything connected with it before I had a seat in this House at all.

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Tlie hon. gentleman was in the House in 1ST2 and 1S73.

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Yes, and in 1867 too.

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

From 1867 up to that date. The Hon. Sir Charles Tupper whom he accused of diverting the line of tlie Intercolonial Railway to the injury of tlie people of Nova Scotia had no warmer supporter than the hon. member from Victoria, N.S. (Mr. Ross).

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Again you are wrong.

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Notwithstanding tlie accurate engineering eye that the hon. gentleman talks about with which he describes that section of the country, Sir Sanford Fleming reports that the road as at present constructed has the best possible location that could have been decided upon to reach Moncton. Then we have any amount of information, I am glad to say, in the surveys that were made in 1864 as to the practicability of this short line road which was so graphically described by the right lion, leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He says that the day is past when men will travel fifty or sixty miles more than they ought to do for the purpose of reaching an end. We want short line communication, we live in a quick age, we have to pass quickly from one place to another. One would think, then, that there was no difficulty in constructing the road over that section of the country, that it was possible to get a line as the lion. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says at least sixty miles shorter, or as the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emerson) says, 205 miles shorter than the present line of tlie Intercolonial Railway. Let us see what Sir Sanford Fleming says in reference to that. Most accurate surveys were made from Moncton to Edmundston for the purpose, if possible, of getting a quick line of communication between Moncton and Edmundston :

An air line drawn from Moncton to RiviSre du Loup, passes entirely within British soil ; although near Little Palls it comes within two or three miles of the American houndary. This line is 260 miles in length.

He says that the construction of these lines, of' which this is one, is quite impracticable. Then he goes on :

There are many engineering difficulties on each which render it necessary to depart materially from the straight course and if practicable for military reasons the building of an Intercolonial Railway on either of these lines touching as they do near the American frontier is pronounced by military authorities objectionable.

The construction of the line, therefore, is quite impracticable.

. Beginning at Riviere du Loup and following the line laid down at the prescribed distance from the main boundary to the city of St. John, *we find that in passing over the mountainous ridge, which separates the St. Lawrence from the Restigouche, not only is a maximum elevation of nearly 2,000 feet above the sea reached, but the surface passed over is of a very broken character ; minor ridges nearly all crossing the line in a right-angled direction are constantly met with ; these attain elevations ranging from probably 1,000 feet to nearly double that height above the sea and are separated by low lying water channels, of which may be mentioned. Lake Temiscouata, River Toledi, Squa-took lakes, besides the branches of Green river. Several of these waters will not exceed 500 feet above sea level.

It goes on to state that :

The exploration similarly undertaken between the St. Lawrence and the Restigouche during the winter 1863-64, although It added to the information previously gathered, proved unsuccessful in the main object in view.

Here is the report of Sir Sanford Fleming. He gives the elevation for the road. What would the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) think of a railway built in that section of the country on which in some sections seven or eight miles in length there would be no possible gradient under seventy feet to the mile one way and sections with similar gradients for six or seven miles the other way ?

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson

Liberal

Mr. EMMERSON.

I understand the hon. gentleman is speaking of the survey from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston and down the River St. John ?

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I am speaking of the surveys from Riviere du Loup to the Restigouche river. I am speaking also of the surveys from Edmundston over to Moncton. Edmundston must be the objective point of this line of railway. There is no other possible way. From a point fifteen miles south of River Ouelle or Rivifire du Loup it must pass sharply round the state of Maine to Edmundston and go over from Edmundston to Moncton. We were originally told that there was a possible line from Edmundston to Moncton. What I am saying is that Sir Sanford Fleming has shown that that line is totally impracticable, and if you

read this report in full you will see that the only line that he suggests there is a line down the St. John river to a point at or near Woodstock, then turning easterly in the direction of Gibson or to a point opposite. Fredericton, from Fredericton to Chipman and from Chipman to Moncton. The only practicable route that I know of in that section of the country is as long as the line of the present Intercolonial Railway with worse gradients and worse curvatures. Now, we are called upon in this scheme to spend a large sum of money for the purpose, of making this road, according to the idea of the hon. member for North Norfolk, what 1 A first-class freight road with not more than four-tenths per cent gradients or a gradient of about twenty-one feet to the mile. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) stated in his speech yesterday that after having had conversation with Mr. McNicol, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and other experts in regard to railway traffic, he was satisfied that with such gradients" it was possible to contend with water communication, and that was one of his reasons for changing his mind in reference to the difference between water communication and all rail comunication. What have we expended on the Intercolonial Railway ? According to the hon. Finance Minister, $68,900,000 to which is to be added the capital account of the present year. According to the hon. Minister of the Interior, $70,000,000 and according to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, the capital account is nearly $72,000,000. What would be the result of building this new road! ? As described by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals from the point of departure it will run parallel with the present Intercolonial Railway to near the River Ouelle. What is the necessity of that ? Then you are building a road for what ? To assist the freight on the Intercolonial Railway ? Will it bring a single ton of freight to the Intercolonial Railway ? No. What would be the result of the building of a sbort line, such as has been described by the right hon. the leader of the government or by the hon. Minister of the Interior ? What would be the result as regards traffic if you were to utilize the Chipman branch, or if the Grand Trunk Railway were to build a new line for the purpose of connecting Chipman with the point thirty-three miles north of St. John where this branch would connect with the Intercolonial Railway? You would utilize the Intercolonial Railway for 33 miles from St. John to Chip-man and you would abandon the rest of it. Not a pound of freight originating in St. John would pass over the old Intercolonial Railway to Ldvis. All that portion of the country through which the Intercolonial Railway runs, Temiscouata, Bonaventure, Matane, &c., would be deprived of efficient railway service. You would not run the same number of passenger or freight trains over the Intercolonial Railway because if yon did

you would be duplicating your service, and so if you build that new railway it means the abandonment of a large portion of the Intercolonial Railway. If your new line is a shorter line with easier gradients, the traffic will go from Halifax to L6vis over it, and vice versa. If your new line to Moncton is all that is promised by the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, the traffic will go over it, and no wonder that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) protested against the injustice that would be done to the people who have located along the line of the Intercolonial Railway. You will not only destroy a road in which we have invested $70,000,000 on capital account, but you will injure every private individual who has invested along that line of railway. We have accumulated deficits on the Intercolonial Railway for a number of years to) the extent of $1,500,000 a year, if what should be charged to revenue was charged to revenue and not to capital, and now you want to make it so that the people of Canada will have to pay increased deficits on the Intercolonial Railway. A madder scheme never entered into the mind of man.

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear-, hear.

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I do not believe it possible, I do not believe it probable, that when the government get correct surveys they will ever build that portion of the road. Why, the surveys on which the Prime Minister relies prove conclusively that that country is impracticable for a railway ; impracticable Tor a modern railway nowadays. When Sir. Sanford Fleming reported more than thirty years ago, he was talking of a railway which it was possible to use with 70 feet gradients and a greater curvature than is possible on a modern railway. But for a modern railway such as is talked of by the member for North Norfolk, not all the money and the credit that the government possesses could construct it from Moncton to Levis by that route. What would be the use of a road nowadays with 75 'feet gradients going up and five or six miles of similar gradients going down ? Why, you have only to mention it to show the absurdity of this scheme, and the improbability of such a road ever being constructed and used as a commercial highway. The Finance Minister presumes that this section can be constructed for $8,000,000. It can not be constructed for anything of the kind. If the gradients to be observed in the construction of that road are anyway modern, it cannot be constructed for" anything like that amount, and railway construction through a similar country demonstrates it. If such a railway as the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) speaks about were built there, the country would stand aghast at the amount of money it would cost. On the next section of the line we pass over the bridge and into the city of Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Quebec. We are told that the bridge has contracts at present with half a dozen railways. The Minister of Finance estimates that the share of the transcontinental line in the user of the bridge would be about $2,000,000. I suppose that would be a fair amount. I do not know anything about the cost of construction or the expenditure on that bridge, but if this line uses the bridge I suppose it will have to pay for it, and the assertion is that when the bridge is finished it will cost between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000. The Finance Minister estimates it at $4,500,000, and the user by the government railway would perhaps be fairly compensated for by $2,000,000. Then the railway goes from Quebec westerly to Lake Abbittibbi. We have had a wonderful description of that country from the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior has put upon the Table a map showing the routes which his officers have traversed, dividing it into twelve zones, and giving a description of each on the authority of Dr. Ami, an officer of the department. Let me tell the minister, in the first place, that this road from Quebec to Lake Abbittibbi does not pass over the height of land. The height of land drops a little towards Lake Abbittibbi, and the dividing line between the St. Lawrence and the Hudson bay is about the objective point which the road will take. Now, every man who has travelled in the northern section of this country knows it to be diversified with granite ridges, with little lakes in abundance and large lakes in every section. I wish from the bottom of my heart that that section of the country should prove to be the Eldorado which is described by the Prime Minister. It is a most difficult country in which to build a railroad on modern lines-a road equal to the Grand Trunk Railway, a road with modern gradients, . a road with 90-pound rails, a road of that kind through such a country would cost an almost incalculable sum of money. I hope that the minerals that the hon. minister described may be found in that country. I hope that the potentialities of the waterfalls, described by the Minister of Finance, may be applied to modern science ; for the potentialities would need to be vast indeed to make that road any kind of a safe commercial enterprise. I am not decrying the country, and perhaps some of it may be covered with timber which might be of more value than the same number of acres in the most fertile part of Ontario.

I hope, and it is the hope of every man in this country, that minerals of an economic character may be found in that section of country; but we have no information on that subject except the bald statement of the hon. Minister of the Interior that the officers of his department have found on the shore of Lake Abbittibbi, iron, gelena and soapstone or steatite. That is the only information we have on that subject. Pass-

ing westward, from there you cross the height of land, and some of the largest rivers, probably, in the Dominion of Canada. It is not necessary to give their names, but there are seven or eight rivers which it would cost enormous sums to bridge. Continuing westward, you pass another lot of rivers which run into James bay. constituting the sources of the Moose river, most difficult to cross. The Minister of the Interior says there is here a district of arable land capable of sustaining a large population. The statement which I made when the Bill was introduced is the fact- that the granite ridge which occurs in that section of the country extends on the Quebec side up to James bay ; and from that ridge there is a drop of 300 or 400 feet. From James bay to that dip is a distance of only 50 miles. In that section there may be arable land, and it may be a somewhat level country. Having a level so much lower than that of Winnipeg, I think that perhaps the fact of its being so much further north does not count much as to climate; and it may be that in the future that country, as far as Brunswick House, will sustain a large population. Does this railway go near there? It goes .about 50 miles south of Lake Abbittibbi, which is 170 miles from James bay, or 120 miles from tlie nearest fertile land. So that the railway cannot be of the slightest benefit in reaching that particular section of the country. Then, you go westerly across these rivers until you pass to the north of Lake Temiskaming. I believe it is proposed that this railway shall pass 70 miles north of the extension which the government of Ontario are building up to Lake Temagami. What sort of country is it in that direction? We have no report. Are we near the arable plateau of James bay ? No, we are far from it. This road does not run near it at all. It runs between the plateau and the height of land, and over that granite ridge of 300 or 400 feet high, which is continuous in that circle, and through a country which, notwithstanding the statement of the Minister of the Interior, is incapable of sustaining a population; a country of ridges of granite with muskegs between them. The hon. gentleman produces a map here on which you will notice that all the lines run north and south. They are drawn in that way because the man who prepared the map was very careful of his reputation. He divides the country into twelve zones which are made by the tracks of the explorers along the banks of the various rivers. As I have heard from geologists who have been in the country again and again, there is a fringe of wood along each river, which extends for two or three miles on each side of the river; but between that and the next river are impassable morasses and muskegs, which unless drained, are totally unfit for cultivation. Then passing to the north of Lake

Nipissing, we go on to the north shore of Nepigon. There have been surveys made in that section, starting at a point 35 miles north of Lake Nepigon, and going westerly towards the Montreal river and westerly towards Winnipeg. A description of the surveys was in the department. They were made in 1872, but I think the records of them were burned in 1873. However,

I bad the privilege of conversing frequently with engineers who were in that section of the country. A surveyor named Keating had the surveying westerly. The surveyor of the country easterly was named. I think, Thompson. One of the men under him was Mr. Secretan, of this city.' I have had from these men descriptions of that country, and the description I gave in my address a few days ago was strictly accurate. Tlie lion. Minister of Finance and the hon. member for North Norfolk stated that we had surveys from the north of Lake Nepigon westward towards Winnipeg. I stated in an interruption that after passing the north shore of Lake Nepigon, the survey took a southerly direction until it struck the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and went on from that point to Winnipeg. Suppose a line were run westerly to Winnipeg, where would it strike ? We have no description at all. Will it go south of Lake Seul or Lonely Lake and along the shores of English river, or will it adopt the most feasible route, which has been adopted by the Canadian Pacific Railway from Wabigoon to Winnipeg ? A road constructed by the shortest line from the head of Lake Nepigon to Winnipeg would duplicate the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway for 242 miles from Wabigoon to Winnipeg. What would be the use of a road of that kind? The only possible use of it to the Grand Trunk Company would be for the purpose of making a connection with their terminus at North Bay and for building a road from that line to Lake Superior.

Now, the section of the country 1 have been speaking of is without surveys. There is simply a charter for a railway obtained by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. We are asked to enter into an undertaking which will cost an enormous sum of money. Do the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ask for it ? Was it mooted in the request with which they came before this House ? No, they could not get a simple charter for the purpose of obtaining connection with Manitoba and the North-west without being loaded down with the useless undertaking to build a railway from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton. The Minister of the Interior asked : Would you allow them to build a road to the head of Lake Superior ? Would you allow them to build a road for the purpose of making their connections with North Bay ? If you did. what would be the result ? And he turned around and appealed to his followers as he asked this question. The result would be, he

said, that the enormous traffic, which would otherwise go to St. John and Halifax, would pass down to the Gdanr Trunk Railway to Portland. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me say that it would pass down first of all to Montreal, and if Montreal had the accommodation and was the seaport it ought to be-from thence into the ocean steamers. Is it necessary then to load down the undertaking with this useless expenditure ? And all for an idea ! Fancy a man representing the North-west Territories and Manitoba making it a condition, in behalf of Manitoba and the North-west -Territories-a purely patriotic condition-that this expenditure should be incurred because of the possibility of thereby preventing freight going down to Portland and sending it instead to St. John and Halifax ! We have not had a statement from any minister as to the gradients on that road and as to the lines on which they intend to construct it. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said that if we build it, it must be built on commercial principles, up to modern requirements. Is that possible ? Is it possible to build a road from Winnipeg to Quebec and from Quebec to Moncton on modern principles, or with a gradient of twenty-one feet to the mile ? Has it ever entered into the idea of the ministers what an enormous sum will be required for the construction of that road? Let me give you an instance. Let me take a road, which is comparatively easy for the greater section of it, compared with the one contemplated. I refer to the road from North Bay to Fort William constructed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Well, Sir, that road cost $60,000 per mile. To build a road from the head of Lake Nepi-gon to Winnipeg and from Winnipeg to Quebec, of even the character of the Canadian Pacific Railway from North Bay to Fort William-which is not a modern road, the gradients on which are fifty-six feet to the mile and more-would cost $60,000 per mile.

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB
CON
LIB
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I am giving the facts. Does the hon. gentleman contradict them ? Does he know that my statement is incorrect ? I am giving it on the authority of parties who are at present on the road and are running the Canadian Pacific Railway, that that section from North Bay to Fort William cost them $60,000 per mile. But suppose we take the statement of the Finance Minister or of the right hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill, that the cost will be $35,000 per mile. Is there any justification even for that expenditure ? Of what practicable utility will be that road V Can any sane man tell me that there will be a carload of wheat taken from Winnipeg to St. John ? The hon. the Minister of the Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Interior gave half a dozen instances of railways carrying grain to Chicago. He gave the distance and the rate per bushel, and applying the same calculation to a railway constructed from Winnipeg to St. John, he said we will be able to carry wheat from Winnipeg to St. John for ten cents per bushel. I am not sure whether he did not say ten cents per hundred pounds, but he certainly said ten cents per bushel. Well, take the cost of carrying wheat from Winnipeg to Lake Superior. The distance by the Canadian Pacific Railway is 420 miles, and by the Canadian Northern Railway it is about 439 miles. The Manitoba government passed an order in council reducing the rate for the carriage of wheat from Winnipeg to Lake Superior to ten cents per hundred pounds. A modern car has a freight capacity of about 60,000 pounds, which would mean for the carrying of a car of wheat from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior, $60. Add to that the cost of bringing back the car, as it would not use more than one-third its freight capacity on the return trip. Take one-third off, 420 miles, and add the balance to 420, and you will have 700 miles. They are therefore carrying a carload at present 700 miles for about sixty dollars. That is the cheapest rate at which it is possible to carry it, and I do not believe that either the Northern or the Canadian Pacific Railway are able to realize any profit at that rate. You pay about six cents per bushel from Winnipeg to the head of Lake Superior ; you pay one-and-a-quar-ter to Midland ; you pay, as the Minister of the Interior said a short time ago. from two and a quarter cents up to three and a-half cents, and as much as four cents from Midland to Montreal. What would it take from there to Quebec ? A very little sum of money. Is it possible then that any railway can be constructed from Winnipeg to Quebec which would compete with that route ? If carriage by rail is cheaper than carriage by water, why is it that 45.000,000 bushels of wheat go by water from Chicago to Buffalo ? Why do not they send it by rail ? The distance is two and a half times greater by -water than by rail. They send it by water for the simple reason that railways, even with the most modern appliances and gradients cannot compete with a water navigation. If you want to utilize the surplus products of the North-west and Manitoba by shipping them through your own territory, the seaport of the North-west and Manitoba is the head of Lake Superior. Utilize your means of communication from Port Arthur down through the St. Lawrence canals. If the St. Lawrence canals are not adequate for the purpose, the money you are about to spend in this useless undertaking would give us all the water communications we require. The Georgian Bay canal project, I believe, is the best. By that system of communication from the Ottawa river and Lake Nipissing to Montreal, you

would Lave a system equal to that from Lake Superior down to Buffalo and Chicago and the other American ports. I am with the right lion, gentleman to this extent, that 1 believe with him that the country is on the top wave of prosperity, and there is a feeling amongst the people that this is the propitious time for the development of our resources. There is a feeling in the country that we are lagging behind in the race, and that, to use the expression of the right hon. gentleman, we are, compared with our rivals to the south, like the toad under the harrow. '

The people feel that now is the time to develop, as quickly as possible the resources of this immense country, looking to the day when we shall be an independent nation not dependent on any people or any country on the face of the Globe, when we have a population of twenty or twenty-five million. But the right hon. gentleman has not seized his opportunity, he has not brought forward the policy by which that opportunity may be improved. As I said, we duplicate the Canadian Pacific Railway from Wabigoon to Winnipeg. And then, in order that the Grand Trunk may carry their scheme into practical effect they must have a road to the head of Lake Superior. Why do they not abandon that idea if they intend to bring the surplus products of Manitoba and the North-west to the Atlantic seaboard by rail? They know that they would not be in the race if they did not use the modern means of communication by bringing the grain to our seaport at the head of Lake Superior, there to be shipped to the place of consumption in the eastern world. It is a necessity for them to have this connection at the head of Lake Superior. West of Winnipeg, for the purpose of opening up those fertile plains described so graphically by the Minister of the Interior, we assist them to build a line through a country to cover which with a line of railway we have already arranged to loan $9,000,000. In building from Winnipeg to Port Simpson, this line will go to Edmonton. Why dupulicate the line which has already been assisted ? Where is the necessity for having two lines of railway between Winnipeg and Edmonton ? There is none whatever. The extension of the road from Edmonton to Port Simpson will develop the country. I hope to see developed upon the Pacific, not merely the harbours of Victoria and Vancouver, but also that of Port Simpson, and to see those harbours thronged with ships bearing the products of the east to be exchanged for the products of our country. It may be that for seven or even for ten years that section may not pay, but eventually it will pay, and it will not only greatly help the development of the North-west, but it will benefit the whole country. No man on this side of the House has opposed such a proposition. Never lias a Liberal-Conservative party failed in its faith in the country. Ours is the party that

built up the country, and we have never opposed even a lavish expenditure where that expenditure carried" with it a reasonable hope of benefit for Canada. But I fail to see a scintilla of evidence that the eastern portion of this road proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister will be of any use. It would have been a gratification to my old leader the late Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, could he have been present and heard the praise bestowed by lion, gentlemen opposite upon his policy which in his lifetime they condemned ; to hear his acts cited as examples and excuses for the government of the present day ; to find that in everything he is imitated by the very men who did the best they could to thwart his aims and to make impossible the carrying out of this policy. Everything that the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his friends condemned when we were in power and they were in opposition, is being adopted by them to-day, even to the policy of protection which for so long they resisted and denounced. But tlie lion, member for North Norfolk while lie praised the acts of the late Sir John Macdonald, could not resist criticising them almost in the same breath. He couid not resist having a fling at the Canadian racific Railway and the terms under which it was built. He condemned the scheme of Sir John Macdonald in regard to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway as extravagant. But he forgot to say that his own friends, when in power in 1S74, put upon the statute-book of this country a proposition to build that road on terms far more extravagant than those which were afterwards secured by the Conservative gc\ -eminent. They offered $10,000 a mile to begin with, the contractors to receive a sum per mile in excess of that amount which sum was to be agreed upon and to be paid in twenty-five years with interest at four per cent. Besides this the contractors were to have 20,000 acres of land per mile. But the hon. member for North Norfolk forgot to mention that. In his estimate of what the Canadian Pacific Railway, as built by the Conservatives had actually cost, he estimated $62,000,000 in cash and railway works completed, and he took the land grant as being worth $5 or $0 per acre some very high figure

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Yes-$60.000 per mile, and added this to the $62,000,000 given to the construction of the road. Why, when this land grant was given it was worth no such sum as that. It is useless, valueless, without railway communication. We bought the whole country for somewhere in the region of a million dollars

Topic:   THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink

August 13, 1903