August 1, 1917

LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

There are dispositions which might be made of this railway to other parties. If a friendly receiver were appointed .and if an arrangement were made for sale under the direction of the court the .matter might possibly be oleianed u,p. As a lawyer, I would not accede to my hon. friend's .proposition that because the country has advanced money to .an enterprise, therefore, we are bound to go on .and take it over and work .it.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

William Folger Nickle

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NICKLE:

Of course, that is not an answer to my question at .all.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

What does my hon. friend want?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

William Folger Nickle

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NICKLE:

My question was this: Has not Canada practically assumed .an obligation equal to that which my hon. friend mentioned by the provincial and Dominion

gua-ran-teeis of the bonds of the Canadian Northern?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

My hon. friend

means that because we (have given guarantees we have assumed the obligation?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

William Folger Nickle

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NICKLE:

That is my point.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

That is a question that is well worthy of consideration but that does not mean that it is only possible to deal with the subject in one way. My hon. friend from South Renfrew suggested a possible action to be taken by this Government as a result of getting the ownership of the property. The Finance Minister was exceedingly lacking in any information as to what would be the policy of this Government in regard to the operation of this enterprise. My hon. friend (Mr. Nickle) says that because you have a mortgage on a man's property you must finance him for all time to come. That is the logic of my hon. friend's proposition. But, that does not work out in business matters, whether you are dealing with a question of $100,000,000 or $200,000,000 or one of only $5,000. If you guarantee a man for $5,000, my hon. friend's proposition is that you must assume that liability for all time.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

William Folger Nickle

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NICKLE:

My proposition is this: If A gives a mortgage on his farm to B, and C endorses a promissory note as collateral security for the payment of that mortgage, C thereby undertakes the obligation under that mortgage.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

My hon. friend, I am sure, will agree with this proposition: that because a person has given aid to another person or enterprise, that does not ' mean that he is obligated for all time to finance that person or enterprise?

At six o'clock the Hmse took recess.

After Recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

On such an important matter as the one under discussion, I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that I regret that the minister this afternoon did not give us greater detail. He dealt with the proposition generally. We were told that the Government propose to take over 60 per cent of the stock of the Canadian Northern, which represented the stock held outside of that held by the Government at this time, and to pay for that stock by an arbitration which, so fiar as the

personnel of the arbitrators was concerned, should be held in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report of Sir Henry Drayton. I find on looking at that report that, 'if you take it literally, there is nothing really to .arbitrate, because we have the fact-which the minister did not mention this afternoon-that upon this railway, which it is said we are going to purchase by getting 60 per cent of the stock at an arbitrary value, there is a bonded indebtedness of $400,000,000, and the report of -Sir Henry Drayton states that the total cost of the Canadian Northern was only $370,000,000. On page 43 of the report, in the statement giving the result of the findings of the commission, Sir Henry Drayton says:

We find then $370,000,000 to be the maximum possible cost of the Canadian Northern system as at present existing. In other words, as indeed is frankly admitted by Canadian Northern witnesses, the Canadian North ern shares represent no cash investment.

Further on he says:

We conclude, therefore, that the shareholders of the company have no equity either on the ground of cash put in, or on the ground of physical reproduction cost, or on the ground of the saleable value of their property as a going concern.

The result is that Sir Henry Drayton has found that this 60 per cent of the shares of this company, in the words which I have quoted, have no value whatever, and yet we are agreeing to enter into an arbitration with the gentlemen who own- that stock-and give them the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the finding of the arbitrators-to ascertain whether they are to be paid something. I suggested before recess that before this matter is discussed again the Government should tell us the basis upon which this value is to he arbitrated. Is it upon tne present or upon the prospective value of this stock? Or are there to be any conditions laid down, so that the arbitrators will have before them some basis to go on, in the face of the express findings of Sir Henry Drayton that the stock itself has no value whatever? Having purchased the stock at the arbitrated value, the Canadian people, according to the proposition as I understand it, render themselves liable for interest upon the bonds amounting to $400,000,000- in other words this $400,000,000 of bonds is added to the debt of the country. In addition to that-taking the figures given l-ast year, and counting in round numbers, there are debts amounting to $100,000,000 to be paid by the company, and which the people of Canada will have to pay. In

addition to that, according to the report of Sir Henry Drayton, it requires $70,000,000 to provide for the necessary additions and betterments, in order to make the Canadian Northern a workable proposition. According to values which may be given by arbitrators, once it is assumed they can go on and give a valuation based upon prospective value in the future, $100,000,000 is not too big an amount to fix as that which may be awarded as the value of the stock to be taken over by the Government. But let us put it at only $50,000,000. The result is that the debt of Canada, as a result of this proposal made in war time, with the existing debt of $1,250,000,000, is to be increased by $620,000,000. That is to say, the debt of Canada, without any further war expenditure, will amount to $1,870,000,000, involving in interest charges, say at 4 per cent, of something like $24,000,000 or $25,000,000 added to the burden of the country. The .proceeds of the income tax will be completely swept away, and there will be, in addition, a burden on the people of at least $5,000,000. These are the figures as they appear to me. I am taking the ordinary proposition, based upon the fact that when a person buys a property which is mortgaged, he becomes liable for the debt. If my figures are incorrect, I shall be glad if the hon. gentleman, when he obtains the exact figures, will correct me. My hon. friend said that it was a matter of great importance that the Intercolonial was to be able to have western connection with the Canadian Northern. He apparently forgot that the Intercolonial, by reason of the Transcontinental, already has communication with the West, and that there are now in operation trains which are advertised as Government trains, by which people can go directly on a Government railway from anywhere in the East as far as Winnipeg. That phase of the question seems a little superfluous in view of the existing condition. As to this whole matter, I reserve my judgment until we obtain fuller data which the minister should have given to-diay.

On one portion of the subject my hon. friend was singularly lacking in the information which he gave us. We were told that the Government were going to take over the Canadian Northern Tailway. Who is going to operate it? Nobody knows, from the explanation of my hon. friend. Certainly it is not the Government, because the right hon. Prime Minister, speaking later, said that this railway was not to be operated by the Minister of Railways or

by the Government as such. So that we are not to have government owner-ship in the proper sense of the term, neither are we to have, apparently, the method of operation which has been recommended by Sir Henry Drayton in hie report, namely, the creation of a holding company to -be composed entirely of independent men of broad experience to deal with the question entirely apart from politics and from patronage-and patronage, as every one knows who ha6 given the matter any consideration-is a menace to anything like Government operation of government utilities. If it is not to be a government-operated road, nor a road operated on the basis recommended by Sir Henry Drayton, how is it to be operated? The Government has three directors on the Canadian Northern by virtue of the legislation of last year, and the only difference, so far as I can gather, between the proposition of my hon. friend this afternoon, and the system adopted in the past is that, instead of three, we are to have seven or nine directors, as the case may be

according to the number of directors of the Canadian Northern-who will be appointed by the Government; and it was intimated that the gentlemen who were already connected with the Canadian Northern in an official capacity, and who were good men, would be retained, and their services would be available. That is a very indefinite proposition. We in Canada all know what is contained in the proposition of government ownership of government railways, or the government operation of any utility, but certainly this is not government operation. Are we to have a body made up of the type of director that we have been putting on the Canadian Northern and on the Grand Trunk Pacific in the past, who are really not railway operators, but whose doings are controlled entirely by the men who are the motive forces in the enterprise, and who know about the operation?

Is that what it is to be? Certainly this is not Government, operation; certainly it is not operation by an independent body whose actions shall be free from polities or patronage. According to the data which the minister has submitted, the control which is to- be exercised over this railway, in connection with which the debt of Canada is to be increased some $620,000,000, is such as to involve no responsibility to the people of Canada as a whole.

The proposal which my hon. friend laid before the House this afternoon, involving

such, a .tremendous charge upon the Canadian people at this juncture, requires the fullest possible consideration. I shall not detain the House by discussing the Grand Trunk Pacific, because in respect to that company the proposal made by the Government is one simply of marking time; of taking no step so far as the interests of that company are concerned. But the proposal with regard to the Canadian Northern is a very drastic and important one, and I .aim sure that the House .and the country will await with considerable interest the fuller information which the Government will have to give us before they can ask the House to accept the proposal they have submitted.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):

Mr. Speaker, the subject before the House bears more directly upon the prairie West than upon any other part of the country. Of the railroads of Canada that have been mentioned by the Minister of Finance the Intercolonial, the Grand Trunk, .and the Canadian Pacific give, I suppose, inine-tenth-s of the railway service of eastern Canada. The Canadian Northern gives only a small part of the railway service of eastern Canada, and the Grand Trunk Pacific does not touch it at all. The proposals of the Finance Minister relate to the Grand Trunk Pacific and to the Cana dian Northern. Therefore, the interests o,' the prairie West and of the West generally in his proposals is more direct than is that oi any other part of the Dominion, and that affords a reason for considering the subject from a different angle.

I desire to take exception to the attitude, both of the commission appointed by the Government and of the Government itself, towards what they are pleased to call the railway problem of Canada. To the western country the railway problem is the problem of securing railway facilities necessary to the development of the country. But when you come east of the Great Lakes, the- railway problem seems to be of an entirely different character. It resolves into simply a question of finance, without consideration of that side of the financial question which grows out of the development of the country by railway construction and the affording of railway facilities.

It is assumed in eastern Canada that because these two railway enterprises, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, are unable to meet their obligations, they were ill-conceived and are a burden upon the country rather than an aid to its

development and progress. That is not the view that prevails west of the Lakes, and with all due respect I submit that it is not the correct view. We have had experience in the western country of railway accommodation at the hands of a single railway enterprise. [DOT] Our experience was this: although that enterprise was in the -same efficient hands that it is to-day, the [argument was made that because 'that one railway company and its lines then existing were adequate for the traffic of the country as it then was, there was no warrant for further railway construction and .still less fo the introduction of competitive railway enterprise. It was a fact that for many years when the Canadian West was served by the Canadian Pacific railway, that country did not progress, no.r did eastern Canada progress.

The progress of eastern Canada depends on the progress of western Canada, and the .progress of western Canada depends, in larger measure than upon any other factor, upon railway facilities under conditions of competitive .service. There had to be cither railways, ot the country could not have become populated; .it could not have become productive. Other enterprises than those already in existence had to be originated; either men and other inspiration bad to be secured, or we would not have had or could not have had the western progress that resulted from the extension of competitive railway facilities, and we could not have had the expansion of trade, industry, and wealth in eastern Canada that followed that western expansion. The Canadian. Pacific railway was built across Canada at a time when there was not sufficient traffic for that railway. But it was good business to build it then, because if the railway waited for the traffic there never would ibe any traffic, and there never would be any railway.

The development of the continent of North America has followed railway enterprise. Railway enterprise has gone ahead of requirements; that is how our country has developed. The Canadian Pacific railway was an outstanding and startling instance of railway construction in advance of actual requirements. It was many years after the Canadian Pacific railway was constructed before the business caught np to the facilities; the Canadian Pacific railway was a struggling enterprise during those years, dependent in large measure on Government assistance in one form or another. In time the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern enterprises were begun

a

mad carried through, largely on Government assistance.

Either of those railroads had more traffic to start on than the Canadian Pacific had when it was constructed across the continent, and each one has greater possibilities of traffic than the main line of the Canadian Pacific has had at any time in its existence. There is just as much necessity for the Grand Trunk Pacific and for the Canadian Northern in the development of the western country as there was for the construction of the Canadian Pacific in the first place, and there is just as much reason to believe that in due time the development of the . country will catch up with the railway facilities thus furnished an<^ make those enterprises just as successful in every way as the Canadian Pacific has been,-subject, of course, to the greater values in the way of lands that the Canadian Pacific has received at the hands of the Government. It was an unfortunate fact that just as those two railroads were being completed as transcontinental enterprises, the war broke out. The effect of the war was to prevent individual enterprise from going into occupation of the new country made available and accessible by railway facilities, so that the growth of traffic that undoubtedly would have followed the construction of those roads, had the war not occurred, did not take place, simply because the war was on. There is no other enterprise in Canada that has been so hard hit by reason of war conditions as these two railroad enterprises. That was not the fault of the inception of the roads, nor-of the management of the roads,'nor of the country through which the roads run. Their failure to make greater progress than they have made is due to conditions that were not under their control nor under the control of any one else, and those enterprises should not be condemned by public opinion in this country because of that fact. As a western man, I protest against the point of view taken persistently by the Government of the day, as well as by the commission which they appointed, that because those railroads have not been profitable enterprises from the moment of their completion therefore they were ill-conceived and should not be considered to be legitimate enterprises and should not be supported in the conduct of their business.

It is true that, having been completed, they are not paying their way; and not paying their way, they, of course,

are in the same position as any one else who incurs an obligation and is unable to meet that obligation when it becomes due. They become subject to forfeiture, that is, they are subject to be thrown into the hands of a receiver to-morrow. The only question is one of policy-whether that course would be in the interest of the country or not. I am perfectly satisfied to see those companies go into the hands of a receiver to-morrow. But if that course were taken, there is no question that when they came out of the hands of the receiver they would come out as part and parcel of the Canadian Pacific Railway system. I have nothing but praise and commendation for the Canadian Pacific railway, for its management, for the results flowing from its operations; but I, with other pioneers of the West, have had experience of a condition under which we depended upon a single railway company for our railway facilities, and that condition was not satisfactory; it did not tend to the upbuilding of the country, and in my humble judgment, it was in a large measure the cause of the stagnation from which the West suffered for many years. That condition was not relieved until the element not only of railway development but of railway competition entered into that country. Therefore we have to consider whether we desire to maintain those two railway companies as going concerns for the sake of preserving the element of railway competition throughout that country.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Laurence Schaffner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SCHAFFNER:

Is my hon. friend arguing that there should be three transcontinental railways in this country?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER:

I believe there is to-day more room for three transcontinental railroads in Canada than there was for one in 1886 when the Canadian Pacific railway was finished. The Canadian West and British Columbia are the reason for the transcontinental railways. It certainly is >a fact that there are more than three times as many people, there is more than three times as much production and wealth between the Great Lakes and the Pacific to-day than ini 1886. If my hon. friend says that the country has already been developed, I can. only tell him that the Prairie West, as he knows, has not been developed beyond say, fifteen or, at the most, twenty per cent. What we have to-day to offer in business for our railroad companies is not more than one-fifth of the business that we ultimately shall have to offer when that country is fully developed. There is a greater future before the three railroad companies to-day

than there was in sight before the one railroad company when its transcontinental line was completed.

I was speaking of the desirability of maintaining railway competition in the western country by supporting, so far as is reasonable, the three railway companies as separate institutions. If those railway companies were being operated extravagantly or incompetently, if the money that they earned was being wasted, then certainly they should not be continued, they should not be supported, they should be called to account, and some other arrangement should be made. But so far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that either the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Northern are being operated otherwise than efficiently, honestly and economically- efficiently, beyond any comparison with, we shall say, the operation of our Government railway system, and beyond any question, more economically than our Government railway system. If there is any criticism to be madp of those companies in regard to efficiency, honesty or economy of operation, I have not yet heard it. That being the case, and the railroads being in the hands of companies that are operating honestly, efficiently and economically, it seems to me that there is a good case for the Government to come forward and give such assistance as is necessary in order to keep them up as going concerns. The Government has on previous occasions come to the assistance of these companies. On this particular occasion, they come to the assistance of the Grand Trunk Pacific with ,a six per cent demand loan of $7,500,00 They estimate that this is sufficient to carry the company in its operations for another year, and hope that development will occur later on that will enable the company to carry itself. My impression is that this is a desirable form of aid to the Tailway. It is businesslike, it is a clear-cut proposition; we know exactly what we have to do. We know where the money is going and what use will be made of it, and it seems to me that if we are to give the railroads assistance at all, this is the best form in which to give it. Let me make this suggestion, however. I think the Government would have been well advised if in past years they had adopted an attitude of support, instead of an attitude of antagonism, towards these railroads, an attitude which tended to discourage these enterprises and to discourage the men who were concerned in them. It is more than possible that had the Government of the day preserved a

fMr. Oliver.]

proper attitude towards these railroad companies, had they recognized them in their capacity as builders of the country, as concerns that were entitled to the support of the people of Canada within reasonable degree, these railroads would not have needed to come to Parliament for the amount of aid they are receiving at the present time.

Now, I desire to speak of the aid to the Canadian Northern railway. I am very much at a loss to understand why the Canadian Northern is being dealt with in this way, as compared with the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am at a loss in following the general outline placed before the House this afternoon by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, and I am still ippre at a loss when the details of the subject are considered. In the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific, we know what our aid is going to cost us. In the granting of that aid we have the assurance of that honesty, efficiency and economy which has been shown in the management of the road up to the present time. But when we deal with the Canadian Northern, we first of all forego the advantage that we have in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific-'because we are taking control of the Canadian Northern; we are going to manage the road ourselves; we are going to have a transcontinental road from Halifax to Vancouver under our management and control Well, Mr. Speaker, judging by the results of our management of the Intercolonial and of the Transcontinental, I can only look at such a proposal as a calamity to the people of Canada, both in the matter of their finances and in the matter of the service that will be given to the public by the railroad. The proposed action of the Government adds nothing to the railway facilities of Canada. There are just as many miles of railway in Canada to-day as there will be after this action is taken; and when the Government ask us to accept their management as better than that of the railway company, as more satisfactory to the people, as giving a better service generally, I can only say that they are asking us to accept something for the support of which there is not one bit of evidence. We cannot expect the results from that railway under Government management that we have had under the management toy the company.

The Finance Minister explains that we are to toe the owners of the road and that this will toe an advantage to us. But how do we become the owners of the road? By

purchasing $60,000,000 of capital stock. The minister does not tell us how much we are going to pay for this stock, but says there is going to be an arbitration, and that we will pay whatever the arbitrators say we must pay. Now we have the evidence of the Drayton Commission that the stock is not worth anything, and if we are going to buy stock on the market, having appointed the Drayton Commission and having their evidence, surely that furnishes a sufficient basis upon which the minister could announce to the House what the ownership of this railroad is going to cost the country in hard cash. But he does not tell us that; he carefully avoids even a suggestion as to that. It comes down, then, to this. In order that this country shall assume the operation of 9,000 miles of railway-and this Government has never shown the ability to operate 2,000 miles of railway efficiently, economically or satisfactorily-we are to pay in cash an unknown amount, which, however, may be in the neighbourhood of $60,000,000. That is the proposition he has laid before the House. If he has something more definite to give us, he certainly should have given it to us. Why are we arbitrating on the value of $60,000,000 of Canadian Northern stock when we have the beet possible evidence to prove that the stock is not worth one cent? Why are we arbitrating on a subject like this? Is it to get control of the road? We own $40,000,000 of that stock today, and if we paid even at par for $11,000,000 more we would control the road. The country is being led by the Minister of Finance into' a position where we may have to pay dollar for dollar for $60,000,000 of stock, when the most that we need is $11,000,000 to give us just as complete control of the road as would the purchase of $60,000,000 of stock. [DOT]

Now I ask why .are we not informed in regard to that question? For m>

part I am compelled to take issue with the proposal of the minister on that ground, and say it is improper, and uncalled for-that [DOT]there is no warrant or possible justification for it. In regard to the control of the road,

I want to know by what process of reasoning it is assumed that our control of the Canadian Northern railway will give us better service than we are getting now, with a less rate to' pay for it. Are we getting better service on the Intercolonial or the Transcontinental and are we getting it at a less rate? Is there anything in the management of our Government railroads to 2564

warrant us in believing that we can manage the 9,000 miles of the Canadian Northern as well as it is being managed to-day? To state the case is to show how absurd it is. There is no warrant for such a suggestion. We are being asked to take over the Canadian Northern railroad, and pay for the taking over of it, in order that the country may be saddled with the obligations of the company, in regard to which obligations my hon. friend did not enlighten us. Following the remarks of my hon, friend from Piictou (Mr. Macdonald), I say this is not a proposal that should be brought before Parliament, or placed before the Canadian people, at this time. .It is by all odds the most outrageous proposition that has ever emanated from the Government-and that is a large order. We must assume all the obligations of the Canadian Northern railroad; we must meet those obligations and we must discharge them. We must also assume obligations to the people of the country to continue the service of the Canadian Northern is now giving. Why should this be done? My hon. friend told us that the Canadian Northern was earning its fixed charges and something over. Surely the Canadian Northern is not in such a position that a further reasonable loan, as is made to the Grand Trunk Pacific, would not enable it to carry on. Surely we should be better off to pay in cash what would enable the Canadian Northern to continue business rather than that we should take the responsibility for everything it owes, and pay anywhere from $10,000,000 to $60,000,000 for the privilege of doing so, and then give the country an inefficient railway service, whereas we have had a measurably efficient railway service in the past.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CURRIE:

Does the hon. member claim that efficient service was given by the Canadian Northern? It is not so many weeks since hon. members on the opposite side of the House were complaining because grain had been standing all winter. That is not efficient service. For instance, in the Goose Lake district, they had not a single oar out all fall or spring.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER:

That was the same condition as prevailed on the Canadian Pacific.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CURRIE:

Gan the hon. gentleman name a place on the Canadian Pacific where that was the case?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER:

Sure.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CURRIE:

It is not in accordance with the custom of the road.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Oliver

Liberal

Mr. OLIVER:

There was mo more complaint on that score in regard to the Canadian Northern than there was in regard to the Canadian Pacific. It w.as a matter of arrangement between' fbe railways and the Government, by which, for some reason or other, the railways were allowed to put an embargo' on the hauling of the grain. The railways were permitted to- ignore the Common Carriers' Act, and this embargo was put on by .all the companies.

In placing upon this country a direct financial obligation, as stated by my hon. friend from Piotou, running up to half a billion dollars, at this time and under present circumstances, the Government is not doing a service to the country, which, to quote my hon. friend's favourite expression, will enable us to win the war.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

William Thomas White (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

Does imy hon. friend seriously suggest that we axe taking up a direct liability of $500,000,000?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN RAILWAY SITUATION.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY (SIR THOMAS WHITE, MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink

August 1, 1917