April 3, 1902

CON

Georges Ball

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GEORGE BALL (Nicolet).

1 have no interest whatever in this charter. I was not here when it passed through the committee; but the reason given for throwing it out is so poor that I think I should say a few words in favour of having the Bill sent back to the committee. The single interest which I have in the Bill is that I represent a county on the south shore, through which the Quebec Southern Railway is going to pass. It is said that this charter was granted a long time ago, and that the gentlemen controlling it have not done much. Well, there was no opportunity to do much, because up to this time there has not been much progress made with the railroad; but now that the railroad is going to be built, other speculators come forward and want to have another charter. Why did they not present their Bill at the same time as the other ? But no, they present it now because there is a good prospect of having the bridge built, and there will be encouragement not only for the government but for Montreal and other places to give it assistance. An hon. gentleman on the other side said he was going to support the Bill, but after investigation he found that the name of Mr. Armstrong was connected with it yet. Well, I think that is a poor excuse. Why should I refuse to live in the city of Montreal because Mr. Armstrong lives there ? It is the same thing. You will not go into a certain business because another man you do not like is interested in it. I remember that last year the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve (Mr. Prefontaine) opposed the Bill because Mr. Armstrong was interested in it. I think that is a very poor reason. It is said that there is no opportunity of passing it, that it will take up the time of the House. It will not take much time, as the two Bills are going to be discussed together. I do not suppose it will take an hour of the time of the committee to discuss this matter. You see that a representative from the district of Montreal presented the Bill, and when he found out that Mr. Armstrong had something to do with it, he took the opportunity of presenting the Bill when he knew there was not one present to support it, and he got it killed. I do not suppose I need say that I am going to vote for the motion.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Napoléon Antoine Belcourt

Liberal

Mr. N. A. BELCODRT (Ottawa).

As this Bill stands in my name, I think I owe it to the House to explain why I am taking no interest in the matter, and doing nothing to support it. All I desire to say is that when the petition for the Bill was to be presented, some of the gentlemen interested in it asked pie if I would present the petition to the House in the absence of the member who was going to take charge of the Bill; and, as any member of the House

would do, I presented the petition, but did nothing further in regard to the Bill, and have no interest in it.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

May I ask the hon. member who had charge of the Bill ?

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Napoléon Antoine Belcourt

Liberal

Mr. BELCOURT.

I cannot remember what name was stated to me; but the gentleman who asked me to present the petition said that the member was going to take charge of the Bill, and asked me if I would present the petition, which I did.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Victor Geoffrion

Liberal

Mr. Y. GEOFFRION (Chambly and Ver-cheres).

I am perhaps more interested in this Bill than any other member of the House, as the bridge in question is to be built in my county. The question is not, as I understand, whether this charter should be granted, but whether we are to send this Bill back to the Railway Committee. The membei's of the committee will remember that when the parties interested in the Bill were before the committee, 1 rose and asked that the two Bills be taken up together; but the promoters of the Bill unfortunately would not listen to xpy proposition, and decided to go on with this Bill. Thei-efore, I am now in a good position to say that if they chose to take that position, and preferred to take chances with this Bill, they should abide by the result. If the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was not satisfied with the explanations given in the committee, the different members who voted said by their votes that they were satisfied .with them.

I voted before the committee to give an opportunity for more explanations, but the committee seemed to be satisfied with the explanations given, and voted nay. Therefore, I am now in a good position to say that I do not think that this Bill should be sent back to the Railway Committee. It was fully discussed; all the members of the committee were in a position to judge it on its merits, and they did judge; and I think it is a very dangerous practice to send back to the committee Bills which have been fully discussed before it and disposed of.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

I think my hon. friend and I both voted to have both Bills considered at the same time.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Victor Geoffrion

Liberal

Mr. GEOFFRION.

We did not vote that at all. We voted to have more explanations from Mr. Buchan, the promoter of the Bill, and I was prepared to give all the time and opportunity necessary to the different promoters of the Bill; but I think it was unfair for the promoters of the Bill to refuse to take up the two Bills together, and that was the position I took at the time.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
IND

Arthur W. Puttee

Independent Labour

Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).

I shall have to support the amendment to refer the Bill back to the committee-not because I am interested in the Bill at all, for I am not, but because I was in the Railway Committee yesterday morning when this matter was disposed of. I know nothing whatever

of the merits of the Bill. No opportunity was given me or any member in my position to form an intelligent opinion as to whether that charter should be granted or not. I was not favourably disposed to the Bill, but I think that it should be given a fair hearing in the committee.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).

I was in the committee yesterday when this Bill was thrown out. It was approaching one o'clock when the matter came before the committee, and a very large number of the members were absent. The Bill was simply to extend the time, and as a bill of that nature usually receives the endorsement of the Railway Committee, it was quite natural that a large number of the members of the committee, considering that the passing of the Bill was only a matter of form, should have left the room and a comparatively small number remained to deal with this important measure. I feel that the promoters did not receive very kind treatment at the hands of those present. It would appear that it was understood among a certain number that no opposition would be offered to this Bill, and that the larger portion of the committee had no hint given them that it would be opposed. It was apparently understood that it would receive the ordinary treatment accorded measures of that character. The result was that largely those who were opposed to the Bill remained in the committee room and a very small .number were there to support it. The promoter was not present and there was no member present to speak in its be-lialf. I regard the whole proceedings as one of considerable hardship. Looking at the matter in a general way-and that is the only way in which I can look at it-I must say that I knew nothing at all of the merits of the scheme until yesterday, but to my mind this is a case in which the House can well afford to refer the report back to the committee and have the mistake corrected rather than treat the measure in an unceremonious way and possibly do considerable injury. I shall vote with pleasure for the resolution to refer that portion of the report back which deals with this Bill.

House divided on motion of Mr. Bicker-dike.

Alcorn,

Angers,

Avery,

Ball,

Baker,

Bennett,

Birkett,

Blain,

Borden (Halifax), Brock,

Broder,

Brown,

Bruce,

Cargill,

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
IND

Arthur W. Puttee

Independent Labour

Mr. PUTTEE.

YEAS :

Messieurs.

Kendrey,

Kidd,

Lancaster,

' LaRividre,

I La veil,

Lefurgey,

LSonard,

'Lovell,

MacLaren (Huntingdon)i McCormick,

McIntosh,

McLennan,

McLeod,

Monk,

Carscallen, Morin,

Clare, Northrup,

Clarke, Pope,

Cochrane, Porter

Culbert, Puttee,

Earle, Robinson (Elgin),

Fisher, Roche (Marquette),

Fowler, Rosamond,

Gourley, Schell,

Haggart, Simmons,

Halliday, Smith (Vancouver),

Henderson, Stephens,

Hughes (Victoria), _ Taylor,

Ingram, Tisdale,

Johnston (Cardwell), Tolton,

Kau'lbach, Vrooman,

Kemp, . . Wilmot-62.

NAYS :

Messieurs.

Bazinet, LeBlanc,

Beith, Legris,

B&land, Lemieux,

Bernier, Logan,

Blair, Macdonald,

Borden (King's, N.S.), Mackie,

Bourassa, McCarthy,

Bourbonnais, McColl,

Bruneau, Mclsaac,

Brunet, Madore,

Bureau, Malouin,

Calvert, Marcil (Bagot),

Campbell, Marcil (Bonaventure),

Carbonneau, Matheson,

Carroll, Meigs,

Christie, Mignault,

Delisle, Mulock,

Demers (Levis), Murray,

Demers (St. John), Oliver,

Douglas, Parmelee,

Dugas, Paterson,

Erb, Power,

Ethier, Proulx,

Farquharson, Reid (Restigouche),

Fielding, Riley,

Flint, Roche (Halifax),

Fortier, Ross (Ontario),

Fraser, Ross (Rimouski),

Gauvreau, Ross (Victoria, N.S.),

Geoffrion, Rousseau,

Gibson, Russell, "

Girard, Scott,

Guthrie, Sifton,

Harwood, Stewart,

Heyd, Sutherland (Essex),

Holmes, Sutherland (Oxford),

Hyman, Thompson,

Johnston (Cape Breton) , Tobin,

Johnston (Lambton), Turcot,

Lang, Turgeon,

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid). Wade,

Laurier (L'Assomption), Wright.-85.

Tiavergne,

Motion negatived.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink

FIRST READINGS.


Bill (No. 90) to incorporate the British American Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Stephens. Bill (No. 91) respecting the Timagami Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy. Bill (No. 92) to amend the Railway Act so as to promote the safety of railway employees.-Mr. Smith (Vancouver).


QUESTIONS.

I.C.R.-PURCHASES OF TIES AND SLEEPERS.

CON

Mr. BARKER asked :

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. How many railway ties or sleepers were purchased for the Intercolonial Railway in the autumn of 1900 and in the winter of 1901, between Metapedia and Moncton ?

2. What proportion of such ties or sleepers were spruce, fir and poplar, respectively ?

3. What prices were paid for each such description of tie or sleeper ?

4. Were such ties or sleepers required to be in accordance with any and what specifications as to size, quality or otherwise ?

5. Were tenders called for, if so, what notice by advertisement or otherwise was given to the public with respect thereto ?

6. What amount was paid out by Inspector McMannus or other persons on behalf of the government or of the Intercolonial Railway for railway ties or sleepers during the month preceding the 7th day of November, 1900 ?

7. (a.)Who were the contractors who supplied the railway ties or sleepers in the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901 between the points above mentioned ?

(b.) Did each of them have the privilege of delivering a percentage of spruce, fir and poplar, and if so, what percentage ? or was this privilege given to some only, and if so, to whom ?

(c.) If this privilege was given to some only, and was not general, why was it not granted to all contractors ?

8. (a.) Were such railway ties or sleepers paid for in cash or by cheque ?

(b.) What proportion was paid for by cheque and what proportion was paid for in cash ?

(c.) Is it the usual custom to pay for such supplies by cheque upon voucher, and if so, why was this custom departed from ?

9. (a.) What special privileges, if any, were given to Mr. F. Curran in connection with contracts for supplying railway ties and sleepers in 1900 and 1901 ?

(b.) Were the same privileges extended to all other persons tendering for the supplying of railway ties or sleepers ?

10. What amount of railway ties or sleepers purchased in 1900 and 1901, respectively, still remain on hand, and what proportion of each respectively, have been used ?

11. Of the ties and sleepers so purchased in the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901, what proportion were fir, spruce and poplar, respectively, and what proportion of each have been used, and what proportion still remain on hand ?

12. Has the Department of Railways and Canals a report on the quality and durability or value of spruce, fir and poplar ties, respectively ; if so, by whom was such report made, and when was it made ?

13. Has any allegation or charge been made against contractor McMannus in connection with the surveying of such ties or sleepers or any of them, and if so, has the same been investigated, and with what result ?

14. Has any reinspection or examination of the said railway ties or sleepers been made during the summer of 1901, or at any other time, and if so, by whom and with what result, and have any and what proportion of such ties and sleepers been found to be under-sized or otherwise unsuitable ?

15. If any such reinspection has been made, when and by whom was it made, and at what cost has it been completed, and if it has not been completed, is it still in progress, and if it is not in progress, why has it been discontinued ?

16. If any of such ties or sleepers have been found to be below the required size or otherwise unsuitable, or not in accordance with the specifications, if any, what steps have been taken to recover the value thereof from the contractor ?

17. Has any track foreman between Newcastle and Moncton reported that railway ties or sleepers delivered to him for use on the Intercolonial Railway were under size or otherwise unsuitable, and has he sent any specimen thereof to the chief engineer at Moncton for inspection ?

18. What is the usual practice of the department with respect to the paying for ties or sleepers, and was this practice in any way departed from by payment in cash instead of by cheque or otherwise during the autumn of 1900 and the winter of 1901 ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   I.C.R.-PURCHASES OF TIES AND SLEEPERS.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :

1. 553,210.

2. 289,805 spruce. Fir and poplar not ordered.

3. 183,053 spruce, eight feet at twenty cents j 180 spruce, eight feet at twenty-two cents; 96 spruce, eight feet at twenty-four cents; 107 spruce, eight feet at twenty-six cents; 106,363 spruce, nine feet at twenty-five nine-tenth cents.

4. They were to he in accordance with Intercolonial Railway specifications.

5. Tenders were called for by advertising poster, dated the 24th of September, 1900, and exhibited at all stations of the railway. The poster called for tenders to be sent in by the 15th of October, 1900.

6. The treasurer of the Intercolonial Railway issued railway cheques to the amount of $34,988.99 in payment for railway ties during the month preceding the 7th day of November, 1900. Neither Inspector McMannus nor any other persons paid any amount on behalf of the government or of the Intercolonial Railway.

7. (a) Frank Curran, Humphrey & Trites, F. T. B. Young, J. D. Buckley, Patrick Ultican, D. J. Buckley, John Culligan, John Maloney, Jas. O. Fish, A. Dunn, P. Hen-nessy, Patrick Tobin, C. A. Murray, J. J. Fournier, Summer & Co., J. S. Hachey.

(b) None of them had the privilege of delivering fir or poplar ties. In consequence of the large number which F. Curran, contracted to furnish, the railway agreed not to order spruce ties from others till his contract was completed.

(c) See answer to ' b.'

8. (a) They were paid for by cheque.

(b) All were paid for by cheque.

(c) It is the usual custom to pay for such 'supplies by cheque upon voucher, and the custom wa s not departed from.

9. (a) In consequence of the large number of ties of different kinds of wood which he contracted to supply, the railway agreed

not to order spruce ties from others till his contract for spruce ties was completed.

(b) All persons tendering for ties had the same privilege as F. Curran, with the exception named in No. 9 ' a.'

10. The number of ities on hand, June 30, 1901, was 800,424. From July 1, 1901, to February 28, 1902, 461,734 ties have been used.

11. The number of spruce ties purchased in the autumn of 1900, and winter of 1901, was 289,805. Fir and poplar were not ordered.

12. Mr. T. C. Burpee, C.E., made a report on March 7, 1901, and Mr. W. B. MacKenzie, C.E., made a report on the 4th of April, 1901.

13. Yes, and it has been under investigation, but the investigation is not completed.

14. Yes, the investigation was suspended In November, on account of the lateness of the season. The inspection was made by W. H. Williams and C. E. Morton.

15. This was made in September, October and November. It was made bv W. H. Williams and C. E. Morton. The work was suspended on account of the lateness of the season.

16. When the reinspection is completed, such steps will be taken if the facts ascertained show them to be necessary.

17. No report has been received from any track foreman between Newcastle and Moncton, that railway ties or sleepers delivered to him for use on the Intercolonial Railway were undersize or otherwise unsuitable, and the chief engineer has not received any specimen thereof for inspection.

18. The usual praotice of the department with respect to the paying for ties or sleepers is to pay by cheque upon voucher and this practice was not departed from during the autumn of 1900, or the winter of 1901.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   I.C.R.-PURCHASES OF TIES AND SLEEPERS.
Permalink

TAY CANAL,-PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES AND COLLECTIONS.

LIB

Mr. LEGRIS asked :

Liberal

1. What amount was expended in paying the employees of the Tay Canal during the years 1806, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1901, respectively ?

2. What amount was collected by the government on that canal during the said years ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   TAY CANAL,-PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES AND COLLECTIONS.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :

1. The amount paid to employees on the Tay canal during the years 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1901, was as follows :

1896 $2,065 503897

990 001898

1,262 251899

1,301 621901

1,322 002. The amount of tolls collected on the Tay canal during the said years is as follows :1896 $122 351897

108 821898

77 331899

121 071901

76 33

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   TAY CANAL,-PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES AND COLLECTIONS.
Permalink
LIB

Andrew George Blair (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Hon. Mr. BLAIR.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   TAY CANAL,-PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES AND COLLECTIONS.
Permalink

April 3, 1902