July 22, 1903

?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Certainly.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
CON

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

A motion for the introduction of that Bill was given notice of by the right hon. Prime Minister at an early day, and when the measure was introduced it was re-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
?

Mr. E. B.@

OiSnLK (West Toronto). I was much surprised at the reply which the Prime Minister gave to the leader of the opposition, when taunted by the leader of the opposition that he was delaying the business of this parliament in failing to bring down a measure which is recognized by all as the most important measure1 that has come lie-fore parliament since this government came into power, to say the least. The only reply the Prime Minister made to the leader of the opposition was to take up the Order paper and say : There is no need for us now, Mr. Speaker, to bring down any more resolutions, because we have something left on the Order paper still. Is that a reply to give to this House when we press for the submission of a scheme which is to add to the debt of the country 25 per cent of its

present debt ? Because this proposed scheme will increase the debt of the country by 25 per cent, leaving out all the responsibility of the guarantee. Yet the only answer the Prime Minister makes is to say, forsooth, that there is still somq business before the House, still a little readjustment of the steel bounties, a little readjustment of the lead bounties, and that as long as these comparatively trifling measures are before us it is not for the opposition to ask for any further business. Is it the intention of the government to weary out this House before they bring down a measure involving an expenditure of $100,oO0,000, in the last weeks of the session ? This is a measure that should be submitted to us at a period when: there will be ample time to consider it. Is it not due to the country that we should have ample time to discuss a measure of such importance ? I say it would be an outrage to bring down such a measure without giving us three, or four, or five weeks in which to consider it maturely. But if the reply of the Prime Minister to the leader of the opposition means anything, it means that he wishes to bring down this measure at the last moment when he thinks it will be discussed in a hurried manner, when he thinks he can pass it through this House without proper consideration. The answer of the Prime Minister is not worthy of the government. If the measure has been agreed to in a general form, it is due to this House to submit to us at least its outlines, so that members of the opposition may have ample time to discuss it intelligently.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. O. B. HEYD (South Brant).

I have been frequently asked why this session is so prolonged, and I invariably answer that the opposition are prolonging the discussions. Up to the present time I had been under the impression that we have been engaged in doing some work. I notice that all the ob* struction that has been made in this House comes from the other side. I notice that when the estimates are brought before us there are half ai dozen men on the other side who spend hours .and hours in discussing a matter that does not involve twenty-five cents. Now, it strikes me that if the government intended to prolong this session for their own purpose they had willing instruments in our friends on the other side, who have readily fallen into the trap. It strikes me that after getting off the work that is on the Order paper, and when there is nothing more to do, then they can say that the government are not ready with their policy and they will be, justified in complaining of the delay. But I will guarantee that weeks have been consumed during this session in discussing the estimates, and our friend from Grey (Mr. Sproulel said they were holding up the government because the government were not ready to bring down its railway policy. Now. if I were on the other side, and my policy was to shorten the session, I would pass the

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
CON

Albert Edward Kemp

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).

If the argument of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) is absolutelycorrect, why then, I think he ought to be very grateful to the opposition if, as he alleges, they have held up the estimate's so as to give the government an opportunity of doing that which they said they wished to do : that is to bring down the transcontinental railway policy this session.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

You have given us half it day to-day.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
CON

Albert Edward Kemp

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. KEMP.

If the opposition allowed the estimates to slip through without that right amount of criticism to which they are entitled we might have been away from here perhaps a'month ago. Then, how could the government have brought down a transportation policy when they have no policy yet to bring down ? I think it is a mistake to suppose that the government have only been considering this great transportation question since this session commenced. It seems to me that the government have had almost a year in which to consider this transcontinental railway scheme. I find on looking up the records that Mr. Hays made his statement in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific on the 24th day of November last, and I assume that previous to that time the Grand Trunk Pacific had approached tlie government and discussed with them this great project. On December 4th Mr. Hays came and it is reported that he saw the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce took the ' Globe ' into his confidence and I infer from what be said Mr. HEYD.

in the interview which he gave that he made known to Mr. Hays even at that date what the policy of the government was ill regard to the question. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the views of the government had been given to Mr. Hays. That statement will be found in an interview with the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce published in the ' Globe ' on the 4th December last, and therefore, it seems to me that the government had a policy at that time. They had ample time before this House met to perfect that policy and to be ready when the House opened to say what that policy was. I believe they had that policy in view when they made the statement in the speech from the Throne to this effect :

The great influx of population into our North-western Territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.

What does it mean when they say ' the whole question of transportation ?' Does not that include the transcontinental railway proposition? That commission was to lie appointed at once, but it has not been appointed yet; and I take it, in view of the statement of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce on the 4th December that the government's policy had been made known to Mr. Hays, that they then had a policy and that their policy then was that they were going to refer the whole question of transportation to a committee to report. The government have evidently sinee that changed their minds. They have decided not to refer the question to a commission and they have decided since the House met and since this statement was made in the speech from the Throne to work out this -transcontinental railway project within the cabinet. I take it from what has transpired during the last few days that there is little hope of any policy coming from this government. We are kept here and the charge is made by the right hon. Prime Minister that we are being kept here by the obstruction of the opposition. The right hon. gentleman seems to be anxious to get the estimates and the small Bills out of the way. What does that mean ? Does that not mean that in the last days of this session the greatest project that has ever been before this country, or, if not the greatest project, perhaps, second only, second in importance to the Canadian Pacific Railway, is to be brought before this House ? I consider that the right hon. gentleman is quite wrong in saying that the estimates and these Bills

of minor importance should be put out of the way before this important project is brought before the House. Now, I wish to say that the government have no mandate from the people to push through this House any such important project as that during this session, and I hope that the government will not force that measure upon this House. I merely rose to emphasize the fact that was brought out by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Heyd) that public life in this country becomes a burden which I charge to the responsibility of the government in conducting the affairs of the country in the manner in which they do, and I say it is too bad that we should be kept here the year round while the government are framing such an important policy as the transcontinental railway policy.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).

Mr. Speaker, it was the proud boast of the right hon. Prime Minister that if the people of this country returned him to power he would surround himself with a lot of capable, honest, business men. He formed his government and when it was formed a great portion of the people had confidence in a number of his colleagues. But, where are they now? The people had great confidence in the late lamented Sir Oliver Mowat. The cabinet had hardly met when Sir Oliver Mowat was found to be troublesome and he had to be moved. Who filled his place ? We had an hon. gentleman from Quebec that the people had confidence in, and who was regarded as an honest, able business man. I refer to Sir Henri Joly. He was found to be another troublesome man. He was promptly transplanted, removed from the government and given a position. Then, we had another gentleman from Prince Edward Island that the people of that province had great confidence in. They said : Here is a poor honest man and as long as he remains in that government the business of the country will be conducted on right principles. But, he was transplanted. I refer to Mr. Justice Davies of the Supreme Court. There was another honest man, the late lamented, Hon. David Mills. He was found to be a troublesome member of the government and he had to be pushed out and placed on the Supreme Court bench in order to give place to one whom the right hon. Prime Minister could control. We had another gentleman that the people of Ontario said was the big policeman, and they believed that things would be all right as long as he remained in the government. I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). He got troublesome but a delegation went to him and said : You keep that office. There is no work in it. You are an old man now, you have a lot of sons. Draw your salary, and we will provide for your sons. Stay there and keep your mouth shut. He is there today. He is not in his place in the House

at the present moment but he is there in the department drawing his salary. The right hon. Prime Minister made a proposition in the letters which have been read before the House to the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) that it ought to be beneath the dignity of any hon. gentleman to make to any colleague in the government. It was on the same lines as the proposition that was made to the right hon. Minister of Trade-and Commerce. Swallow your convictions, sit there, be a looker-on, swallow this Grand Trunk Pacific scheme,

I have started the scheme, I have kept it in my own hands, I have carried on the negotiations, I did not consult you because you were a man of honest convictions, but I consulted some of my other colleagues. All you have to do is to swallow this hundred million dollar scheme and get the rake off. You sit there, I will take your portfolio and push the thing through the House. With a rake off of a hundred million dollars he could afford to sit with his supporters behind him, vote this thing through the House and give his colleagues $5,000 each to run their elections on. It is easy to say that. With this hundred million transaction, the right hon. gentleman could easily say : Sit there, keep your portfolio, I will

see it through the House, swallow your convictions. If there is a man in this country entitled to the respect of the people it is the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals who refused to accede to the proposition which was made to him and which the right hon. gentleman admits in his letters he made. The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals would not sit down and be a looker-on and swallow his convictions. Still there are other men who are in the cabinet and they are swallowing their convictions. Perhaps they may oppose the government yet, for there is a lot of kicking going along. Where are the business men of the government ? Why, one of the first men taken into this cabinet who had any business about him was the Hon. Mr. Tarte, and we know that the Prime Minister said : when Tarte goes I'll go. He put out Tarte because he had too much business about him, and he filled his place with whom ? A gentleman of the same ability ? Ask the people of the province of Quebec that ? -

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Come on.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

I am coming on, and I will give you enough before I get through. To-day the Prime Minister says that we are to be here until the snow flies. This business government met on the 12th of March, and we were hardly here a day when they piled blue books upon the Table prepared by the officers of the government, but that is all they have done since. Those of them that are left in the cabinet now have their palatial residences in the city of Ottawa. They came here poor honest men, and now

they have their palatial residences. G/o down the street and ask any citizen of the city of Ottawa, if you look at the palatial residences of these gentlemen that came here poor men-we had a discussion last night about it-and they will tell you that some of these ministers are living on $15,000 or $20,000 a year, which they made out of stock, and drawing a salary of $7,000 or $8,000 a year.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
LIB
CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

I withdraw that.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

In addition to the hon. gentleman being out of order on that point, his discussion is not germane to the question that has been brought before the House [DOT]by the leader of the opposition.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

I am referring to the statement of the Prime Minister that he expected to be here until the snow flies. I am showing that the government has not brought down the measures announced in the Speech from the Throne, and yet we are here four months and a half, and the reason for it is that they are living here in their palatial residences drawing their $7,000 a year from the money of the people, besides $1,500 sessional indemnity, and they can afford to stay here till the snow flies. But this House is composed of business men like myself, who have business to attend to, and if the government had gone on with its business we would not be here now. They blame the opposition, but if you take ' Hansard ' you will find that the government supporters have occupied more space than the members of the opposition. The Prime Minister referred to the Redistribution Bill, and when he introduced that Bill you would think butter "would not melt in his mouth, and he told the people of Canada they were going to have something that the country had never seen' before.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
CON
CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

He was going to have a consultation between gentlemen on (both sides of the House, and he asked that three men on this side of the House be named, and they were named the next day, but the" government did not name their men and get down to work. They called in the members of every constituency in the province of Ontario and asked them what they wanted, and they drew the map and had everything prepared before the committee met at all. Ontario was selected as the province that had to be slaughtered. That was cut out before the census was taken. I have a letter in my desk that I will read at the proper time, wherein one of the census commissioners accuses the minister for not publishing a full report. I say that the census was practically stuffed, so that Ontario might be lessened in its members, because Ontario sent the largest delegation here to oppose this government. They applied the Mr. TAYLOR.

census first and then they applied the Redistribution Bill to cut Ontario down. Has the Redistribution Committee been a consultation ? Not at all. They had four government supporters and three opposition member's, and the government members spent three or four months consulting their friends in the country as to how they could cut and carve the constituencies to give the best political effect to the government. We will see when the Bill comes down whether it is the fail', honest measure that the Prime Minister promised. The Prime Minister told us to-day that there was a lot of stuff on the Order Paper, such as the bounty on steel, the bounty on lead and the bounty on binder twine. Well, these should have all been mentioned in the budget speech, because there were delegations here asking for relief for these interests ; but the government were then fighting as they are fighting now. We hear of two ministers having a scrap in one of the departments yesterday. We hear that one minister caught another by the throat and held him up against the wall because he did not pay the census accounts ; and blamed him because it was the cause of the loss of a lot of seats in the Manitoba provincial elections. It may be true, or it may be a rumour, but it appears to be all right, for judging from the looks of the Minister of Agriculture to-day, he looks as if his throat had been squeezed. The Minister of the Interior blames him for not paying the census commissioners and the census enumerators all they asked for, and that had led to one trouble in one wing of the cabinet. Here we are kept day after day, simply beating time, waiting for the policy of the government at an expense of $4,000 or $5,000 a day for paying the officers and printing, outside of the indemnity to the members. This country now finds that this government is not a business government, and that it has retrograded, because the men of the best calibre in it have left it. The vacant seats have not been filled by business men or men equal in ability to the men who left. There is a process of weeding out going on. Those that are remaining ; whether or not it is that they cannot agree to the rake-off or their share of this $100,000,000 that is coming from the people of the country ; we know that the fact is that there is a big fight on, and that they had one man strong enough not to accept the invitation of the Premier : look on and let me run this thing through the House for you, and you say nothing.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).

The leader of the opposition would have been remiss in his duty if he had not taken the opportunity which presented itself this afternoon of again reminding the right hon. Prime Minister of the obligation which has been specially imposed upon him during the past week by the resignation of his colleague the Minister of Railways, to lay

before the House at the earliest possible moment the particulars of a measure of such vital importance as that which caused the rupture between the right hon. gentleman and his colleague. It has been pointed out two or three times this afternoon that the question of transportation is the most vital one affecting the interests of the people of this country. It has also been pointed out that more space was given to that subject in the Speech from the Throne than to any other. It has Deen pointed out that the government declared that the matter was of such great importance that a commission of practical, experienced men would be appointed forthwith to examine into and make a report, not only on the question of transportation, but also on the question of terminals. Nearly five months have elapsed, and not one step has been taken towards accomplishing what the government declared was a matter of vital importance to Canada. The commission has not been constituted yet; experienced men have not yet been found, notwithstanding the fact that more than four months have elapsed since the announcement was made. Experienced men have not been found who are willing to take their places on that commission and make a report on a matter of such great importance to the people of this country. Why has that commission not been filled ? There has been no satisfactory explanation given to us why that part of the government's programme has not been carried out. Does my hon. friend think the hon. leader of the opposition has been unreasonable in drawing attention to a matter of such great importance, and in pressing the right hon. gentleman to let the opposition and the country, the people most concerned, know what he proposes to do at the earliest possible moment ? The charge has been made that the opposition have been obstructing the business of the House. That charge is not well founded. The opposition would not be discharging their duty to the country if they allowed all the estimates to go through before these matters were laid; before parliament. If they adopted that course, the weapon would be taken out of their hands. When the right hon. gentleman charges the opposition with delaying the business of the House, he must forget the statement made by his own late Minister of Railways and Canals in giving his reasons for withdrawing from the cabinet. That hon. gentleman stated that he could not concur in the policy of the government, and he expressed his regret that his resignation from the cabinet would prolong this session for some weeks. The right hon. gentleman referred to the fact that a number of measures yet remain on the Order Paper to be disposed of, among them the resolution respecting the lead duties, the resolution respecting the steel duties, and the Railway Commission Bill. But he did not

state to the House that last session the House had the Railway Commission Bill before it and that it was withdrawn, so that this year it is practically an old measure. Therefore the government cannot take any credit to themselves for having introduced that measure this session. If the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues had any definite or fixed policy with reference to the tariff, the resolutions respecting the steel duties and the lead bounties and binder twine would have been disposed of long ago. The very fact that these resolutions are now on the Order Paper is the most striking evidence that could be presented of the vacillating policy of this cabinet; and it is very unfair and unjust to hold us on this side of the House responsible for the undue length of this session. If the government had brought down the measures foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne, I am sure that they

would have received the most intelligent consideration the opposition could have given to them; and we would have cooperated with the government in bringing the session to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion. The session has been prolonged because of the unreadiness which has characterized the methods of hon. gentlemen opposite. A measure involving suc.i an immense expenditure as the government's railway scheme is one that should! receive the most searching criticism at the hands of the members of the opposition. After four and a half months of the session we are told by the hon. gentleman primarily responsible for the transportation policy of the government, the late Minister of Railways and Canals, that notwithstanding the magnitude of the proposition which is to be presented to us a few days hence an undertaking involving an expenditure of probably seventy or eighty millions of dollars, not one single survey has yet been made of the country through which it is proposed to carry this transcontinental line. Does my right hon. friend think that the opposition would be doing their duty to their constituents and to the country if they allowed that measure to pass this House without giving it the fullest consideration they are capable of ? Is it not right that the hon. leader of the opposition should take advantage of every opportunity to draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the responsibility that rests upon this government, and to demand that a matter of such vital importance to the people of this country should not be haggled over or delayed any longer, but should be brought down at once, so that the people of the country may know what its merits are ? The late Minister of Railways and Canals stated the other day that the question had been submitted to the cabinet and had been approved by it. Under these circumstances, what are the causes of delay ? Have we not a right to insist that this matter, which is of such vital importance

to the country, shall be placed before the House, in order that its details may be fully discussed at the earliest possible moment ?

Mr. SEYMOUll GOURLEY (Colchester). Mr. Speaker, I repudiate the charge that has been made that this session has been prolonged by any gentleman on this side of the House. X think it ill becomes men who have raised every possible issue to delude the people, to attempt at last to raise that issue. No men have ever been so successful as the hon. gentlemen opposite in raising false issues to delude the people of Canada. But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and these gentlemen that the day is past for deluding the people of Canada with false and specious propositions. The people of Canada supposed that these gentlemen had been in opposition so long that they had probably learned wisdom, and that when they came to govern the country they would govern it on commendable principles. But that expectation has been entirely disappointed. I do not desire to be unkind in speech to anybody. If these lion, gentlemen, when they came into power, had made an honest confession that they had been attempting to mislead the people with regard to their policy-if they had said, ' we are unable to carry out the policy we propounded in opposition, we confess that you gentlemen were right, and we are going to steal your policy liolus bolus and adopt it '-if they had done that, I would have said that there was some good in those wrong and sinning souls, and I would have been glad to have extended a hand of fellowship to them when they were deep in the mire. But these gentlemen have not done this; but while professing to be free traders, they have mangled the national policy. They were not satisfied to accept the national policy as a great gift to Canada and leave it alone; but they approached that sacred shrine; and when they approached it, if they had a bit of conscience in their carcasses they would have been stricken to the heart for the sin they were committing, and would have gone back and left that shrine untouched. But instead of that, they stabbed it, as Brutus stabbed Caesar.'and to-day they are as unrepentant as Brutus was. These gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, came into power under circumstances which afforded them such a splendid opportunity for statesmanship that I expected at their hands a bold policy. I admired that word of the Prime Minister the other day-a bold policy. 1 wanted to say to these gentlemen, throw away this timid, shivering policy; throw away the Conservative clothes that you have worn so long. And I am bound to say that they have worn them without any grace. Their figures are too small to look well in the magnificent garments that Sir John and Sir Charles wore like giants. After masquerading in them Mr. CLARKE.

for a while, they said, we have got on our feet, and, we think we have some understanding of the interests of Canada. If they had then thrown off their stolen clothes and shown the little animals inside, and said : we will do the best we can, we will be natural, honourable and honest, and exhibit ourselves to the people as we really are, I could have forgiven them. Never did a government receive so magnificent a heritage as did this government. Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper had worked for years to build up Canada. When they came into office they found an opposition which was decrying Canada and they set about endeavouring to create a national sentiment and make a nation of these scattered provinces, which until then had solely cultivated sectional spirit and provincial ideas. For twenty years after confederation these men laboured with the people of Canada-a people who had been trained in the narrowest school and ideas. For twenty years these eminent men devoted their great intelligence and energy to the development of a national sentiment, which would enable them to develop Canada. During all that time how were they met ? Instead of having to face an opposition who were proclaiming, as we do, the necessity of a national sentiment, of union, they had to meet an opposition which stirred up every provincial, narrow feeling, in the vain effort to break down these men in the splendid task which they had set themselves to perform. I have sat here and listened to the little men on the other side, who have forgotten the history of Canada, rising in their places and making the pretense that they are the authors of Canadian prosperity. Why. Mr. Speaker, they had as little to do with the present prosperity of Canada as the timid rabbits running in our woods and forests. The swallows that fly over these parliamentary walls have had more to do with our prosperity than hon. gentlemen opposite. I never could understand how any hon. gentleman opposite who had any respect for himself could listen to such utterances without a blush or a protest. These hon. gentlemen, sir, had nothing to do with the development of Canada. They came into office at a most favourable time, when the work of these great Conservative statesmen had borne its proper fruition, when the narrow provincial sentiments which had existed and benumbed Canada for years had been entirely dispelled, and a broad national sentiment prevailed all over the country: when the North-west had been brought into confederation and our Dominion extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper took office we had but a few Atlantic provinces, but these statesmen were strong enough and patriotic enough to see that we never could make a nation out of these alone. They therefore set to work and embraced the

whole of this British North American continent' into one great confederacy, so that we could have a great field in which to build up a nation, that would compete successfully with our neighbours to the south, for the dominion of this continent. They built that great national route the Canadian Pacific Railway; they inaugurated the policy of protecting our national industries wrhich has since become firmly fixed in the affections of our people; they laid the foundation of our public laws and administration. Everything was matured by their policy. The splendid edifice of Canada was completed by hands other than those we See opposite. All that these hon. gentlemen opposite have done with this magnificent edifice is to tear down a pillar here and take down an ornament there, and replace them with some botchy patchwork. That being the state of affairs, I am surprised at the assurance of hon. gentlemem opposite in undertaking to charge the opposition with not performing their duty according to the practice and rules of British parliamentary procedure. I propose to fully discuss this great question. I stand perhaps in a different position from any man in this House ? I am a railway man. I want railways in this country, and I am prepared to oppose any plan tnat is going to mar the prosperity which is now at hand.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Motion (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to adjourn, negatived.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS.


House in committee on Bill (No. 104) to incorporate the Brockville and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment. On the preamble,


CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

It will be within the memory of members of the Railway Committee that this Bill, together with two others came before the Railway Committee -this Bill (No. 104) to ratify the purchase by some Americans of the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, another on behalf of the creditors in Montreal and elsewhere to incorporate a company with the right to purchase this road, and another from the promoters of the present Bill, asking for further powers. These three Bills were referred to a subcommittee. Before that sub-committee appeared a great number of creditors having claims against the original company, the Brockville, Westport and Sault Ste. Marie 224

Railway Company. That company was chartered some fifteen or sixteen years ago to build a railway from Brockville to Westport and on to Sault Ste. Marie. The company that was formed consisted chiefly of Mr. ,R. G. Hervey, of the town of Brockville. He organized a construction company which took the contract for building the road. The railway company applied to parliament for a subsidy which was granted -$3,200 a mile for forty-five miles from Brockville to Westport. They also applied to the town of Brockville 'and different municipalities through- which the road was to run, and subsidies were granted by these municipalities to the amount of something like $116,000. The road was constructed so far as to gain a permit from the government allowing them to run trains and carry passengers, and a portion of the subsidy was paid over. The subsidy from this parliament was pledged to the late James Coopgr, in payment of the rails, spikes and tie plates. The government approved of that, and the money earned under the subsidy was paid to the late James Cooper on account of these rails. Some $38,000 of the subsidy granted was not paid, but that sum has lapsed owing to the road not having been completed up to government standard within the time allowed. A great number of people had claims against the road for work done under contract, for supplies furnished, or for right of way, and these parties appeared before the sub-committee. The sub-committee heard these people, and, as I understood from the members who I was allowed to nominate to serve on the sub-committee, it was agreed by the members of the sub-committee that no attention should be paid to the other two Bills, but the committee would simply recommend the ratification of the sale that had been ordered by the court. I may say that there is a lawsuit pending involving the question of the jurisdiction of the court in Ontario that ordered the sale of this railway. It is contended that, as this railway was named in its charter as a railway for the general advantage of Canada, it is not within the power of the courts of the province of Ontario to order its sale. However, the road was sold under an order of court, and the suit now pending is to test the legality of that sale. I have given notice of several amendments which I shall ask the House to approve, and I am quite sure that when the hon. members have heard the statements that will be made by myself and others interested, they will accept these amendments. I shall move these amendments as the different clauses to which they relate come up. But in the meantime I may read and explain them. The first is :

To section 1. That the word * North-western ' be struck out and the words ' Sault Ste. Marie ' be'substituted in lieu thereof.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   BROCKVILLE AND SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink

July 22, 1903