August 10, 1903

MOUNTED POLICE ACT AMENDMENT.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 242) to amend the Mounted Police Act, 1S94. He said : At present the North-west Mounted Police Act contains a disposition to the effect that the force shall not be charged with any duty under or in connection with any municipal Bill. There is no objection to that disposition as concerns the North-west Territories, because there the municipal authorities enforce their own by-laws. But in the Yukon Territory the mounted police enforce all laws and ordinances, including the by-laws of Dawson, and doubt has been raised as to their legal authority to do so. The amendment is merely to authorize them to enforce the municipal by-laws. Motion agreed to, and Bill read a first time.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.


House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McCarthy for the third reading of Bill (No. 04) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and the amendment of Mr. Fowler thereto.


CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir. G. W. FOWLER (King's, N.B.).

When the hour for Private Bills expired on Wednesday last, I was pointing out the advisability of extending the proposed branch line of the Grand Trunk Pacific to St. John by way of the St. John river valley rather than by the proposed route by Oliipman. The advantages which I stated existed in 261

favour of the former route were that it would be much shorter than the proposed route by way of Chipman, very much shorter to the nearest Atlantic port, and at the same time the grades would be very much easier than could possibly be obtained for the route by way of Chipman. I pointed out that the Chipman route would carry the road to the interior part of the province of New Brunswick, that part which forms the watershed of the rivers Tobique and Mira-michi, and that that part of the country is very rugged and mountainous, and abounds in lakes, which would necessitate very wide detours, thereby largely increasing the mileage. It is beyond question the fact that the road, if carried by way of Chipman, would be at least 50 or 60 miles longer than by the St. John river valley route. Going from Edmundston the road would be shortened by not following the western sweep of the St. John river from that point to Fredericton, but striking off and making a straight line direct from Edmundston to Fredericton, and then following the valley of the river down to the city of St. John. This would give not only a much shorter line than the proposed line, but very much easier grades, which is the most important consideration perhaps in selecting a line for the transcontinental railway. The grades upon the other route proposed would be very difficult indeed, and much greater than they are at the present time upon the line of the Intercolonial. I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for me to dwell any longer on these points at this stage. If we may judge from appearances, it is evidently the intention of the government to force this route by the way of Chipman. It is said to be by way of Chipman, but, as a matter of fact, following the route outlined by the Prime Minister, the main line will run some 30 miles from Chipman, which, of course, will place St. John at a still greater disadvantage than if the route went direct to Chipman. But the interests of St. John do not appear to be much considered by this government, nor do I think the interests of the country generally appear to be very much considered, because in considering the interests of St. John the government would be at the same time considering the best interests of the country with respect to this transcontinental railway. I therefore move this amendment :

That the said Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions that they have power to amend the same by providing that a branch line be built from the proposed main 'trunk tine of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, beginning at a point at or near where said trunk tine orosseis the Nashwaak river, and thence extending, by way of Fredericton and the valley of the Sit. John river, to St. John city.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
?

Mr. L. G.@

McCarthy (North Simcoe). Lest there might be some request for an explanation. I simply desire to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) moved the same

motion in Committee of the Whole House. Tt was debated for at least two hours, and at the conclusion of the debate it was voted down. X have not heard anything fall from the lips of the hon. gentleman In addition to what was said during the discussion in the committee, and, therefore, I do not think it is necessary that this should be discussed at this stage.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

Could the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), say what is the the mileage from Edmundston to St. John by his route ?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER.

The mileage would be about 200 miles from Edmundston to St. John, whereas, by the route of the Canadian Pacific Railway it is 233 miles. This route would be shorter by at least 33 miles, as compared with the Canadian Pacific ltailway, because, instead of following the bends of the river, we would strike across country direct to St. John.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Charles Edwin Kaulbach

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. C. E. KAULBACH (Lunenburg).

What would be the difference between the direct line I suggested' the other evening from Riviere du Loup to Newcastle, and thence to Moncton and the road that the hon. member for King's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) now advises by way of St. John ?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER.

I have not measured the distance which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbaeli) suggests from Riviere du Loup, and I could not say what the difference would be.

Mr. IvAL'LBACH. The hon. gentleman knows quite well that Moncton is the dividing point between Halifax and St. John, that when the road reaches Moncton they then have the option of proceeding to Halifax or to St. John. To divert this road so as to parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway I think would be very absurd indeed. It would make a detour in the line of the road that would certainly not be advisable in the interest of St. John. I only want to have my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler), understand that an arrangement was made that Moncton was to be the point, and that any divergence from that would be an error on the part of any one advocating the route which he suggests.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER.

I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach) asked a question. I wish to state that in so far as any arrangement he speaks of is concerned in regard to Moncton being agreed upon, I had no part in any such agreement, nor was I invited to any conference that the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) may have taken part in, nor was any Conservative member from the province of New Brunswick invited to such conference. I am not at all proposing to parallel the Cana-Mr. McCarthy.

dian Pacific Railway as the hon. member from Lunenburg says, but I propose this route as an amendment to a very much worse scheme proposed by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson).

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Hance James Logan

Liberal

Mr. XT. J. LOGAN (Cumberland).

In the amendment of the hon. member for Iving's, N.B. (Mr. Fowler) he proposes :

That a branch line be built from the proposed main trunk 'lime of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, beginning at a point at or near where said trunk line crosses the Naishwaak river, and thence extending by way of Fredericton and the valley of the St. John river, to St. John city.

Will he tell us what is the estimated distance between the point at which he would branch off the main line and the city of St. John ?

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER.

It is about 75 miles according to what the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) says, ft have made the amendment read from the Nashwaak river or from the point near which the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway crosses the Nashwaak river.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Hance James Logan

Liberal

Mr. LOGAN.

I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that one of the objections that has been raised against the construction of this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway through New Brunswick Is that it will parallel the Intercolonial Railway. According to the proposition as contained in the Bill, the line will be built to Chipuian, thence to connect with another line which will give it communication with Norton, thus giving the run from there to St. John to tlie government railway. Now, the hon. gentleman is certainly not very consistent when he desires to cut out this traffic from the Intercolonial Railway. At the present time we are proposing to give the traffic to St. John to the Intercolonial Railway, but according to the amendment of the bon. gentleman we will take that away from the Intercolonial Railway and we will parallel the Canadian Pacific Railway down the west side of the St. John river.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER.

For only a matter of 30 miles.

Amendment negatived.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

Mr. Chairman, I gave notice of an amendment that I wish to have made to this Bill, which will be found at page 769 of the Votes and Proceedings. I explained the amendment at the time I gave notice of it, and I think it is an amendment that will commend itself to the favourable consideration of the government. It is an amendment to tills effect :

That the said Bill be recommitted ho add the following after section 12, as .amended in Committee of the Whole : 'The branch line from

the main line of the Quebec section to Montreal shall be begun as .soon as the company have entered upon the operation of said line, and shall

be completed to Montreal as soon as the main line is completed on the said Quebec section.

The object is to secure communication with the city of Montreal while the main line is being built and to mate that construction obligatory upon the company, and not leave it optional as in section 12 as adopted in Committee of the Whole.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
IND

Leighton Goldie McCarthy

Independent

Mr. MCCARTHY.

This section was considered in Committee of the Whole and disposed of by the committee not adopting the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), but I would like to point out what seems to be an inconsistency in the matter, namely, that this branch line has to be begun and completed simultaneously iwith the Quebec line which is not to be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company until it is completed, ' so that you could not have the Montreal branch line begun at the time the company commenced the operation of the Quebec line, because it would be already completed. I do not think the hon. gentleman's motion is consistent. I would submit to the House, with all respect to the hon. gentleman, that it is not right to pick out one of these branch lines and make a motion of this kind when we have a number of similar branch lines provided for in the Bill. It is to be presumed that the powers of the company will be exercised consistently with the operation of the road on business principles under a business management, and I have not heard of a similar clause being inserted in the charter of any company which has hitherto asked for incorporation.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond PrSfontaine).

Mr. Speaker, as a representative of Montreal, I have no hesitation in saying that I propose to take a firm stand upon this question, and a stand against the amendment of the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). As has been stated by the hon. gentleman who promotes the Bill (Mr. McCarthy), it is not right for us in the district of Montreal to insist upon some things, which, if they were granted, would certainly have the effect of inducing other districts to ask for the same things. You would have probably ten or twelve amendments of a similar nature with reference to branch lines to various points, and if adopted then, might have the effect of rendering the whole scheme impracticable. The business men of Montreal do not at all fear that this railway will not connect with their city. I have had communication with these gentlemen recently, and those whom I have met consider the Bill to be perfectly satisfactory. In view of the facts as they exist, there is no danger at all that Montreal will be neglected. You have the Montreal and Western Railway, for instance, which is built as far as Labelie at the present time, and which will be completed for 24 miles further on the 1st of October. Sub-261$

sidies htive been asked for another 35 miles so as to carry that railway as far as La Lievre. It is rather uncertain, of course, at what point the Montreal and Western can reach the iiew_ line, but from all the information I can gather and from the knowledge of the country which I have, there would not be more than 50 miles to build from La Lievre to connect with the government line operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, as proposed. There will of course be no danger whatever that Montreal will not have connection with the new railway. But even suppose that the Canadian Pacific Railway would not feel it in their interest to extend their railway so as to tap the new line, there is no doubt whatever that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would see its way perfectly clear, in its own interest, to connect with Montreal, and perhaps by a better route than that now existing via the Montreal and Western. Therefore, the Montreal district will have the benefit it is entitled to from this vast territory which is being opened up. As a representative of the city of Montreal, I have no hesitation in taking this stand on this question, and I am sure in advance that tlie business men of Montreal will support my view.

Amendment (Mr. Monk) negatived on division.

Topic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Permalink

August 10, 1903