February 17, 1910

LIB
LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

It must be confined strictly to the matter now before the House.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

In the case of the city of St. John, the city owned the wharf

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
?

Mr. R.@

L- BORDEN. I object to going into the question of the wharf in the city of St. John.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Mr. Speaker

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I did not interrupt the hon. member for York, although he wandered far afield, although he did not keep within miles of the question which is really before the House, and I do think I should be allowed a few words of reply. In the case of the building of the wharf beyond the wharf in the city of St. John-

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

I object to introducing new matter.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Well, I will not go into the wharf at St. John.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

No, I think you will have enough on your hands to deal with this wharf.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

All right, The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) has referred to the agreement regarding this wharf and he has called it a colourable agreement. There is nothing whatever in the agreement, or in anything which was before the committee, or is in the possession of my hon. friend, which would justify him in making that statement. That agreement provides that there shall be a free right of way to the whole public over this wharf, a right of way over the road which was constructed by the Albert Manufacturing Company, that the whole public shall have the right to use it, subject to such tolls as the Crown may impose, and that the Crown shall have the absolute right to collect wharfage upon all vessels except those which are coming there for the Albert Manufacturing Company.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Because they were the only ones that use it.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) had been in the House the other day he would have heard the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmer-son) state that not only are other vessels using the wharf besides those of the Albert Manufacturing Company, but that there are scores of vessels, a large number of vessels using it and that it is of the utmost importance to the traders and fishermen in the vicinity.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
CON
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Order, order.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
CON
LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I have tried to be as fair as possible to both sides and the minister will understand that no new matter can be brought up.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Oswald Smith Crocket

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROCKET.

My point of order is that the Minister of Public Works attributed a statement to the member for Westmorland, which the member for West-orland did not make. The statement of the member for Westmorland was that there were some fishing vessels using the wharf.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

What the member for Westmorland stated was that to his knowledge there were a large number of vessels besides these belonging to the company which were utilizing this wharf, and it was a wharf in the public interest entirely, outside of the Albert Manufucturing Com-

pany's business. Further, it seems to me that the agreement that this company was to maintain its original wharf of 225 feet in length at its own expense and give to the Crown all these privileges over it; was an agreement made in the public interest, and I repeat that it absolutely justified the reporter of the ' Globe ' in making the statement which he did.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink

February 17, 1910