March 7, 1910

?

Mr LENNOX.

I wish to point out that at the beginning of this discussion the Minister of Railways intimated that he would allow this Bill to stand over, and in pursuance of that I moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, and that is what is before the Chair at the present time. The minister, like the rest of us, seems to have obtained some light on this subject during the discussion, assuming that the Minister of the Interior is correct in his interpretation of the question as it stands. I do not think it will do any of us any harm to refresh our memories on that matter. I for one would be willing to plead my ignorance to the utmost extent in order that I might look into this legislation and see if the result would be as the Minister of the Interior states. Hon. gentlemen who object to this Bill standing over seem to think that we want to hit this Bill in particular. My understanding is that we shall not necessarily deny the promoters of this Bill the legislation that they ask, but we wish to take time to consider whether or not the matter can be put in better shape while we are considering the other Bills in the Railway Committee, so that all these Bills can be dealt with together, and so that we shall not be handicapped in considering the'

other Bills. With regard to the argument that because we have allowed some other Bills to go through, either inadvertently or improperly, therefore we should allow this Bill to go through, I entirely dissent from that proposition. Even if we had allowed nine out of ten Bills to go through, that ought not to go through, I would fight against the passage of the tenth. My position is that however often we may have made a mistake, it is always better to remedy the wrong, even at a late day, than not ta remedy it at all.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   NELSON RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

We have had a good deal of discussion since I said that I was quite willing that we should let the Bill stand. In doing so, I do not think we shall lose a moment, because this matter has been threshed out for days, in fact, this particular Bill has been held for nearly a month, during which other Bills containing the same power have been put through. I do not think there will be any difficulty in putting through the committee in one form or another the various Bills of the same kind, and I assure the promoters of this Bill that it shall receive the same treatment as the others, and its passage will not be retarded by its being allowed to stand over.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   NELSON RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

William Wright

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WRIGHT.

With regard to all the charters that have been mentioned as having gone through, I think this is the only one that lies entirely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. I do not remember any other that is in precisely the same geographical position. I think it is very undesirable to include water-power privileges in railway charters, and this purports to be a railway charter. One striking peculiarity of this charter is that the company do not appear to know within 150 miles where they want the railway to start from or where they want it to run to; it is a sort of roving charter. In my opinion, there should be a proper map outlining the proposed railway, and that has not been furnished.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   NELSON RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

That is a question for the committee.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   NELSON RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

William Wright

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WRIGHT.

It is a question I wish to mention here. There is a map in the Railway Committee, but there might as well not have been any so far as it is any guide to the members considering the question.

Progress reported.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   NELSON RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink

PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.


House in Committee on Bill (No. 69) respecting the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Neely.


CON
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

This Bill is similar to the other, and I move that it stand over.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

David Bradley Neely

Liberal

Mr. NEELY.

The reason for holding over Bill (No. 52) does not apply to this Bill, as the company is not asking for any powers except in extension of time, and power to extend its line of railway from Prince Albert southwest to Calgary. There is no more reason why this Bill should be held over than that the committee should reconsider Bills that have already been passed by the committee and the House this session, because whatever rights this company has were granted last session, and it is not asking for any new rights.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

This company was chartered last session, and is not asking for any new powers, only for an extension of time and an extension of its line. No objection has been taken to that in any Bill, so far as I know.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

Yes, the objection has been taken in the committee, in this way, that where a company comes for a privilege in the way of an extension of a charter, we have a right, and it is our duty, to consider just what it is we are extending.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

This charter was only passed last year, and it would not lapse for another year.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

By section 4 of the Bill, the time for construction is extended. We are now considering the question of a policy as to water-powers, and the question arises whether it would be wise to extend the powers conferred by this Bill in respect to water-powers, so this- Bill stands on the same principle as the others, and I submit it should remain over pending the consideration of that question. As the minister has said no wrong is done, because we will get them all together, and will consider them as one proposition, all being accorded fair play.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

Let us be reasonable. Suppose we do not grant this. Then for one year more they have all the rights which they have to-day. Under ordinary circumstances they would not come to this House for another year, but they want to extend their line, and incidentally they follow the usual course of asking the privilege of starting within two years, and completing within five years. We granted a year ago all the powers in that Bill whatever that may be. Their time has not yet expired. Is this House going to pass an amending Act this year taking away the powers we gave last year? This Bill is in a different position from the others. The committee has been liberal in renewing charters year after year, and does not deprive companies of powers already conferred. Here they are asking an extended

time to build the line, and the hon. member suggests that we should take advantage of that to deprive them of some of the rights they have under the old Act. I think that is going too far.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Air. LENNOX.

I see it in another light. They ask an extension of time. It may be that we granted them something a year ago that we ought not to have granted. Give them the privilege of extending their line according to our fixed policy, but we should not grant them an extension of time in which to acquire water-powers! to which we should never have, perhaps, given them a right, not at least until we determine just what policy we will adopt as regards new charters. Let them have the time they were granted last year, and if they exercise their powers within the time let them keep those. powers, but do not to-day extend that time until we have determined on a general policy. Therefore, inasmuch as we may devise some policy within a day or so, let this Bill stand as the other Bills stand.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Air. GRAHAM.

I do not think the positions are equal; I do not see any reason why this Bill should stand.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Horton Miller

Liberal

The CHAIRMAN (Air. Miller).

Mr. Lennox moves that the committee report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

As the minister is opposed to that course there is no object in putting the motion.

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

William Wright

Conservative (1867-1942)

Air. WRIGHT.

By this Bill the company are granted an extension of time, and also the right to extend their line. Will the granting of the extension of the line give them the right to exercise in respect of such extension the powers in relation to water-powers conferred on them in the Bill?

Topic:   PRINCE ALBERT AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Permalink

March 7, 1910