May 15, 1911

LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I might read a letter, a copy of which has been placed in my hands from one of the promoters of the Bill to the Mr. NESBTTT

hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Gordon) who, I regret is unable to be present this morning. The letter reads:

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   NEW ONTARIO AND QUEBEC RAILWAY.
Permalink

NEW ONTARIO AND QUEBEC RAILWAY.


Toronto, May 13, 1911. George Gordon, E-q., M.P., Ottawa, Ont. Dear Sir,-As one of the promoters of this Bill, I desire to impress upon you that the objection which has been raised that the company should be incorporated by the provincial legislature is unfounded. It is absolutely necessary, as you will see from the map, that about twenty miles of the railway should be in the province of Quebec in order to get around Lake Abitibi. It is the intention to proceed with the construction of the railway as speedily as possible, and for that purpose the promoters desire to carry on the whole of the work, including that of the so-called branches, simultaneously. Yours truly,


L. M. WOOD.


I do not know what stronger assurance one could have than that positive statement of what their intentions are.


CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

The letter contains a statement that they intend to do all this simultaneously. My motion is that they shall do part of the work, the part which is properly the subject of Dominion legislation, first. We know that in practice a railway in course of construction is not all proceeded with at the same time. There would be no wrench to the assurance they have given if they were required to proceed with the Dominion controlled part of the road before proceeding with the part that is purely a matter of provincial concern. Now 'I appeal to the Minister of PublicWorks as a business man. He hasread here a letter; should not he put [DOT]the effect of that letter in the bond[DOT]where it will have some meaning and

effect?-which is the very intention of my amendment.. I discussed the form of this amendment with hon. members, and the draftsmanship is the result of that conference. I think the language is correct and adequate but, if it can be changed with advantage I do not object. If they are going to work on both these lines simultaneously we know, as practical men, that they do not have their derricks, their teams, their men at two points at the same time. Then why not provide that they shall begin with the Dominion railway before they begin with that part which, standing alone is a purely provincial work. They must begin somewhere, and if they begin on the twenty-five mile line and stop there-which I have not any doubt is .their real intention-

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

No. I admit that clause (a) ought to be in the Bill. If they are

89e:

going to build into the province of Quebec they have a perfect right to get a Dominion charter; but clauses (b) and (c) should not pass except with the qualification I suggest. Talk about ' assurance,' I do not want to be pernickity, as has been suggested, nor unduly uncharitable, but I want to be a little businesslike. Look at the names connected with this charter. The first is E. A. Wallberg. What does this government think of E. A. Wallberg, in view of the disclosures made on his contracts.

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

Oh, yes; the initials are all right. ' E. A.,' my children would probably say, were thoroughly respectable initals in view of the initials of their father's name. But it is the surname that *is wrong, for proof of which I refer to the records of this House. The ' E. A.' is all [DOT]right, but the ' Wallberg ' is not.

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL.

Is not the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) aware that the Supreme court has said that Mr. Wallberg is all right?

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

I was speaking of what transpired in this House under the contracts Mr.Wallberg had. I have a list of them here. If the Minister of Public Works would show a disposition to be something of a business man where provincial rights are concerned, I would not trouble the House with this matter. But, he proposes to take the statement of the promoter of this Bill instead of putting the condition in the bond. He is going to take a mere letter which he knows, as a lawyer is not worth the paper it is written on, and cannot be enforced or dealt with in court. I have here a list of contracts by which this man had made thousands of dollars out of the people of the country-contracts with the Railway Department, with the Marine and Fisheries Department, and with others; a contractor working as close to the line as he dare, making all sorts of money out of the people of this country. And when this man seeks to go into the province of Ontario with a Dominion charter behind him and interfere with a railway owned and operated by the people, a provincial railway run by a business government, this government ought to establish reasonable, businesslike conditions in granting privileges. I think the more that is said on the subject the more reason there is why my amendment should carry.

Amendment (Mr. Lancaster) negatived.

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

In accordance with the suggestion of the Minister of Railways I would move that section 1 be amended so as to make the name of the company ' The New Ontario and Abitibi Railway Company.'

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

There is a company already chartered known as ' The Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.'

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

Is not the effect of the minister's amendment to put this railway under an entirely provincial- name?

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

No. But the name given in this section might be confounded with that of * The Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.' Lake Abitibi, I understand, is not wholly in the province of Ontario; there is part of it in the province of Quebec.

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

The part that this railway runs to is in the province of Quebec. Why not, as I suggested to the Minister of Railways, leave out the word 'new'? The Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway is developing New Ontario- that is what it was built for. It does not make much difference what the name of a railway is in one sense, but if you are going to change this name why not call it ' The Ontario and Lake Abitibi Railway Company.'

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
CON

William Ross Smyth

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SMYTH (Algoma).

Besides, the people in Northern Ontario object to the name ' New Ontario.' It is the same old Ontario.

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I see; Northern Ontario will soon swing the rest of Ontario-that is the idea. I should be glad to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) I move that section (1) be amended so as to make the name read the ' Ontario and Abitibi Railway Company.'

Topic:   L. M. WOOD.
Permalink

May 15, 1911