May 18, 1911

THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.


Mr. GUTHRIE moved that Bill (No. 220) to incorporate the Albert and Moncton Railway Company be placed on the orders of this day, immediately after routine proceedings, for consideration in Committee of the Whole, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twenty-second report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. * Mr. SPROULE. I think there is too much of this kind of procedure of late. It gives very little time for consideration; the Bill will no doubt be taken up at once. 'Then we are not by any means at the end of the session, but only going to adjourn for a while. The Bill cannot be delayed 'long, and I think it should stand over 'until after the adjournment.


CON

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

The Bill for the Albert railway was adopted by the committee without any amendment, and this seems to be the only opportunity offered to pass the Bill. There is no controversy about it. I do not see any reason why we should not get rid of that Bill.

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson

Liberal

Mr. EMMERSON.

While agreeing with the general remarks of my hon. friend from Grey (Mr., Sproule), I want to say with respect to this Bill that unless it is passed now it will very materially delay the development of the shale interests in Albert county. They have for many years lain dormant, but there is every prospect now that, if facilities are not afforded, the English capitalists who are on the spot, and have been on the spot, may be delayed in developing that property. The railway runs from Hillsboro, where large plaster quarries are situated, out into the Baltimore district where the shale quarries are found. The distance to Moncton is about twenty miles. It is for industrial development, and simply because we are going to have a recess is no reason why, if it is at all possible, to have this Bill passed, it should be delayed. We want to go into this business at once, and why should the Bill be delayed until September?

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

George Halsey Perley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PERLEY.

Will the hon. gentleman state why the Bill was so late in coming before the House?

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson

Liberal

Mr. EMMERSON.

It came from the Senate. The parties from England only came over late during the session, arrange-

ments were only completed very recently, and I think they have moved in the matter with great expedition. It has only been possible to reach this Bill from the Senate within a 'day or two, and I felt it my duty, in the interests of that section of the country, to attempt to expedite the Bill. I do not see that any interests will suffer; the Bill is not contentious. It is a standard Bill and passed through the Railway Committee unanimously.

1 Mr. SPROULE. We do not touch private Bills to-day, this being Thursday, and we will reach private Bills to-morrow, when it is very likely to pass. Therefore, there is no urgency from that standpoint. If it passed the committee without any amendment. there is not likely to be any delay in the House. Let it take its natural order and come up to-morrow evening with out any motion.

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson

Liberal

Mr. EMMERSON.

It is the private Bills ahead of this one that will prevent its being considered to-morrow. We have only one hour. It would only take a minute to pass this Bill. .

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I am not opposed to the Bill; I am only drawing attention to what I think is the commencement of a bad nractice.

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink

Motion agreed to. Mr. GUTHRIE moved that the House go into committee on the Bill. Motion agreed to, and House went into committee thereon.


CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

How is it that the House is moved into Committee of the Whole on this Bill now before we have reached the orders of the day? I see no Teason why we should not go on to the questions put by members according to the order of precedence. Why should we disarrange our Order Paper for the sake of shoving a Bill through a few minutes ahead of time? It does not require to go 'back to the Senate again. What is the urgency?

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson

Liberal

Mr. EMMERSON.

I think the objection of my hon. friend is out of order now. If we violated the rules a moment ago when the Speaker was in the Chair, that is no reason why we should continue to do so.

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I understood the motion as read out from the Chair that this [DOT]Bill be put on the Orders this day, and that the rules be suspended to allow that to be done. Now it is put on first before we reach the orders of the day. That is what I object to.

1 Mr. EMMERSON. That was not my fault.

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

In view of a misapprehension, as my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) understood it was to come after questions put by members, we had better take up questions put by members first.

Topic:   THE ALBERT AND MONCTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated !by an asterisk.)


THE NATIONAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED.


* Mr. MONK. 1. At the time of the lease granted by the government to the National Hydro-Electric Company, Limited, of the water-power on the Ottawa river at Carillon, were tenders called for publicly announcing said alienation and calling for bids ? . 2. On the 1st January, 1911, was the sard power under lease to any party ? If so, to whom ? 3. For how many years was the lease existing in January last of said water-power to run? 4. When was the National Hydro-Electric Company, Limited, incorporated? 5. Who are the president, vice-president and directors of this company ? 6. Will the government lay on the table of the House a copy of the order in council of the 14th March, 1911, authorizing the lease of the Carillon water-power to the National Hydro-Electrio Company, Limited? 7. Who signed the lease on behalf of the lessee company ?


LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

Stand, in the absence of the Minister of Railways.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE NATIONAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED.
Permalink

May 18, 1911