August 10, 1917

LIB
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL:

On page 52 there is for:

Construction and betterments, $6,500,000.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB
LIB
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

My hon. friend takes that capital vote and he takes the ordinary vote which is nothing more than a cross entry. The board, save in most exceptional cases, would only require the fulfilment of an -order dependent on the money being voted by Parliament. Therefore, that difficulty does not arise. The amendment of my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlebro) does not offer any solution. If the Act is to be workable the party upon whom the onus must be thrown for carrying out the orders of the board is the general manager of the government railways.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

He is not allowed to spend money without orders.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

If the orders of the board are to -be fulfilled he is the man who actually spends the money. My hon. friend does not thin-k that he is the general manager?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

I authorize it.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

The hon. gentleman authorizes it. But, we are arguing in a circle and we get back to this, that you are going to have the board make orders and you are going to put parties to the expense of going before the board to get an order, when the whole thing will be nugatory. Why do you not put the onus on the general manager of carrying the order of the board into effect? Why should not the people who are operating the Intercolonial be in the same position as the people who are operating the Canadian Pacific, Grand Trunk or Canadian Northern? The amendment proposed by the hon. member for North Grey does not reach the situation at all.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

It certainly is admitting penalties.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

It is admitting penalties, but I doubt whether the language is sufficiently apt to expressly override the common law rule that there is no penalty. But it may be so.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

It takes out clause 4 and admits a penalty.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

What is the objection to putting the onus on the general manager?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

Because he is not allowed to spend money without permission, nor is the minister. The minister may get an Order in Council passed, but if he does not do so the Auditor General will not permit the bills to be paid.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD:

The Auditor General would have sufficient authority under -an order of the board?

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

I do not know whether he would or not.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

I must protest against the amendment proposed to section 4, absolutely. The section was bad enough before. It suggested that a penalty might be imposed upon the King. But here we have -a court created by the King, deriving its authority from the King, and -it is authorized to impose a penalty upon the King. It is absolutely absurd, and I appeal to you and the committee that at least it should

not be adopted until we have the opinion of the Justice Department about it. There is no such law anywhere in the Empire, nor has it ever been attempted to pass such a law. It is a glaring absurdity, and I would be ashamed to be a member of a legislature that would pass such an enactment in the twentieth century.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. OARVELL:

I understand the position taken by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), and I think it is right. It is absolutely illogical that you should start proceedings against the King, at the instigation of the King, in an ordinary court. The hon. member for Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald) has given us a solution. We have been labouring under a great misapprehension about the uselessness and nonsense of taking money out of the treasury and putting it back into the other pocket. But that is not the case under the provisions of the Railway Act, because if a penalty is imposed upon a railway company it is treated as is any other fine. The 'Summary Convictions Act and the General Criminal Code provide for the disposition of the penalty. It does not go to the Dominion, but partly to the municipalities. Therefore there is no reason why the Intercolonial should not be fined.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Francis Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE:

A fine imposed by the Railway Board does snot go to the municipalities.

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink
?

Adam Carr Bell

Mr. ICAR YELL:

I am not speaking of

such a fine as that but of the fine imposed -upon a person who, for breach of an order of the board, comes under the general law of the land. While it is inconsistent to lay an information in the name of the King against the King, there will he no difficulty in laying information in the name of the King against the manager of the Canadian Government railways. If the manager is fined he pays the fine out of moneys in his hands belonging to the Government, and in that way justice is satisfied and it is hoped there will not be a repetition of the events. I quite agree with the hon. member fox North Cape Breton, that the present situation would be absolutely illogical if you attempt to fine the King, but you could fine the railway company in the name of the general manager.

'Mr. COCHRANE: Suppose we allow the clause to stand to-night.

Section stands.

On section 5-Rules for practice and procedure :

iMr. MACDONALD: il move to amend

this section by adding at the end thereof the words " not inconsistent with the terms of the Railway Act ".

Amendment agreed to and section as amended agreed to.

On section 6-Sections of the Government Railways Act repealed:

Topic:   REVISED EDITION ' COMMONS
Permalink

August 10, 1917