April 9, 1918

PRIVILEGE-MR. JOSEPH READ.


On the Orders' of the Day:


L LIB

Joseph Read

Laurier Liberal

Mr. JOSEPH READ (Kings):

I rise to a question of privilege. I notice in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning an excerpt taken from the Hansard report of the debate on April 5, as follows:

Quebec Difficulties.

From Hansard Report, House of Commons, April 5, 1918.

Sir Sam Hughes: I am satisfied that if

common sense had been exercised this trouble would not have occurred. I do not look upon it as a matter of very great importance, but it is of great importance to know what the unseen power is that has prevented these splendid boys-and there are no finer in the world-from following the dictates of their own impulses and joining the forces. What has prevented them-?

Mr. Joseph Read: Let me tell you-bigotry.

Sir Sam Hughes: I am very sorry to hear that. X do not think these boys are actuated by bigotry; I know they are not, and I hope that the power behind them is not bigotry.

The honourable member for Victoria when he made that statement, misapprehended the methods of a good soldier because by implication he made me appear to say that these boys were actuated by (bigotry. I never intended to make that assertion, and the subsequent speech which I made in the House at the end of the debate will show what I did mean. I just take this opportunity of drawing attention to it so that there will be no misapplication of what I said.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. JOSEPH READ.
Permalink

VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.


On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways) for the third reading of Bill No. 14 to confirm an agreement between His Majesty the King, and the Van Buren Bridge Company.


L LIB

Pius Michaud

Laurier Liberal

Mr. MIOHAUD:

I wish to move an

amendment to the third reading of this Bill:

That all the words in the said motion after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

The said Bill be not now read a third1 time hut that it be referred hack to the Committee of the Whole of the House for the purpose of adding to clause 1 of said Bill the following words: Provided that the Railway Station at

St. Leonards on the line now known as the International railway shall be maintained, reconstructed If destroyed and kept in operation during the term of the said agreement.

This means that the present station shall not be removed but shall remain where it is at present.

Topic:   VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Mr. REID:

Perhaps the honourable

gentleman will explain what he means by that.

Topic:   VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
L LIB

Pius Michaud

Laurier Liberal

Mir. MICHAUD:

The explanation is that the people living at St. Leonards do not wish to have the station now built on the International railway transferred to the Transcontinental railroad. They want to leave the station at the terminus of the International, railway. On the second reading of the Bill I presented a petition which urges very forcibly that no change he made in case the Government leases the branch line between the Transcontinental and the International railways. In the name of the people of St. Leonards I ask the Government not to remove the station but to leave it where it is at this moment.

Topic:   VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
UNION

John Dowsley Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Unionist

Mr. REID:

We discussed this matter in committee and the honourable gentleman

is only moving again on the lines of that discussion. The object of the Bill is to make provision that the International railway and the Transcontinental railway may be connected by a small piece of railway, two or three miles in length, that we are leasing and which has been operated by the Bangor and Aroostook railway. I do not think that any member of the House would think that the suggestion of the honourable member that we keep both stations is fair or reasonable. The Government now own and operate the Transcontinental railway between Levis and Moncton, and on that line there is a station 'in the village or town of St. Leonards. Since the Transcontinental railway was taken over by the Government, they have purchased what is known as the International railway running between Campbellton and St. Leonards. The International railway had a station also iin the town of St. Leonards, and it has been running into that station. The Government therefore are compelled to keep up two stations and to maintain that portion of the road, two or three miles in length, that is>

being operated by the International railway from the point wihere it will branch off to go over to the Transcontinental station. It does not seem to me that it is in the public interest that we should keep up two stations in one place and it does also strike me that it is much better for the travelling public that -all the trains should go to the one station. As I understand, from what the hon. member said a few evenings ago, the International railway station is a little nearer that of the Canadian Pacific railway and it would 'be more convenient perhaps for passengers coming in on the International who wanted to go to the Canadian Pacific railway. They would have a little less distance to walk than if they had to go from the Transcontinental Railway station. But, as shown by the statements of the hon. member, and by plans which I submitted the other evening, the distance between the Canadian Pacific Railway station and the Transcontinental is only about one thousand or twelve hundred feet. I cannot see why the people of St. Leonards should ask us to keep up two stations. This small piece of road is necessary for traffic passing over the International railway to the Transcontinental railway and in order that we shall not.be paying for the carriage of that traffic to the Bangor and Aroostook railway. Under the circumstances I could not possibly accept the amendment which has been moved by

the hon. member, and in the interest of the public service, and for the convenience of the public that travel on both Government lines, I would ask the House to reject that amendment and accept the agreement that has been arrived at and signed.

Topic:   VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
L LIB
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member has already spoken.

Topic:   VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
L LIB
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink
UNION

Donald Nicholson

Unionist

Mr. NICHOLSON:

If Government-owned and controlled railways are to be made a pure matter of parish polities, then I have grave doubts as to the success that we shall ever attain in the operation of such railways; and if it is any consolation to the Minister of Railways to know it, I would like to say to him that here is one member of the Commons that is going to stand behind him rigidly in following the policy of his predecessor and turning an absolutely deaf ear to those who would subjugate a great national undertaking to a simple basis of political grab, which is what many members of this House, representing different parts of the country, apparently desire to do with Government-owned railways.

Amendment negatived, Bill read third time.

Topic:   VAN BUREN BRIDGE COMPANY.
Permalink

DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.


On motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 5, to amend the Dominion Lands Act. was read third time.


SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A JUDGE AD HOC.


On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 27, to amend the Supreme Court Act, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair. On section 1-Appointment of ad hoc judge; Quebec appeals; evidence of appointment; duties; compensation; delivery of judgment.


UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

I desire to. move to amend section 1, not with any desire of materially altering the nature of the Bill, but merely for the purpose of modifying the procedure by which the particular judge who is to serve may be designated.

The proposed amendment would provide that in the cases where the Exchequer Court judge is not available the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, instead of directly himself designating a particular judge who would Ibe called in, would request of the Chief Justice of any of the provinces to designate one of the judges of the High or Superior Court in his province. I suggest this amendment because it has been pointed out to me that it was not desirable, that it might, perhaps, even be considered not to be absolutely courteous to the Chief Justices of the provinces for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court directly to intervene and select the judge who should act. In the

second place, it has also been pointed cut, and with considerable force, that the Chief Justice of the province from whose court the judge is to be taken is in better position to determine what judge is most available in the existing condition of business of the court in the province. The modified section will have the further advantage of proceeding, say, in the same manner as is provided in some of the provinces, if not in all, for analogous cases where it is necessary to have a judge ad hoc to sit in the Court of Appeal of the province. In the province of Quebec, for instance, where there is occasion, similar to the occasion foreseen here, to call for a judge to sit ad hoc in the Court of Appeals, the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals addresses himself to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, who, in consultation with his judges, designates the one who is to act. I think that the reasons which I have outlined, and to which my attention has been called, are sufficient to make clear that the amendment which I am about to propose would be an improvement over the system which the section originally in the Bill as introduced proposed to adopt. I beg, therefore, to move, Mr. Chairman:

That subsection (1) of Section 1 be amended by adding at the end of the subsection the words "to be designed in writing ,by the Chief Justice of such, provincial court upon such request being made to him in writing."

That amendment will necessitate some further modifications in the balance of the section, and we might as well deal with them all at once. There is one other amendment which does not turn upon them, which I desire also to move, and it is:

That sub-section (2) be amended by striking out the designation of numeral (2i) and inserting the words "provided always that."

It will then read:

Provided always that unless two of the judges of the Supreme Court available fulfil the requirements of Section 6.

And so on.

Topic:   SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A JUDGE AD HOC.
Permalink

April 9, 1918