I do not agree with the hon. minister. When contractors take a contract from a railway company, they employ all kinds of people, and those men are passing in and out of one's property when building the road through it. Some one should be responsible for these men. If they should throw down a gate or tear down a fence at night, some one should be made responsible to the owner. If the minister allows this clause to stand over, I would suggest that he give it more thought and let us have an opportunity to .discuss the proposed amendment again. If contractors undertake to build a railway and go on my property, they should see that my property is protected.
If a road gets into that condition, it is because it is not a paying proposition, and I do not think there is much use in attempting to put it into proper condition unless you are prepared to provide that it must be operated.
No one should be on the railway track unless he is a servant of the railway company, and if such a man goes through a farmer's property, and leaves the gate open the railway company should be liable. The railway company has the privilege of arresting anybody for trespassing on its property.
I would like to see the clause put in snch shape that the company must settle for the damages in two weeks, because I know cases in which the companies have been humbugging with settlers. How does the settler proceed to secure his remedy?
Under subsection 5, where a, railway is being constructed through inclosed land it shall be the duty of the company to take effective measures to prevent cattle, and other animals escaping from such inclosed land on the property of the company. That is all right as far as it goes; but if a railway company is building through a field of wheat and the contractors working for the company see fit to throw down the fences, the railway company claims that there is no responsibility on its part. I know a case in which under such circumstances a man lost his entire crop. That should be from vided for.