February 1, 1911

CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

And there are fees to be paid.

Topic:   ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER.

Yes, there are fees to be paid and all sorts of things to be done in the case of a private Bill. It seems to me that the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), is trifling with the intelligence of this House in taking up time with this matter. I thinlf the whole thing is out of order, because it must be apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, as to every member of the House, that the hon. gentleman is introducing what is really private legislation, and ought to be introduced in accordance with the rules applying to legislation of that kind. He had no right to introduce it as he did and call it a public Bill.

Topic:   ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I pointed out to my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee), that the purpose disclosed by the notice which he gave, and which appears on the order paper is to introduce ' an Act to amend chapter 139, 4 and 5, Edward VII., intituled an Act respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited.' The Act to be amended is undoubtedly a private Act. It is quite true that all Acts passed

by this parliament are public Acts; but it is equally true also that there are two categories of public Acts,, one known as private Acts, to be introduced in this House in accordance with certain rules, and not to be amended except in the same manner. My hon. friend (Mr. Conmee), has quoted some authorities which go to show that private Acts may foe amended by public Bills in some matters which are not essential, which are not part of the parliamentary contract,-for a private Act is a parliamentary contract and is to be amended only under the rules which have been provided by parliament for the security of private parties. My own impression, at first blush, is that the Bill proposed by my hon. friend certainly interferes with the corporate powers of a private company and is, therefore, to foe introduced only in accordance with the rules relating to private legislation. But, if I may be permitted, I would suggest that the Bill be read the first time, and the question whether it is a private Bill or not, should be settled by you, Mr. Speaker, before the-next- reading.

MrTLANCASTER. If I am in order: I would point out that it would, I fear, be trifling with the rules of the House to let the Bill go in that way. I think that the first reading should stand for the consideration which the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), proposes. We should be stultifying ourselves to let the first reading go through when the rules declare that it should not go through. I think the point ought to be decided.

Topic:   ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

That is for Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

James Kirkpatrick Kerr (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

I am prepared to say now that my impression is, after hearing the explanation of the hon. gentleman and reading the provisions concerning - the company, that this is purely a private Bill, and so comes Under Rules 88, 89 and so on and must be introduced by petition, the fees paid and the other formalities that are provided for, observed. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee), wishes a more elaborate opinion, I will be able to give it tomorrow, setting forth the definition of private Bills, the precedents and so on. In the meantime, I may briefly quote Bouri-not:

Private Bills are distinguished from public Bills in that they directly relate to the affairs of private individuals or of corporate bodies, and not to matters of public policy or to the community in general. They must pass through the same stages as public Bills, but, at the same time, must originate by petition and be subject to certain, special standing orders in both Houses of parliament.

There can be no doubt that this Bill merely relates to the community residing-

in Fort Frances and its immediate vicinity, and not to the community generally. In another place, Bourinot describes this class of Bill:

Bills from the corporation of towns and municipal bodies, generally, are always treated as private Bills when they desire special legislation affecting their proper interests.

This is such a case, I submit, and therefore I cannot allow the Bill to be introduced. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee), will have to comply with the rule of the House. I will give a more elaborate opinion to-morrow if necessary.

Motion ruled out of order,

Topic:   ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY.
Permalink

DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.


Mr. OLIVER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 107) to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said: This Bill is a very short amendment. It relates to the disposition of schools lands. As these sections stand in the Act at present they provide only for the sale of school lands. In practice it is frequently found desirable that school lands should be leased for various purposes, such as grazing rights, mineral rights, or timber rights. There is no specific authority in the Act now to permit leasing and while in practice we have granted leases it is thought it would be right and proper that the practice should be sanctioned by an amendment to the Act. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS.


[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION.

CON

Mr. PAQUET:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What advances have been made since the 1st of July, 1905, to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners P

2. What rate of interest has been imposed on these loans?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. FIELDING: (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

1. $543,748.16.

2. 4 per cent, but no amount of interest has been received on account thereof.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION.
Permalink

MR. FERDINAND ROY.

CON

Mr. MONK:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Is Mr. Ferdinand Roy, of St. Lazare, county of Bellechasse, employed by the government or by the Transcontinental Company?

2. If so, what is the date of his appointment* what is his monthly or yearly salary, and what is the nature of the services he renders to the government?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MR. FERDINAND ROY.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. SPEAKER. (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

3. Has he made any reports to the government or to the company since his appointment? If so, how many reports has he made, and are they in writing?

4. What amounts has he received from the government since his appointment?

Mr. GRAHAM-:

1. Mr. Ferdinand Roy is not employed by the Department of Railways and Canals, nor the Transcontinental Railway Commission.

2, 3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MR. FERDINAND ROY.
Permalink

OTTLECOCK DAM.

CON

Mr. CROCKET:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Did the Department of Public Works authorize the construction during the year 1910 of a dam and wing on the Ottiecock stream in the county of Victoria, New Brunswick?

2. If so, at whose request was said work undertaken, what was the object thereof, and what was the cost?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   OTTLECOCK DAM.
Permalink
LIB

COTEAU LANDING BREAKWATER.

LIB

Mr. BOYER:

Liberal

1. Has the government decided to construct a breakwater at Coteau Landing? If so, what amount is appropriated for this purpose?

2. Will the work be done by contract or by the department? If by contract, is it granted at the present time, and what is the name of the contractor?

3. Has the government considered whether the construction of a new sluice would not be preferable and less expensive?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   COTEAU LANDING BREAKWATER.
Permalink

February 1, 1911