February 13, 1911

LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT.

I have no objection, so far as I am concerned, to leaving it to the Board of Railway Commissioners. It is a clause we have usually inserted in all the Bills that now come before the committee. I think it is a perfectly legitimate clause. The fact that it is not in the Grand Trunk railway or the Canadian Northern railway charters does not make any difference to me. If they came up for a charter now, so far as I am concerned, 1 would advocate putting it in their charter, and on the same principle as I advocate this. This railway proposes to pass through all the older settled sections of Ontario, and I do not think that any railway should have a right, even with the consent of the Railway Board, to go along a road in a municipality without its consent. It is not crossing a highway, it is merely going along a highway. The clause inserted there does not say crossing a highway, it simply says going along a highway.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I do not think that amendment should be withdrawn. We have been in the habit of putting it in all other Bills we have given of late years. Because the Canadian Northern Railway Company had its original charter before we commenced this practice is to me n-o strong reason why we should now treat it differently from the way we have treated others when giving them charters to build railways. It applies to a section of country where it is equally desirable that the municipal corporation should have some control, and something to say as to what shall be done with their highways, as it would with reference to a new corporation to which we give that power. Consequently there is just as strong a reason why it should be in this Bill as in any other Bill we give, and I see no reason why the Canadian Northern railway should be exempt from it any more than any other company

who are asking for incorporation. I think it is a very proper one. I would be inclined to control them in that way, but when they propose to go along the highways or public places, the municipality should have something to say as to where the railway shall go and upon what terms.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Hugh Guthrie

Liberal

Mr. GUTHRIE.

I do not think the clause a bad one, but I think it ought to be in the Railway Act-, and not in particular charters. This is not a new charter, but application for the renewal of an old one, which did not contain any such clause. I think, therefore it would be a hardship to insert that in the old charter. When a charter was before us a few weeks ago for a Grand Trunk Pacific branch, we did not insert any such provision.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Morley Currie

Liberal

Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).

There is another objection which I think is serious against this proposed amendment. Under the municipal Act of Ontario, I understand, a municipality can only give a railway company a franchise for a period of 20 or 25 years. This would consequently limit the right of this road to run over a municipal roadway for that short period of time. Bonds issued upon a railway, usually extend for 30 or 40 years. Anybody who knows anything of this question, will know that it is impossible for a railway company to issue bonds over a piece of road on which it has no right to run except during a period of 25 years. For that reason, since this is an old charter, it would be just as well to let it through; but, in any new charter, a clause such as this, might seem to be advisable.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT.

I think what my hon. friend refers to are corporations or railways, such as electric roads, which come under the Provincial, and not under the Dominion Act.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

I was not aware that there was any such provision in the Ontario Municipal Act, and I am inclined to think that my hon. friend may not, be exactly correct. That would be a serious objection, but I have never understood the Ontario Act to apply in that way. I want to say a word with regard to a suggestion made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), that this is a clause which should be in the General Railway Act. That is an objection which comes to us whenever we propose to insert something new in the charter of any railway company seeking incorporation; but we have almost invariably decided that until these things are in some general Act, we should put them into the special Acts we enact. Parliament has deemed it wise to insert such provisions in special Acts and to continue doing so until such time as they are incorporated in a general Act. With re-

gard to this Bill, the hon. member says that if this were a new charter he would favour this amendment. I cannot appreciate the distinction. We are asked to give the company power to build these new branches, and are giving it new rights just as we would in the case of a new charter. We are not seeking to deprive the. company of any of the rights it possesses under its original charter; but when it asks the right to construct other lines, we are only doing our duty if we impose such conditions as we think ought to apply to the case of any new railway.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

Edward Walter Nesbitt

Liberal

Mr. NESBITT.

I am perfectly willing to withdraw the amendment, if the committee thinks it is better that it should go into the general railway Act.

Amendment withdrawn, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
Permalink

ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.


House in committee on (Bill 62) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.


LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

On Friday evening, I understand, a question was put as to the knowledge of those affected, concerning section 3. As a matter of fact, in the railway committee this question was asked, and the gentleman who represented this company assured the committee and myself that those who will be affected^have unanimously given their consent.

Topic:   ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

It was I who asked the question, and I am entirely satisfied with the statement that my hon. colleague makes, in regard to the matter.

On section 3,

Topic:   ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

Are all interests safeguarded by this provision?

Topic:   ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

Before this Bill came to the committee the gentlemen representing this company came to see me and convinced me that in this particular instance every interest was safeguarded. Those particularly affected agreed to this clause being inserted in the Act, and also before the committee, they submitted their record to show that the agreement had taken place. I considered it pretty fully, and I came to the conclusion that there was nothing at all in this to affect any persons but those who had given their consent to it.

Topic:   ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

That is the only question involved.

On section 4,

Topic:   ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Morley Currie

Liberal

Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).

Does not this clause give the right to issue bonds before the railway is constructed, or whenever it is under contract? I do not think that we usually do that.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Topic:   ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
Permalink

INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.


Mr. CARVELL moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 9) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act be read the second time and agreed to.


CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

Would the hon. gentleman explain the amendments?

Topic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink

February 13, 1911