This clause was pretty fairly discussed by the special committee some weeks ago, and whilst I was somewhat interested in it, the more we looked into the matter, the less objection could be taken to the clause as it stands. I quite recognize the difficulties that the hon. gentleman has referred to, but railways have some rights which should not be altogether overlooked, and my principal objection at the present time is that, whilst the railways have rights, owners of property along the railway have rights as well, and they are up against a great many difficulties. 'Insurance companies do not consider them very good risks, and in that way do not care too well to take them. My principal objection is to subsection 2, which reads as follows:
No action shall lie against the company by reason of anything in any such policy of insurance or by reason of payment of any moneys thereunder.
If any of these properties are insured a.nd a fire occurs, the owners of the properties have to get their insurance money. In the meantime the owner of that property might find that some of the locomotives were defective, and that these defective locomotives were the cause of the fire. I would be quite satisfied if we struck out the words " or by reason of payment of any money ".
In subsection 1, the words "and notwithstanding anything in any special Act may" are inserted, to ensure, uniformity as far as possible.
The company's right to plead not guilty by statute, without giving any particulars of its grounds of defence as is required from ordinary litigants is taken away by subsection 3. It was felt to be unfair that the company should have special privileges in this regard, and such defences, at all events, seem out of keeping with the simplicity and non-technicality of modern legal procedure. In the fourth line we change the word "one" to "two," and make the same change in the sixth line.
Yes. The Railway Brotherhood were most insistent in that request. They urgently pressed their claim, and were able to show that it was practically impossible, where a man had been seriously injured, in a year's time to be able to show exactly what was likely to occur, and they wanted it to be extended to two years.
Section 393 is altogether new. We have had no explanation of what the new provisions mean. The chairman reads three or four lines, and asks us to take Mr. Price's statement. We want to know what this clause means, and not what Air. Price says it means. Whoever is in charge of the Bill should tell us what it means.