October 14, 1919

UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am not altogether clear that the Minister of Justice is entitled to reply, but I am sure that the House would in any event concede him that courtesy. I wish, however, to direct the attention of the House to the fact that, while I know that this motion was prepared by a responsible officer, I think an error was committed in not having included in the motion the reasons for the nomconcurrence in the amendment of the Senate.

Topic:   TREATY OF PEACE-SENATE AMENDMENTS.
Permalink
L LIB
UNION

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

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move an amendment by inserting the following reasons, namely:

That the treaties referred to in the portion of the amendment to the preamble of the Bill hereinafter proposed to be struck out have not as yet been signed, and the Government is not in a position to put 'before the House the provisions that the same may contain, even in substance; nor to affirm that the same will be on the lines of that with Germany already approved by the House.

It can go in the second paragraph.

Topic:   TREATY OF PEACE-SENATE AMENDMENTS.
Permalink
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

As this is in effect a nonconcurrence in the amendment of the Senate, under our rules it is essential that the reasons for the non-concurrence ought to be included, and therefore the Minister of Justice is desirous to add these words to his motion.

Amendment agreed to and resolution as amended agreed to.

Topic:   TREATY OF PEACE-SENATE AMENDMENTS.
Permalink

MANUFACTURE AND IMPORTATION OF OLEOMARGARINE.


On the motion of Hon. Mr. Guthrie, the House went into Committee on Bill No. 28, to permit the temporary importation, manufacture and sale of oleomargarine in Canada. Bill considered, reported without amendment, read the third time and passed.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ELECTROCUTION).


On the Order: House again in Committee on Bill No. 6, to amend the Criminal (lode (Electrocution).-Mr. Mowat.


UNION

Herbert Macdonald Mowat

Unionist

Mr. MOWAT:

Before the House goes into Committee again on this Bill, I desire to make a short statement. The Bill as it now is-

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ELECTROCUTION).
Permalink
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member is not entitled to make any statement upon the calling of the Order, excepting it is to discharge the Order, inasmuch as the Speaker leaves the Chair without the question being put. *

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ELECTROCUTION).
Permalink
UNION

Herbert Macdonald Mowat

Unionist

Mr. MOWAT:

May I be permitted-this Bill having been called from time to time and allowed to stand-to give the reason for it? It is this-

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ELECTROCUTION).
Permalink
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

Does the hon. gentleman ask that this Order stand?

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ELECTROCUTION).
Permalink
UNION

Herbert Macdonald Mowat

Unionist

Mr. MOWAT:

I am giving an explanation why it should stand for the time being.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ELECTROCUTION).
Permalink
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

The Order stands. INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Topic:   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ELECTROCUTION).
Permalink

PROPOSED EXTENSION INTO NON-RAILWAY 'SECTION'S OF MARITIME PROVINCES.


Further consideration of the following motion of Mr. D; D. McKenzie resumed from October 6: Whereas on the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, this Honourable House passed the following Resolution which was accepted by the Government,- " Mr. McKenzie moved that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway." See pages 17!3'6, 1737, 1738, 1739 and 1740 of Hansard for the said year, A.D., 1914. Be it therefore resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the proposals of the said Resolution of the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, should be carried forward to completion at the earliest possible date. Mr. 0. TURGEON (Gloucester): Mr. Speaker, from time to time the people of the Maritime Provinces through their representatives in this House have asked the Government for better railway facilities, and it is my desire to support the resolution of the hon. leader of the Opposition for the extension of the Intercolonial railway into the sections mentioned by him, for I believe that such extension would very greatly contribute to the development of trunk line traffic. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia we have in the Intercolonial railway our only trunk line, and, of course, it cannot be expected that capital will be attracted for the construction of short local lines, which by themselves cannot be operated at a profit. Branch lines are not built with the primary object of securing dividends on local traffic; their real purpose is to act as feeders to trunk lines. The hon. gentlemen who have already taken part in the debate on this resolution have mentioned that the districts re- ferred to would all produce freight from which the trunk line would derive great profits on the long haul. Such railway construction would encourage the fish industry on the Atlantic coast-an encouragement that would be not merely for the benefit of the localities themselves, but would be pf national advantage, as it would increase our food production and at the same time provide additional traffic for the Intercolonial portion of our national railways. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Leger) has mentioned a proposed line between Buc-touche, in Kent county, and Loggieville, in Northumberland county, which would connect two districts at present isolated for lack of railway communication. It was thought a few years ago that a company might build that line. But, as I have already stated in this House, I have been opposed to the construction of branch lines in the Maritime Provinces by private corporations and unless connected with the Intercolonial for they could not maintain themselves. This proposed line would traverse a fine country in proximity to the best fisheries and would be of great benefit to Canada at large as well as to the Maritime Provinces. . I regret that the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) is not in his seat, as I wish to again bring to his attention the necessity to our national railways of taking over the old branch line called the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway on the North shore, which I drew more particularly to the attention of the former Minister of Public Works, Hon. Mr. Carvell, in 1917. At that time the Government were taking over a number of branch lines, connecting with the Intercolonial Railway between Moncton and St. John chiefly, but they left out one branch line which would be an excellent feeder for the Intercolonial on the ground that there was a dispute of a few thousand dollars regarding the value of the road. As I stated at the time, I did not make the request with the assurance that there would be an immediate additional revenue derived from its operation in conjunction with the Intercolonial, but looked more particularly to the benefit that such a line would give to the main line between Halifax and Montreal. I pointed out its freight possibilities, and stated that altogether about 1,750 cars of lumber a year would reach Gloucester Junction not for distribution in the neighbourhood, but to be sent through in Montreal, a distance of 533 miles; and in addition, every year we have a large number of carloads of fish to be transported from Bathurst to St. John, 220 miles, or to Halifax, 300 miles, due to the geographical situation. Therefore by reason of the long haul traffic the Intercolonial would receive during the year a revenue of $200,000 to $300,000 as contrasted with only about $80,000 of revenue to the branch line itself. I said at the time that the receipts of that road could be increased very considerably, and that therefore the main line revenue would also be increased two or three times. That fact has to be considered, and in drawing it to the attention of the Government I submit that the interests of our national railways are being neglected by our continued refusal to take over that line. The Government are losing thousands of dollars every year on (account- of tljeir neglect to take over this line. The acquirement of these branch lines in northern New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia is a matter of great national interest and necessity. The only reason that the minister has ever given for the Government's failure to take over the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway is that they could not come to an agreement with the owners of that line as to the amount for which it could be bought. I suggested when -the matter was up on a previous occasion, and I suggest again, that arbitration should be resorted to. The owners of this line have intimated to the Minister of Railways their willingness to accept the decision of any board of arbitration appointed by the Government to look into this matter; they would have accepted in advance the decision of the former Chief Commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners, now the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), I thought at the time that the Minister of Railways would accept that proposal. The owners of this line are willing to-day to accept the finding of any man who has a knowledge of railways whom the Government may select as arbitrator, whether he be a judge of the Exchequer Court or any one else. The Government lare |always prepared to accept the principle of arbitration when it comes to dealing with large corporations and when large amounts are involved. They did it in the case of the Canadian Northern, and they are proposing to do it in the case of the Grand Trunk in connection with the proposals which they now place before the House. Why not apply the same principle to the acquirement of small lines? Why not do it in the case of the line which I mention and thus do justice to the section of the community



through which this line runs? It may he said that this line is not worth much in its present condition, or was not worth much in the condition that it was in last year or two years ago. I admit that the road was run down, but it is not only the actual physical value of a railroad which is to be considered; one has to take into account also the potential value of the road as a feeder of the trunk line. The districts through which these branch lines run may be so productive as to make the branch lines of considerable value as feeders of the trunk line. If the Intercolonial railway had been owned by a private company, the Caraquet and Gulf Shore line would long ago have been taken over; the owners of the trunk line would have recognized the value of the territory through which this branch line runs and its value as a feeder of the trunk line. I hope that the Minister of Railways and those members of the Government who hear me to-day will take this matter into very serious consideration and that they will decide to take over the Caraquet and Gulf Shore railway and to construct those new lines which have been referred to by hon. members who have preceded me in this debate. To do so would be in the interests of the districts concerned as well as to the advantage of the Canadian National railway.


L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

Mr. Speaker,

Topic:   PROPOSED EXTENSION INTO NON-RAILWAY 'SECTION'S OF MARITIME PROVINCES.
Permalink
L LIB

Georges Henri Boivin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Laurier Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

It is my duty t6 remind hon. members that the leader of the Opposition is about to exercise his right to close the debate upon this motion and that other members will afterwards be precluded from speaking. If any hon. member, therefore, wishes to speak to this motion, he should do so now.

Topic:   PROPOSED EXTENSION INTO NON-RAILWAY 'SECTION'S OF MARITIME PROVINCES.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Government takes so little interest in a resolution which was passed by the House and accepted by the Government some four years ago with regard to the building of lines of railway in parts of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and possibly Prince [DOT]Edward Island. No member of the Government seems to think it worth while to say a word about the matter. .1 was hoping that the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) would be here at some time when this matter was being dealt with, to show that he takes some interest in the development of these very important sections of our country. But although I have postponed the discussion of this motion

[iMr. Turgeon.l

several times in the hope that the minister would be here, and although I asked him as a special favour on one occasion to be present when the motion was called, I find that neither he nor any other member of the Government thinks it worth while to gay the slightest attention to the interests of these very important sections of Canada.

On the 16th of March, 1914, the House adopted this resolution, moved by myself:

That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway section of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway.

That resolution was accepted by the Government at that time. During the war period I did not think it would be proper to embarrass the Government in any way by dealing with these matters. But now that the war is over and the Government appears to have lots of money-millions and hundreds of millions-to spend upon railway projects, I did think that I was only doing justice to the grand old provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in asking that some attention be given to such portions of those provinces as have been without railway facilities. But evidently my appeal has fallen upon deaf ears; the matter has been dealt with as one of such perfunctory character that no member of the Government deigns to take the slightest interest in it. .We on this side are accustomed to treatment of that kind. We shall continue, however, to advocate what is in the interests of the various parts of the country which we represent and to hope that the day will come when there will be a Government in charge of the affairs of Canada which will consider it worth while to give some attention to the provinces that I have mentioned.

I did not bring forward this resolution looking for any consideration for those provinces beyond the lines of good business. I have always submitted that the development and extension of those lines would bring splendid business to the main trunk lines of the Intercolonial railway or whatever lines of Government-owned roads may be found extending through this country. I pointedfout that the lumber business, the coal business, the trade in plaster-stone and more especially the fishing industry would be developed to such an extent as to make the road a good paying proposition. It was largely for the purpose and with the hope that the line into my particular county of Victoria should be extended along the fishing ports of that county that I brought the matter up. We have in the

county of Victoria a long string of fishing ports and towns beginning with a fishing place called North River, North Gut, South Gut, Englishtown, North Shore, South Bay, Ingonish, Neil harbour, Dinwall bay, St. Lawrence, Meat Cove. All of these villages along the coast of the county of Victoria are most magnificent fishing places, but they have no railway, and consequently the fishing trade is really in its infancy and has no opportunity of development. If a railway were run through these fishing villages, there is no limit to the wealth that might be developed. On the Inverness side of the island we have several Acadian villages on a settlement called Cheticamp, with magnificent fishing possibilities. Then there is Margaree harbour and another point called Site. Rose. Of course, there is a railroad from the Strait of Canso along the south side of the island, which railway I understand the Government intends to take over one of these days. That railway touches many of the harbours along the south side of the island; but the fishermen were never given any opportunity to take advantage of it because it is merely a coal road, that is, it is owned by a coal company; it is equipped only for the carrying of coal, and there was never anything done to connect it with the fishing towns, villages and harbours on the south side of the island of Cape Breton. But when the Government take it over, as I hope they will, there will be an opportunity for them so to equip it that it will be a means of assistance to the fishermen of that side of the .island and will enable the fishermen to produce this excellent food for other parts of Canada. On the south side of the island we have a railway extending about thirty or thirty-five miles from the strait of Canso to the St. Peter's canal. That railway is well known to the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster), who has possibly travelled over it. It is a good, road so far as it goes, but it should be extended along the south coast of the island of Cape Breton to Louisburg, where it would connect with the railway of the Dominion Iron and Steel.

I am glad now that after many efforts we have the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) in the House listening to part of what I have to say in regard to this railway. I am pleased to tell the minister that it was the intention of the railway company that owns the road from the strait of Canso to St. Peter's to extend it to the harbour of Louisburg along the south coast of the island of Cape Breton, and that it was my

pleasure, as a practising barrister, to purchase, on behalf of that .company, magnificent terminals for that road on the site of the old town of Louisburg. If he will take in hand the extension of that road he will find owned by that company one of the most magnificent terminal sites on the whole of the Atlantic coast, and he will have the novelty and. pleasure of knowing that in the lands which can readily be owned by the Government is the site of the old town and the old wharf that the French people owned when they owned the town of Louisburg. He will also find that foundation of that wharf, good and sound as ever it was, within the land which this company owns. The towns through which this road would run if extended along the south side of the island would be St. Peter's itself, l'Ardoise, Grand River, Forchou, Gabarus, Louisburg, Lorraine, Mainadieu and Mira bay. All of these towns are struggling .along endeavouring to make a living at fishing, .but they have no railway facilities. As I have pointed out before, it is. impossible to give railway facilities to the two sides of this great island of Cape Breton simply by running a line through the middle, because the island, which is about 125 miles long by 90 miles wide, is cut into two parts by an arm of the sea and the St. Peter's canal. One can, therefore, understand that one line of railway running through the centre of that great stretch of country is not going to give proper accommodation, much less can it give good accommodation to the fishing industries along the coast. I am to-day merely supplementing what I said the other day, and I am merely reminding the minister now that he is. in the House-I am sure he is a busy man. and found it impossible to he here before-that he was sitting in this House when this resolution which I am about to read was .accepted. Hon. Mr. Rogers, who was then Minister of Public Works, was leading this House, and he was the .man who gave the word [DOT]that the Govern men>t was accepting my resolution, but I clearly remember that the present Minister of Railways, who was then Minister of Customs if I remember correctly, was sitting in the House at that time. The resolution, which was moved by myself and which was accepted by the Government, reads:

Mr. McKenzie moved that in the opinion of this House the time has arrived for the extension of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada into the non-railway sections of the Maritime Provinces within reasonable range of the said railway.

What I am now moving is this:

Be It therefore resolved that, in the opinion of this House, the proposals of the said Resolution of the 16th of March, A.D., 1914, should he carried forward to completion at the earliest possible date.

The railroad that I am talking about in the county of Victoria was practically started in 1911 - along with several other lines of railway in Guysborough, Pictou and Halifax counties and other parts of eastern Nova Scotia: They were dropped with the promise that later on they would be taken up again. I trust that " later on " has arrived and that before long the Government will take such steps as may 'be necessary to carry out the proposition involved in my present resolution and the resolution which was accepted by the Government on the 16th March, 1914.

I trust I have made my position perfectly clear, also the position of the people of the island of Cape Breton, Guysborough and Inverness counties, of western Nova Scotia, as well as the sections of Quebec and New Brunswick particularly concerned in the scope- and purpose of the resolution.

I do hope that the day is not far digtant when the minister will be able to gladden the hearts of these old settlers who have been in this country, they and their forefathers, nearly two hundred years, and who have been looking from time to time for the benefits of railway extension. I trust the minister will have the satisfaction of feeling that he ia the one who brought this great benefit to this very excellent class of Canadians, who have too long been left out in the cold, without the facilities which have been properly extended to other parts of Canada.

Topic:   PROPOSED EXTENSION INTO NON-RAILWAY 'SECTION'S OF MARITIME PROVINCES.
Permalink

October 14, 1919