Frederick Robert CROMWELL

CROMWELL, Frederick Robert

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Compton (Quebec)
Birth Date
May 13, 1872
Deceased Date
October 16, 1950
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Robert_Cromwell
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=783c9d92-da59-454c-99d4-36808edf03d3&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, manager

Parliamentary Career

September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Compton (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 3)


July 19, 1917

Mr. CROMWELL:

The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) has referred to exhausts. The exhaust from anything, even a railway locomotive, does not amount to much. It is not exhaust we are after, it is protection for the people who have buildings close to a railway chartered by the Government of Canada to build through a certain district. Why should the railway not be responsible for damages which they cause to the property owner? I do not see any obstacle in the way of increasing this amount from $5,000 to $10,000, and I hope the House will see fit to endorse the amendment I have proposed.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink

July 19, 1917

Mr. CROMWELL:

Supposing that I have a set of buildings in close proximity to a railway, and with all the modem appliances that the railways have now tc prevent fire, fire takes place caused by an engine. My property is insured for $3,000, but perhaps is worth $5,000, and I have in my bam stock and feed for that stock to the amount of $12,000. If my property is burned down through that fire, I am the loser. I get my $3,000 insurance, hut the railway company will pay me only the $2,000, the difference between the $5,000 and the $3,000 I have received from the insurance company. Who is to pay the balance? The railway company should have to pay up to the extent of at least $10,000, lpecause many people are in the same position as that which I have described. If fire should take place in a wood lot, the case would be similar. The owners might lose $25,000, and it would be quite a help to them if they could get $10,000 from the railway company responsible for the fire that took place. We should not give a charter to a company that has not a reasonable amount of responsibility to the people from whom it gets a charter.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink

July 19, 1917

Mr. CROMWELL:

It appears to me that it is hardly sufficient to limit the liability of the railway company at $5,000. It is true that in some instances that amount may be sufficient, but in others it may not. If a property worth $10,000 or $12,000 was destroyed by fire caused by a locomotive, and the property was insured for $3,000, what recourse would the loser have? He could only go ,to the railway company. I think that the amount of $5,000 should be increased to $10,000 in order to protect sufficiently those who suffer damage by fire caused by locomotives. I hope this suggestion will be taken into consideration by the committee, because the matter is important to any one whose property is located near a railway line.

Mr. 8EXSMITH: Many valuable buildings are situated close to railway lines. I think it is highly improper that the amount of liability should be limited to $5,000.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink

July 19, 1917

Mr. CROMWELL:

I move in amendment that in this section the words "five thousand dollars" be struck out and the words "ten thousand dollars" be substituted therefor.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink

July 19, 1917

Mr. CROMWELL:

But, it does not affect what I have said. What I want is that the maximum responsibility of the railways be placed at $10,000 instead of $5,000, no matter what company is operating.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink