John Waterhouse DANIEL

DANIEL, The Hon. John Waterhouse, M.D., M.R.C.S.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
City and County of St. John (New Brunswick)
Birth Date
January 27, 1845
Deceased Date
January 11, 1933
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Waterhouse_Daniel
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=bb362c1f-d28f-4dc6-82d8-7d44d4d02a62&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
physician

Parliamentary Career

February 16, 1904 - September 29, 1904
CON
  City of St. John (New Brunswick)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
CON
  City of St. John (New Brunswick)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
CON
  City of St. John (New Brunswick)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  City and County of St. John (New Brunswick)
August 13, 1912 - October 6, 1917
CON
  City and County of St. John (New Brunswick)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 289 of 293)


May 26, 1904

Mr. DANIEL.

I wonder now that he should be so backward in coming forward and stating his position in such a way that no one will be able to doubt what his views are. I think it is due to the House

and the country that he should come to the front and let us know, if he has changed his views, what has induced him to change. And if not, let him state his views in an open and manly manner as he ought to do. The hon. the Finance Minister paid a compliment to the people of the city in which I reside. He said that they were far-seeing business men. but at the tail end of his eulogy, he rather intimated that they were selfish as well. Well, Sir, I take it that we are all selfish. There are many members in this House, but I do not know of one of whom I could say that he is a purely unselfish man, and as far as our position in this parliament is concerned, we are elected for the purpose of representing our con-ctituency. If it were not necessary for every different part of the country to be represented. it would be very easy to say, why, there are 214 seats to be occupied in this House, let the members be elected to these seats in a holus bolus fashion and not necessarily because they represent different parts of the country. But the very fact that we are elected to represent different parts of the country, goes to show that each one should represent, the particular constituency to which he was elected. Therefore I think no representative is called upon to apologize for representing the constituency which has elected him, and the charge of selfishness hardly lies against those who are endeavouring to save the country useless expenditure. In order to make this line as short as possible and with easy grades, the only way is to bring, it down the valley of the St. John river to the city of St. John. In that way you would get the shortest possible line. If the people of St. John were as selfish as represented, they might well have passed a resolution having this object in view. The Minister of Finance also gave as one of the reasons why this line should be built that it would be very far from the border and consequently more valuable from a military point of view. Well, I would like to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the Liberal party in this country opposed the building of the Intercolonial when the reason given for the route selected was that it would suit military purposes. Then these hon. gentlemen sneered at that contention, but now it is brought forward as a strong reason in support of this scheme oi the government. But the fact is that, in so far as any information we have been able to obtain goes, it will be difficult to find any route across northern New Brunswick, if the road is to go across to Moncton, which will be a better route or by which freight can be carried any better than by the Intercolonial. At all events, I give as my authority the report of Sir Sandford Fleming,

] which was published in the sessional papers a good many years ago, at a time when he was endeavouring to find the very best route for the Intercolonial. When the hon. Min-

ister of Finance attributed the removal of the Allan line from St. John to Halifax to the fact that there was only one line of railway to St. John, I looked over to the Minister of Railways and wondered if he M ould allow such a statement to go uncor-rocted. Surely the Minister of Railways Mill recognize the fact that there are two railways going to St. John, one of them being the railway over which he presides. I think that was a mistake which the Minister of Finance should hardly have made, especially under the circumstances.

Because, if these Allan line boats were to take in freight at Halifax, that freight would have to be given to them by the Intercolonial Railway, and it could have been carried just as well to St. John-and so much cheaper as it was so much nearer. The fact is that, as to the taking away of the Allan Line from St. John to Halifax, it was really rather in the nature of a little trick played on the people of St. John, because the Intercolonial that gave these boats the freight at Halifax could much more easily have given that freight at St. John. I think the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) objects to government ownership. He cited as a reason for objecting to it the experience that this country has had with the Intercolonial. Well, of course, I sympathize with that view. But the idea Mre have in our minds on this side-the idea I have, at all events-of government oM'nership is not a system under which the minister presiding over the department finds his highest expression of statesmanship-in the summary dismissal of some poor unfortunate labourer on the railway, or filling up the different places with political appointments, running the railway as a political machine. That is not the view that this country has of government OM'nership ; it is not the view which we advocate. We advocate government OM'nership M'hich will give us a good command of the railways under the government as the best management now has under the corporations, such concerns as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk. There is no doubt that if this parliament wishes to have government control over the Intercolonial in such a way that politics shall be entirely dismissed from its management, they know' very well it can be done, and that is the kind of government OM'nership which M'e advocate and which the people, I believe, require, I will not detain the House any longer. I simply wished in speaking on this occasion, to bring forth the resolutions to which I have referred, because I think the speech of the Finance Minister did not place the Board of Trade and the city of St. John in exactly the right light that they should occupy before the members of this House and the people of this country.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GEO. A. COX, CHAS. M. HAYS, WM. WAINWRIGHT.
Full View Permalink

May 26, 1904

Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City).

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention this evening of making a speech. I have not prepared any speech. I have already stated in this House my views, and I believe also the views of the constituency which I represent, in regard to this transcontinental railway. But, Sir, the hon. Finance Minister, in the course of his speech to-night, made such an extended reference to the city which I have the honour to represent that I could not allow this discussion to pass by without saying a word or two, not only to correct the hon. gentleman to a certain extent, but in order that the ideas of the Board of Trade of the city of St. John, which he so largely quoted, should not be misrepresented in this House and all over the country. The hon. Minister of Finance quoted some of the resolutions which had been passed by the St. John Board of Trade ; and if I heard him distinctly, I think he said those resolutions were passed in the month of May. Now, reference has been made to the evolution which takes place in public opinion, and reference was made in that connection to the idea of government ownership. I think the Minister of Finance spoke about platforms being used only to get in on, and the hon. gentleman related a little story in that connection. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his Mr. HAGGART.

seat gave a very effective reply to that, when he made some reference to a platform known as the Liberal platform, which was adopted in the city of Ottawa some years ago. If I mistake not, one of the planks of that platform was that the Liberal party should advocate free trade as it was in England. So when the hon. Finance Minister shows that the government and the party which he represents are abb! to change their opinions very frequently, or as often they think necessary, surely gentlemen on this side of the House and the people of the country have a right to change their views also. As the country advances and education spreads among the people, views must necessarily change. The hon. Finance Minister referred to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who had voted against government ownership. Suppose hon. gentlemen on this side of the House or hon. gentlemen on the other side have at some time or other voted against government ownership, that is no reason why at this time or at some future time they should not be in favour of it. Government ownership might be all very well at one period of a nation's existence and a very poor thing at another period. These things must be determined by the facts as they are at the time. The hon. Minister of Finance quoted one or two resolutions passed by the St. John Board of Trade, but he did not quote them all, and I intend to fill up that little hiatus which he has left in the history of the proceedings in St. John. When I first had the opportunity of addressing this hon. House I referred to those resolutions, so that the fact that the hon. Minister of Finance has not referred to them is a little more noticeable than it would otherwise have been, because he certainly must have known of them. The resolutions which he read were passed in the month of May ; the resolutions which I will read were passed in the month of August. The people of St. John were beginning to study this transcontinental railway scheme, and while they looked at it in the first place simply from an Intercolonial point of view, they began to think about other things in connection with it. They began to have it driven home to them that as there was nothing in this agreement to compel the routing of freight to maritime province ports, it was necessary to pass some resolutions other than those which the Minister of Finance has referred to ; and the first one brought before the board of trade at the time I speak of reads as follows :

Whereas it is of vital importance to the development of the over-sea traffic of the Dominion that its exports should he shipped via Canadian ports, and

Whereas, under the terms of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway contract now under consideration l* the Dominion parliament routed freight may oe shipped via foreign ports, and

V. lu reas, there is reason to fear that a very large portion of the freight from the west by

the proposed railway may be routed via such foreign ports contrary to the declared policy of the Dominion government, that the products cf the Dominion should be exported via Canadian ports only, both in summer and winter.

Therefore resolved, that in the opinion of the St. John Board of Trade, the contract should be so varied tha,t it be made imperative that all freight originating on the line of the proposed railway or its branches, and carried by the railway for export shall be shipped via Canadian ports.

Further resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to the senators and members of the House of Commons for the province of New Brunswick.

That was one of the resolutions which was Offered, but not the one which was passed. The members of the St. .Tohn Board of Trade thought that it was not sufficiently strong, and the one which was passed I shall now read, and I think that hon. members will conclude that at all events there is one board of trade in this Dominion which believes in the extension of the Intercolonial to the west and government ownership and operation of that railway. The resolution which was passed is as follows :

In view of the present proposition for a Grand Trunk Transcontinental Railway, and believing that the best interests of Canada would be conserved by the building of a government owned and mana'ged transcontinental line ; and also believing that a subsidy of cash and land grants to a corporation may result in the land passing into foreign control ; and further believing it best for the government of Canada to retain the land for settlers at a fair valuation ; the St. John Board of Trade places itself on record as favouring extension of the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal across the continent through Canadian territory, and the improvement of harbour facilities, particularly on the gulf of St. Lawrence and on the maritime province coast.

That is the position which the St. John iRoard of T*rade took at that time and which it still holds. Therefore I shall find no difficulty in supporting the amendment offered by my hon. leader, a resolution which is entirely in conformity with the views of the constituency X have the honour to represent.

On the question of government ownership, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson)-he was here a moment ago, has he gone again ? This is the first time I have had the honour of a seat in this House and I therefore cannot speak from personal experience, but I have understood that the present Minister of Railways and Canals only a short time ago expressed himself in favour of government ownership and the extension of the Intercolonial.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GEO. A. COX, CHAS. M. HAYS, WM. WAINWRIGHT.
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1904

Mr. DANIEL.

Topic:   ALIEN LABOUR LAW A DEAD LETTER.
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1904

Mr. DANIEL.

Is there not an exceptional condition in this contract, inasmuch as the one party supplies a very large proportion of the funds which will build the road ?

Topic:   ALIEN LABOUR LAW A DEAD LETTER.
Full View Permalink

May 25, 1904

Mr. DANIEL.

If the Minister of Justice wishes me to reply. I would state that as regards the larger part of this railway we finance it out and out and pay for it, and as regards the other part we are liable for three-fourths of its cost.

Topic:   ALIEN LABOUR LAW A DEAD LETTER.
Full View Permalink