1174 COMMONS DEBATES. MAY 3,
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LANDS.
Mr. WATSON asked, What amount of lands retained
by the Dominion Government as provided for in 49 Victoria, chapter 9, is situated
within the Province of Manitoba?
Also, what amount of said lands have been retained west of
the boundary of the Province of Manitoba and east of
3rd Meridian?
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. The negotiations with
the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the defining of
the lands which are to be retained under the Act mentioned
have been proceeding, and they will be completed as soon
as possible after the passing of the resolution respecting the
company's land grant now before Parliament.
Mr. WATSON asked, 1. Whether the Canadian
Pacific Railway Company has made a selection of all lands
granted to it under clause 11 of Canadian Pacific Railway
contract? 2. What amount of said lands have been
selected within the boundary of the Province of Manitoba?
3. What amount of said lands have been selected between
the western boundary of the Province of Manitoba and 3rd
Meridian?
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. 1. The Canadian
Pacific Railway Company have selected nearly 7,000,000
acres of the lands granted under clause 11 of the Canadian
Pacific Railway contract. 2. The area of lands selected
within the boundaries of Manitoba is, in acres 1,818,330.
3. The area of lands selected between the western boundary of Manitoba and the 3rd
Initial Meridian is, in acres,
2,989,440.
Mr. LAURIER asked, 1. What number of acres is there
of unsold lands which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company prepose to receive by deed
of bargain and sale to
trustees under sub-section
c of the Resolutions now before
the House? 2 . What portions of such lands lie within the
Railway Belt? 3. How many acres of those lands are
there in Manitoba, and how many in the Territories, east
ofthe 3rd Meridian? 4. How many acres have been sold
by the company, paid for, and the deeds completed? 5.
How many acres have been sold, but the sales are still
incomplete? How much paid on the same, and how much
remains due, and when and how payable?
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. I am able to answer one
of these questions, but not the whole satisfactorily, as the
information must be obtained from the Canadian Pacific
Railway Company. I have asked the company to provide
the information and I expect it any moment.
Mr. LAURIER. Perhaps you will answer the questions
to-morrow.
NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES ACT.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD moved that the House
resolve itself into Committee, to-morrow, to consider the
following resolution :—
That it is expedient to provide that there shall be payable, in respect
of his attendance at each Session of the Legislative Assembly of the
North-West Territories, to each elected member thereof, an indemnity
of $500, and to each legal expert, for the like attendance, an indemnity
of $250, in addition in each case to his actual travelling expenses, subject to a
proportionate reduction for each day's absence from a sitting
of the Assembly, the amount of such reduction and of such travelling
expenses to be ascertained in such manner as the Governor in Council
prescribes; that there shall be payable to the Speaker of the said Legislative Assembly
an annual salary of $500, and to the Clerk of the said
Assembly acting also as Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor, an
annual salary of $2,000; and that all such payments shall be made out
of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). This, of course, relates to the
House of Assembly in the North-West Territory. I would
ask the hon. gentleman whether he has considered the propriety of placing at the disposal
of the Governor and Legislature of the North-West Territory the same grant as that
which the Provinces receive in proportion to their population; leaving to them to
appoint their own clerk, regulate
their own affairs, and to spend the money so given, in the
way that they think best in the public service. The hon.
gentleman knows at the present time that this assembly
has really no funds with which to carry on the business of
legislation, except such as the Government here may place
at its disposal. If there was an account opened with the Territory, the moment a Legislature
is established and money
placed at their disposal, when they come to be admitted as
a Province of course the whole sum so received by that
means could be taken into consideration. It always seemed
to me, that that would be the rational way to deal With
them whenever they had a legislative assembly. I would
like to know whether the hon. gentleman has considered
the subject, and whether he proposes to invite parliamentary action in the matter?
It will be perceived that it
would be a little more reasonable, in conferring on them
the power of legislation and representation, that they
should have funds with which to carry on their operations.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. This discussion will
arise more properly on the second reading of the Bill. I
will say to my hon. friend that we do not propose to put in
any such vote for this year. The territories are not quite
without revenue, as the hon. gentleman knows, and I have no
doubt they dispose of that revenue to the best advantage of
the territories. Those revenues are very small, certainly,
and I am quite ready to admit the merits of the suggestion
of the hon. gentleman. The idea is to make as little change
as possible until they have a purely elective assembly representing the people. They
will be obliged, after the elections, to meet very soon, and to consider what the
wants of
the country and what administrative action here they think
would be most satisfactory for that country. The measure
before the House is intended merely to carry out the principle, with all due respect
to their suggestions for the future.
From time to time we have had a series of resolutions passed by the mingled council,
in which parties were nominated and parties elected. Those are contradictory in themselves
and cannot be supposed really to represent the feelings of the people. We propose
to make no appropriation
of a sum to be disposed of by the Governor there, including
the Legislature, until they have really a Local Legislature
and ascertain what their own ideas are on the subject.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Of course I do not propose to
enter into a discussion, and I am making only a suggestion
now. These people are contributing their proportion to
the taxes of the country at the present time. In all the
1888. COMMONS DEBATES. 1175
Provinces a certain portion of the revenue, so much
per
capita, is paid over to the Provinces as provincial revenue
for provincial purposes. My remarks had reference to the
intention of the Government when the hon. gentleman's
Bill is adopted, and the Legislature made completely elective. It does not seem to
me, and I do not say it with a view
to provoking controversy, that it is not a matter of negotiation to know how much
they are entitled to. As a matter of right they should be entitled to the same amount
per capita, revenue for local purposes, as in the Provinces,
and which should be accounted for at the time of Union.
Motion agreed to.
THE RAILWAY ACT.
House resolved itself into Committee on Bill (No. 24) to
amend and consolidate the Railway Act.
(In the Committee.)
On section 2, sub-section p,
Mr. MULOCK. This clause, defining the word "near,"
refers to the proximity of one railway to another. Would
it not be advisable to define the word with reference to
some point as well? In Acts of incorporation the word
"near" is used to define the route taken; but I do not
know how any court could determine whether any railway
was exceeding its powers when it is authorized to go to or
near a point. In this vast continent that might mean
many miles away. While I do not wish to embarrass any
company, I think it would be well to give some statutory
definition of the word "near" under such circumstances.
Mr. TISDALE. It is easy to define the word, having
regard to the relation of one railway to another; but if we
try to define it in relation to the routes of railroads, it
seems to me we should defeat the object the hon. gentleman has in view, because "at
or near " any point, describing a route, will depend on all the circumstances. No
difficulty has arisen from the want of such a definition, that
I am aware of. Sometimes a court would hold that a quarter of a mile was near, and
in other cases they might hold
that two miles was near.
Mr. TISDALE. The courts will always draw the line
according to the circumstances, and give a reasonable construction to the word, as
they do in other cases. But I
think if we define the word in a railroad Act, we would
create greater difficulties than now exist.
Mr. MULOCK. Suppose a railway was incorporated to
build to or near a certain town which may be near a certain other town. It might be
within five or ten miles of
the other town, and the engineering difficulties might be
precisely the same in both cases. There might be no such
circumstances as the hon. gentleman suggests to enable the
court to determine how the word "near" should be construed. I do not think it is right
to incorporate a railway
company, giving it the utmost freedom in the choice of a
particular route, thus causing one municipality to compete
with another, and perhaps obliging it, by force of
circumstances, to give a large bonus to bring the
line within its neighborhood. If the route is not defined
by the Act of incorporation, you give the company
practically a roving commission, enabling it not only to
commit the abuse I speak of, but perhaps to affect existing
rights. Therefore I am satisfied that it is in the public interest that we should
not incorporate these companies at
large. I would suggest this. Every railway company
under the general Act, has power to build branches six
miles in length, and I think the word "near" might be
defined here to mean not more than six miles. In the
North-West, where there is a vast prairie country, engineering difficulties would
not arise to aid the court in determining the meaning of the word. Suppose a company
were
incorporated to build a road in the North West near to a
certain town. In that vast country fifty miles are equivalent
to not more than five or ten miles in the older Provinces.
Surely a company should not have the power to choose a
location as wide as fifty miles; but what would enable a
court to determine whether it was exceeding its powers or
not?
Mr. EDGAR. I think it is just as easy for a court to determine when one railway comes near
another as it is when
a railway comes near a point; and I think it is quite as
necessary to define the meaning of the word "near" in the
latter as in the former. Not a Session passes in which a
number of Bills are not put through the Railway Committee
saying that the railway shall commence at or near a town
or city or a certain point. This certainly leaves a great
deal of doubt as to the distance intended, and I think that
both for the general purposes of a public railway and for
the legal effect of such a provision, some definition of distance, say four, five
or six miles, should be covered by the
words "at or near." I would suggest to add to this clause
as it stands, "and near to a point or municipality when
some part of it is within five or six miles thereof."
Mr. THOMPSON. I do not think it is quite so
easy to define the word "near," in relation to the
construction of a railway, as it is in relation to its
operation. The definition would have to be of an entirely
different character. When we are defining the word "near"
in this sub-section, we are dealing with the interchange of
traffic and matters of that kind, in relation to which proximity must be pretty close,
but when we come to deal
with the word "near" in relation to the termini of a railway, as the hon. member for
York mentioned, a very much
larger limit must be given. Then, take a charter in
which it is provided that a railway shall be built from a
point beginning at or near a certain town. There would
also be a good deal of practical difficulty in defining that
word, because we would be giving a material limitation to
a large number of charters which Parliament has already
passed.
Mr. THOMPSON. In relation to those railways which
have not been commenced, it probably would. The limitation of six miles in some cases
would hardly do. Some of
the statutes, for instance, are for lines not six miles in
length, and it would defeat the limitation in the charter
altogether if we were to apply so lax a limit to such lines.
The whole thing depends on the kind of country through
which a line passes and the kind of termini it has. The
hon. gentleman's suggestion, however, deals with a separate
subject, which we can consider later, if he thinks the matter
is of sufficient importance.
On sub-section
r,
Mr. THOMPSON. In this section I do not think there
is any change in the law; it is only a little more full.
Mr. WELDON (St. John). I would suggest to add the
words "or other erection" after "railway bridge."
Mr. BARRON. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman
if it would not be well to define the meaning of the word
"railway," as including the lessees of a railway. I have
found in my professional practice that the Grand Trunk Railway, as lessee of the Midland
Railway, have escaped all liabili[...]
This individual participated in:
