May 15, 1922

CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

The question was considered by the committee, and I do not think there should be any objection to the amendment. It is only a matter of business after all. You have got to make it convenient for the shareholders to attend meetings, and undoubtedly for the majority of them Detroit would be the more convenient centre. We have the same thing at Niagara Falls. The Bridge Company can hold its meetings either in Niagara Falls, Ontario, or in Niagara Falls, New York, but as a matter of fact the shareholders generally meet in Buffalo, that being the most convenient point for the majority of them. The same thing will apply in this case, Detroit will suit the convenience of the majority of the shareholders of this company. I think the clause should carry.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
PRO

Thomas George McBride

Progressive

Mr. McBRIDE:

I do not think this

bill got proper consideration by the committee. It was a special committee, they had to send whips out to get a quorum, and the committee sat less than twenty minutes. In my view the bill did not get the consideration it was entitled to.

Questions

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

What is the nature of

the business of this company; is it international in character?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

James Palmer Rankin

Liberal

Mr. RANKIN:

It is ar company to

build an international bridge between Windsor and Detroit, which will be one of the most important international structures undertaken in many years, and it will probably result in great benefit to both countries. The clause was fully considered in committee and passed. There is nothing in this bill except a few simple amendments. I do not understand why hon. gentlemen should object to this clause if it will expedite the business of the corporation, as it undoubtedly will.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
PRO
LIB

James Palmer Rankin

Liberal

Mr. RANKIN:

Since 1921. The head

office is in Windsor and will remain there; that is the whole thing. This clause is to facilitate the business of the company and to show good-will towards the Detroit shareholders and directors.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
PRO

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Essex) :

I know the

gentlemen associated with this company, which is formed for the purpose of building an international bridge between Detroit and Windsor. There are a great number of American shareholders, and the principal directors, including Mr. Hiram Walker, live in Detroit. It is a matter of convenience to these gentlemen to have the meetings of the company held in Detroit. I think that is the sole purpose of the amendment.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
PRO

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

I am asking merely for

information. The majority of the stockholders and the directors, I take it, live on the American side, although the company was incorporated under a Canadian charter?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
PRO
PRO
PRO

Thomas Henry McConica

Progressive

Mr. McCONICA:

I happened to be a

member of that special committee, and while I am not fully advised as to this bill, I understand it was carefully considered, the solicitor of the company appearing before the committee and explaining the purpose of the bill. As I recall, two companies were usually formed for such a purpose as this,-the building of an international bridge. There will be an office on the Ontario side and one on the Michigan side. It was held that certain amendments should be made to enlarge to some extent the powers of the company, and to extend the courtesy to the American shareholders of allowing them to hold their meetings on either side as they might see fit. The majority of the stockholders in this international bridge are supposed to live on the other side of the river; but there is no danger of the bridge being moved away, no matter where the meetings are held, and it seems to me that if we want an international bridge it makes but little difference where the stockholders hold their meetings providing we have control of the Canadian company, which we will at all times have. I think the committee were fully advised as to this measure when it was under consideration by them.

Section 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink

QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)


MESSRS. FISHER AND OUGHTON

CON

Mr. CLARK:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Has the law firm of Fisher and Oughton acted on behalf of the Dominion Government as custodians of alien property in the city of Prince Rupert, British Columbia?

2. Did the said firm act in the case of property of M. Thorsch, an Austrian, and was said firm ordered to hand conduct of this case over to the law firm of Williams and Manson?

3. Is the Attorney General, the Honourable A. M. Manson, a member of the firm of Williams and Manson?

4. Was the firm of Fisher and Oughton ordered to hand over all papers in connection with enemy property to Williams and Manson?

5. Is there a record in the department concerned of the fact that one of the partners of Fisher and Oughton was a returned soldier who suffered a permanent disability as a result of wounds received in the late war?

6. If the above change has occurred, when and why was it made?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MESSRS. FISHER AND OUGHTON
Permalink
LIB

Hon. Mr. COPP: (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

1. Messrs. Fisher & Oughton, of Prince Rupert, acted as law agents on behalf of the Custodian of Enemy Property.

2. The said firm of Fisher & Oughton acted on behalf of the Custodian of Enemy Property in effecting a sale of certain property, the property of M. Thorsch, an Austrian. By telegram dated 25th February last Messrs. Fisher & Oughton were instructed, take ncf further action on behalf of custodian, and by letter dated 16th March last they were requested to hand

Questions

over to Messrs. Williams & Manson all the papers in their possession.

3. Yes.

4. Answered by 2.

5. Department has no information.

6. The change referred to was made as set out in answer to question 2. It was made for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the administration of enemy property.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MESSRS. FISHER AND OUGHTON
Permalink

PENITENTIARIES

CON

Mr. CHURCH:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. How many inmates are there in the penitentiaries of Canada of the ages of sixteen, seventeen and eighteen?

2. Were any complaints received hy the Department of Justice about the practice of sending such youthful offenders to these institutions?

3. Does the Government propose to provide a better method of dealing with these youthful inmates and a more suitable institution for them?

4. Are any negotiations pending with the Government of the provinces to provide better detention place for them on a modern jail farm plan?

5. Does the Government intend to amend the act or regulations, to enable the Superior Court or assize grand jury, to inspect these institutions in the public interest, while the sittings of the high court are being held in the municipality where such institutions are located?

6. Has the Government any objection to such an inspection as suggested?

7. Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a special committee to consider prison reform, or what action in the matter does the Government purpose to take this session or in the coming recess of Parliament.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Permalink
LIB

Sir LOMER GOUIN: (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

1. Inmates 16 years, 18; inmates 17 years, 63; inmates 18 years, 82.

2. Yes.

3. The Government will give careful consideration to the matter.

4. No.

5. No.

6. Yes. The superintendent, the inspectors and all the wardens have objections to inspection by grand juries, but have no objection to admitting them as casual visitors, or in special circumstances.

7. The intention of the Government will be disclosed in due time.

Mr. R. B. VEIT-Mr. BLAND

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Permalink
LIB

Mr. DESLAURIERS:

Liberal

1. Is there an employee by the name of R. B. Veit in the Customs Department, at Ottawa?

2. If so, at what date, month and year, was he appointed?

3. In what capacity and at what salary?

4. What was his salary on the first of April of the respective years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922?

5. At what date, month and year, was he classified?

6. In what class and at what salary?

7. What was the total amount of back pay he received up to the first of April, 1922?

8. Is he related to Mr. Foran, Secretary of the Civil Service Commission?

9. If so, what is the relationship?

10. Is Mr. Bland, the Assistant Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, related to Mr. R. R. Farrow, Commissioner of Customs?

11. If so, what is the relationship?

12. At what date, month and year, was Mr. Bland appointed?

13. In what capacity and at what salary?

14. What was his salary on the first of April of the respective years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922?

15. At what date, month and year, was he classified?

16. In what class and at what salary?

17. What was the total amount of back pay he received up to the first of April, 1922?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Permalink

May 15, 1922