June 12, 1922

LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would ask the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) to redraft the first question in accordance with Rule 37. In this connection I would draw the hon. member's attention to Bour-inot, page 313. The same remark applies to the second question, particularly to paragraph No. 4. I would remind the hon. member that according to Bourinot no question of an argumentative nature can be placed on the Order Paper.

On the question being called:

Topic:   QUESTIONS TO BE REDRAFTED
Permalink
CON

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Why did the Government grant the increase of $1,000 to Deputy Ministers?

2. Why does the Government propose to cut off the bonus from all civil servants receiving $2,400 or over, and from many single persons under that amount?

3. Does the Government intend to grant more equitable salaries to the Civil Service?

Topic:   QUESTIONS TO BE REDRAFTED
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if this question

Questions

does not come within the scope of the ruling you have just given, particularly paragraph No. 3?

Topic:   QUESTIONS TO BE REDRAFTED
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would not think that it was so much against Rule 37 as question No. 7. At all events I will let the question stand and examine the point.

Topic:   QUESTIONS TO BE REDRAFTED
Permalink

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN

PRO

Mr. COOTE:

Progressive

1. How many hotels are owned by the Canadian Government Railways?

2. Are each of these hotels being operated by the Railway?

3. What was the cost of construction and equipment of each of these hotels?

4. What is the present value of each hotel and equipment?

5. How much fire insurance is carried on. each hotel and equipment?

6. What was the revenue of each of these hotels in each of the last three fiscal years?

7. What was the expenditure in connection with each of these hotels in each of the last three fiscal years?

S. In each of said hotels what was the not profit or loss in connection with the operation, including all charges such as insurance, interest on investment, and allowances for depreciation on building and equipment?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN
Permalink

UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

For a copy of all letters, telegrams and documents or correspondence passing between the Order of Grain Buyers and the Board of Grain Commissioners or passing between the Order of Grain Buyers and the Government or between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Government or officials thereof respecting the said Order of Grain Buyers.

Mr. 'HUMPHREY:

For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, memoranda, Orders in Council, Minutes of Council, and other documents in the possession, or under the control of the Government of Canada or of any department thereof, of date subsequent to April 30th, 1920, relating to the proposed reclamation of the area in the Province of British Columbia and the State of Idaho known as the Kootenay Flats.

Topic:   UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Permalink

ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT


House again in Committee on Bill No. 62, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, Mr. Gordon in the Chair. On section 1,-compensation. Hon. WILLIAM R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) : When this Bill was under consideration by the committee last week, the committee seemed to agree with the schedule of indemnities, with the exception of that relating to pure-bred cattle. Since then I have looked up the list of pure-bred cattle, as compared with the list before the war, and I feel that I would be justified in agreeing to the representations made by a number of hon. members in the committee, with respect to this indemnity of $150, and, in moving that this indemnity be raised to $200. The former indemnity, at the high water mark, was $250. The proposal in the bill was to make it $150; my suggestion is to make it a straight $200 for pure-bred cattle, and, if it is agreeable, 1 will move the amendment.


PRO
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

A number of

hon. members are particularly interested in this matter, and seem to be all agreeable to this. I, therefore, move that the words "One hundred and fifty dollars" in line 18, section 1, be struck out, and the words "Two hundred dollars" be substituted therefore.

Topic:   ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

Amendment agreed to.


PRO

Donald Ferdinand Kellner

Progressive

Mr. KELLNER:

I wish to call attention to what I consider an unfair basis of valuation for cattle. Evidently the question whether an animal is pure-bred is the only thing that determines the valuation of a cow. I think a hand-milked cow, especially one that has a production record, should receive some special consideration in the valuation, and if the valuation of a pure-bred cow is increased to $200, I would suggest that milch cows be raised to $125, especially in the West. In British Columbia the average price of milch cows, according to the report from the Government, is $85, whereas in Alberta it is $48, in Saskatchewan $49 and in Ontario $59. The only source we have for obtaining milch cows in Alberta is from Ontario, and a $59 cow in Ontario, after paying the cost of freight and so on, is only a $49 cow in Alberta. I therefore request that the Government raise the price of a milch cow to $125 in the province of Ontario.

Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.

Topic:   ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

CONCURRENCE IN AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 27 respecting the Department of National Defence. Defence Bill


CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

We should have a statement from the minister on this bill.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE
Permalink
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Militia and Defence; Minister of the Naval Service)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

I wish to be absolutely

complimentary and to say that the other chamber has made several sweeping amendments to this bill as passed by this House. In one portion of the bill, where it was intended to have the reorganization made by statute, the bill has been amended so that it will be necessary to make that reorganization by Order in Council. I believe it can be made by Order in Council. In another part, what was intended to be done by Order in Council, the Senate has amended to make statutory. Let me make the explanations. Section 5, subsection (3) reads:

The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, may appoint an officer who shall, in reflation to the Naval Service, administer, exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions vested in or exercisable by the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service by or under the Naval Service Act, and who shall have the rank and salary of a deputy head of a department and shall be a member of the Defence Council.

The Senate -amendment is to insert, after the word "appoint" in line 2 of subsection (3), the words "for a period not exceeding six months." I have no objection to that amendment.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

What I should like

the minister to have given is a statement of what is in the bill, even after the Senate amendments, which the Government is not fully empowered to do now under the statute of 1919. I do not see why the bill is introduced -at all except for purposes that the Senate has now eliminated. I merely ask the minister to be good enough to make clear to the House why the Government asks for the bill any longer-what there is in it that the Government would not be empowered to do without the bill passing at all.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE
Permalink

June 12, 1922