June 21, 1926

AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


IMr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved: That the Auditor General's report for the past fiscal year be referred to the committee on Public Accounts.


CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

For the fiscal year ending March 31 last?

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
LIB
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Is the Auditor General's report down for the year ending March 31 last?

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Samuel William Jacobs

Liberal

Mr. JACOBS:

The current Auditor General's report whatever that is-the one that is before the House.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That has been referred.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Samuel William Jacobs

Liberal

Mr. JACOBS:

No, I understand it has not been referred; that is why I make the formal motion to-day.

IMr. SPEAKER: Shall I say the "current fiscal year'" or the "past fiscal year?"

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

It is the second last

past.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


SUMAS LAKE DRAINAGE PROJECT

CON

Mr. BARBER:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. With respect to the Sumas lake drainage project: Did the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia enter into an agreement dated 8th August, 1923, providing for the transfer of lake bottom lands from the Dominion to the province, upon the conditions, amongst others, that (a) "The province of British Columbia assumes complete responsibility for the manner and method of the reclamation." and (b) "for the fair and equitable treatment of prospective and actual settlers" upon the whole lands to be reclaimed?

2. Was this agreement signed on behalf of British Columbia by "John Oliver, Acting Minister of Agriculture"?

3. Did the government of British Columbia, by "E. D. Barrow, Minister of Agriculture," make application on April 2nd, 1925, for formal transfer of the lake

[DOT] bottom lands, in a letter stating that "all the provisions of said agreement have been flilfi filed" ?

Questions

4. Have a body of land-owners, about 125 in number, under date of 6th February, 1926, petitioned the government of Canada inviting attention to alleged breaches of the terms of the contract, on the part of the government of British Columbia, and particularly to the allegation that the provincial government through their commissioners carried out the works recklessly and without regard to cost, so that the petitioners have been subjected to charges represented as ruinous and confiscatory; and also that the provincial government have denied to petitioners the fair and equitable treatment stipulated in the contract, and by contrast that government has caused the passage of legislation forbidding appeal to the courts against alleged unjust assessments?

5. (a) Have the representations of these petitioners been communicated to the government of British Columbia, and (b) has that government made a reply?

6. D:d the Hon. John Oliver in this reply assert that "the diking commissioners who had charge and did carry out the work were the agents of the landowners and not of the government"; and (b) if he did so, whether or not this position is considered to be in compliance with the stipulation of the contract that "the province of British Columbia assumes complete responsibility for the manner and method of the reclamation"?

7. Was the reply by Mr. Oliver communicated to the petitioners?

8. In view of the allegation of breach of contract and contradictory statements as to other material facts, in the petition and reply respectively, does the government contemplate effective inquiry, at which .petitioners may be heard, before giving decision on the petition for disallowance of the legislation complained of as against sound public policy?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SUMAS LAKE DRAINAGE PROJECT
Permalink
LIB

Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE: (Secretary of State of Canada; Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

1. (a) Yes., (b) Under section "g" of the agreement dated August 8th, 1923; the province of British Columbia assumed complete responsibility for the fair and equitable treatment of prospective and actual settlers upon the crown lands sold to the province.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. (a) Yes, (b) Yes.

6. (a) Yes, (b) The matter is receiving consideration.

7. No.

8. Any interested parties are at liberty to make representations to the Minister of Justice upon the question of disallowance.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SUMAS LAKE DRAINAGE PROJECT
Permalink

LOUISEVILLE POST OFFICE-CARETAKER

CON

Mr. DOUCET:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Was the Hon. H. S. Belaud, who recommended Freddy Regnier as caretaker of the Louiseville post office, at the time Minister of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment ?

2. Is Doctor Legris "who has given similar recommendation in favour of Regnier the same 'person as Captain Legris of the medical corps of the Canadian army in France?

3. Among the recommendations given in favour of Regnier, a veteran, was there one given to the Public Works department or to the Civil Service Commission by one Thomas Vaniasse, contractor of the town of Louiseviille?

4. Has another recommendation in favour of the same veteran soldier been received by the Civil Service Commission or the Public Works department from J. A. Barrette, a notary public?

5. Has a petition signed by more than 140 citizens of Louiseville, protesting against the nomination of Victor Heroux and praying for the appointment of a returned man, been received by the Civil Service Commission? If not, has such request been received by the Department of Public Works?

6. Is the Department of Public Works aware of the fact that its representative, Mr. Gingras, when sent down to Louiseville to examine the applicants, has said to several persons, that Victor Heroux could not be appointed to the position, as he was over age?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   LOUISEVILLE POST OFFICE-CARETAKER
Permalink
?

Hon. Mr LAPOINTE:

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. No.

4. No.

5. A copy of the petition sent to the Department of Public Works was received in the commission.

6. No information. Mr. Gingras recommended the appointment of Mr. Victor Heroux.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   LOUISEVILLE POST OFFICE-CARETAKER
Permalink

MR. J. A. DONALDSON

CON

Mr. GOTT:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Is Mr. J. A. Donaldson of the town of Kingsville, Ontario, engaged in any capacity by any department of the Canadian government?

2. If so, what is his official position?

3. What .salary, wages, or fees, are paid in connection with this position?

4. Was an application deceived for the same position from Mr. Ernest Harris of the town of Kingsville, Ontario ?

5. What qualifications are required for this position?

6. Were any examinations required in connection with t h is a ppo int menit ?

7. Is the department aware that Mr. Donaldson failed in examination for a Customs .position at Kingsville during the year 1925?

8. Has the government any record of inefficient service on the part of Mr. Donaldson in the capacity of returning officer for the south riding of Essex county during the federal election of October, 1925?

9. When was Mr. Donaldson appointed?

10. Under whose recommendation was Mr. Donaldson appointed ?

11. How many applications were received for the position?

12. What consideration was given to the other applicants?

13. Could applications have been made to those interested in Mr. Donaldson without same reaching the department ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MR. J. A. DONALDSON
Permalink

June 21, 1926