May 30, 1928

CON

Hugh Guthrie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :

Just on a point of order, I understand that this committee has made its final report and has presented it to the house. The committee has ceased to exist for the present session if it has made a final report. In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at paragraph 664, I read:

If a committee at the conclusion of their inquiry, make a final report to the house, the sittings of the committee are assumed to have been closed, and if further proceedings were desired, it would be necessary to revive the committee.

There has been no motion to revive the committee, and there is no committee, practically, to which to refer the matter.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REFER BACK REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Does anyone else desire

to speak to the point of order?

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REFER BACK REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Harry Bernard Short

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHORT:

What about the intellect

now?

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REFER BACK REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

I

would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is a standing committee, and therefore it does not need to be revived. Also the committee is not trying to do anything at the present time; it is the house that is asked to recommend that the report foe sent back to the committee.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REFER BACK REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):

The rule distinctly says that the committee having made its final report, if further proceedings are desired, it is necessary to revive the committee. In other words, the committee

is dead, and I do not know how we can possibly send something back to a committee that does not exist.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REFER BACK REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Cameron Ross McIntosh

Liberal

Mr. McINTOSH:

I submit that the point of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) is not well taken. The committee that has made its report is a standing committee of the house, and I would like to ask my hon. friend from Fort William how it is that a standing committee should need to be revived. That is great logic.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REFER BACK REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

As the hon. gentleman

asks me a question, I would say that I prefer to take Beauchesne's ruling rather than that of the hon. gentleman.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REFER BACK REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I will take the point of

order into consideration and give my ruling later.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Subtopic:   MOTION TO REFER BACK REPORT OF COMMITTEE
Permalink

QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


STEAMER PELEE

CON

Mr. GOTT:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What was the cash subsidy paid to the steamer Pelee for the year 1927?

2. When was the contract drawn for the 1928 season of navigation?

3. What subsidy is proposed for 1928?

4. On whose recommendation was it passed?

5. Has the company any other revenue from the government?

6. If so, from what source?

7. What amount?

8. What dividends did the company pay for the season of 1927?

9. Will the minister make any attempt to reduce or increase the subsidy?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   STEAMER PELEE
Permalink
LIB

Mr. RINFRET: (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

1. $11,000.

2. On February 25, 1927 (for three years).

3. $11,000.

4. On the application of the company in 1927.

5. No information.

6. No information.

7. No information.

8. No information.

9. The present contract does not expire until March 31, 1930.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   STEAMER PELEE
Permalink

UNIFORMS FOR CREWS ON GOVERNMENT VESSELS

IND

Mr. NEILL:

Independent

1. Were certain regulations adopted by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to become effective in June, 1914, regarding the issuing of uniforms, for crews on board government vessels?

2. Did regulation No. D.S. 17 provide for the issuance of two suits a year to officers, and chief and petty officers on government ships which are in commission the year round, and that the

Questions

winter issue was to take place on the 10th October in each year, and was so issued since that date?

3. Was the issue of the winter suits discontinued last October without any previous notice having been given, and if so, why, and under what order in council or authority?

4. Why was the remuneration of these men reduced in this way?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNIFORMS FOR CREWS ON GOVERNMENT VESSELS
Permalink
LIB

Mr. CARDIN: (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

1. Yes.

2. Yes. The requisition for winter uniforms was to reach department 10th October.

3. Yes; by department authority.

4. The supplying of uniforms was at no time regarded as remuneration.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   UNIFORMS FOR CREWS ON GOVERNMENT VESSELS
Permalink

COLCHESTER-SACKVILLE WHARF

CON

Mr. GOTT:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What did it cost 'the country to build a wharf or pier at Colchester-Sackville, Colchester south township, Essex county. Ontario?

2. Was the wharf ever used?

3. Under whose recommendation was the work instituted?

4. How many loads of stone, gravel or earth were used in construction?

5. From whom was same purchased?

6. By whom hauled?

7. How many people were engaged in the work from the beginning to the end?

8. Who were they?

9. How much did each receive?

10. Was a request ever made to the Department of Public Works, or any other department, for assistance to preserve the banks at Colchester?

11. Was same granted?

12. If refused, why, and what was the nature and reason for refusal?

13. Has the government taken any part in the recent construction work there to preserve the graves of Canadian veterans?

14. If so, how much has been appropriated?

15. Will the government lend any further assistance ?

16. If so, how much?

17. If not, why?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COLCHESTER-SACKVILLE WHARF
Permalink
LIB

Mr. RINFRET: (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

1. $23,388.55.

2. Yes.

3. On the report of the department engineer.

4 to 9. Information not available.

10. Yes, for the prevention of erosion of the bank at the edge of cemetery.

[DOT]11. No.

12, It was not considered that any responsibility in connection with the prevention of such erosion devolved on this department.

13 to 17. No information.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COLCHESTER-SACKVILLE WHARF
Permalink

CANADA WEEKLY PRINTING COMPANY

May 30, 1928