May 29, 1930

QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


GORVERNMENT VESSELS

CON

Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Is the ship Connestoga now owned by the government ?

2. If so, from whom was she purchased?

3. What price was paid for the ship, and what amount has been expended on her for repairs, alterations, etc?

4. What is her speed, and is such speed as represented when ship purchased?

5. What is the present condition of the ship and how many days has she been in actual service since purchase?

6. What was the date of purchase?

7. Is the ship Vigilant owned or hired by the government?

8. If purchased, what was purchase price?

9. How much has the ship cost the department so far, for hires, repairs, etc?

10. How many days was the ship on patrol service outside harbours during year?

11. What is the demonstrated speed of the boat, and is it equal to speed represented?

12. What is the coal consumption of this ship oni maximum speed for 24 hours?

13. Who recommended this boat and has she proven equal to service required?

14. Does the government own the boat

Fleur-De-Lis?

15. What has been her cost in purchase price, repairs, etc?

18. Has she proven suitable for coastal service under all weather conditions?

17. Does the government own the boat Bay-hound?

18. If so, from whom was she purchased, price paid, and amount spent on repairs, etc?

19. Does the government own the boat

Preventor ?

20. If so, what purchase price was paid, and what amount has been spent on repairs, etc?

21. Has the boat proved suitable for coastal service, or has she suffered damage while so engaged ?

22. Were any of the crew injured in such service, and what were their names?

23. Have original plans of this boat been changed, and does she differ from the above named Fleur-De-Lis?

24. Is it a fact that this boat was unable to make the passage from Louisburg to Sydney, on a day when the motor boat Stumble In made such passage?

25. What is gross amount expended on this ship to date, and how many days has she been in service at sea?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GORVERNMENT VESSELS
Permalink
LIB

Mr. EULER: (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

1. Yes.

2. James Playfair.

3. (a) $70,000. Ship thoroughly overhauled, reconditioned and fitted out for patrol duty at owners' expense under agreement of purchase.

(b) Cost of overhaul and repairs since date of purchase $8,915.

4. (a) Fifteen to sixteen knots, (b) Yes.

5. (a) First class; (b) 1928: 150 days, exclusive of boiler cleaning; 1929: 190 days, exclusive of boiler cleaning.

6. December 9, 1927. Delivery taken May 13, 1928.

7. No.

8. Answered by No. 7.

9. Vigilant under charter to the Department of National Revenue during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929. Charter expired December 15, 1929. Total cost to the department for the period under charter, covering rental and repairs, etc., $70,321.53. Vessel returned to owners October 27, 1929.

10. 1927; 128 days. 1928; 198 days 1929; 230 days.

Note: First on patrol July 26th, 1927.

11. (a) Thirteen and one-half knots.

(b) No.

12. Twenty to twenty-five tons for twenty-four hours at maximum speed. Average coal consumption per day in actual service, eleven to twelve tons.

13. (a) Chief of the Customs-Excise preventive service, after the vessels had been thoroughly examined by technical officers of the Naval Service, Department of National Defence.

(b) Yes.

14. Yes.

15. (a) Contract price, including extras, $306,200.

(b) Repairs, etc., $350.

16. Yes.

17. Yes.

18. (a) Sir Charles Gordon.

(b) $25,000.

(c) Cost of changing power plant from steam to Diesel and fitting boat out for patrol duty, $33,400.

19. Yes.

20. (a) Contract price, including extras, $295,490.

(b) $810.

21. (a) Yes.

(b) Suffered slight damage to pilot-house and upper works during month of January, 1930, through being hit by a tidal wave.

Caughnawaga Bridge

22. No.

23. (a) No.

(b) No.

Note: Some of top weight removed from

both vessels with a view to improving stability, having in mind ice conditions off the Nova Scotia coast in the winter season.

24. No.

25. (a) *300,607.

(b) 109 days to date.

Note: This ship only taken over from

builders on January 4, 1930.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GORVERNMENT VESSELS
Permalink

TATAMAGOUCHE, N.S. CUSTOMS OFFICE

CON

Mr. MacNUTT:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Is there any customs officer at Tatama-gouche, in the county of Colchester?

2. Is there any such customs office or customs

sub-office at Tatamagouche, in the county of Colchester? If not, when was the same abolished ? .

3. What was the revenue at this office for its last year?

4. What was the annual salary of the officer in charge?

5. What is the nearest customs office from which vessels may make entry to or receive clearance from Tatamagouche harbour?

6. Is it true that baggage and luggage arriving at Tatamagouche from places outside of Canada must first be examined at either Amherst or Pictou?

7. Is there any customs officer nearer to Tatamagouche than Amherst or Pictou who can examine baggage or luggage landed at Tatamagouche?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   TATAMAGOUCHE, N.S. CUSTOMS OFFICE
Permalink
LIB

Mr. EULER: (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

1. Yes.

2. Tatamagouche was closed as an outport of customs on the 1st March, 1929, and the postmistress was employed from that date to make collections on dutiable postal parcels.

3. $782.33 import duty, and $420.25 excise taxes, collected from 1st April, 1928, to the 1st March, 1929.

4. *200.

5. The nearest customs office to Tatamagouche harbour at which foreign vessels may enter and clear is Malagash. During the fiscal years 1926-27, 1927-28 and 1928-29 no foreign vessels reported in or out at Tatamagouche.

6. In addition to Amherst, Pictou and Truro, baggage for Tatamagouche arriving by rail may be examined at the boundary, and if arriving by vessel may be examined at the seaport of entry.

7. No.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   TATAMAGOUCHE, N.S. CUSTOMS OFFICE
Permalink

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-THOMAS MCIL WRAITH

CON

Mr. McGIBBON:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Does Mr. Thomas Mcllwraith hold a farm from the Soldier Settlement Board in Manitoba?

2. If so, how much is his indebtedness as to this farm?

3. Is he up to date in his payments to the Soldier Settlement Board?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-THOMAS MCIL WRAITH
Permalink
LIB

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton): (Minister of Immigration and Colonization; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs; Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior)

Liberal

1. Not now. Agreement was rescinded 29th of January, 1929.

2. Answered by No. 1.

3. Answered by No. 1.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-THOMAS MCIL WRAITH
Permalink

PROPOSED CAUGHNAWAGA BRIDGE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee forthwith to consider the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river at Caughnawaga, and to empower the governor in council to authorize the Minister of Finance to enter into a contract with the corporation created to construct and maintain the said bridge. He said: May I be permitted to give a word of explanation with regard to this notice of motion which appears on the order paper of to-day in the name of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Eliott). The reason the resolution appears at the moment is due to an oversight which I shall explain. It is not in consequence of any last minute efforts to put through a piece of legislation. In 1928 the late Hon. Mr. Robb, then Minister of Finance, sent a communication to the Minister of Lands and Forests of Quebec, in reply to tone from the Quebec government, in which on behalf of the government of Canada he undertook to cooperate in the construction of this bridge. I will read the letter because it will place the whole facts on record. It is as follows: Ottawa, June 27, 1928. My Dear Mercier:- In reference to representations made by you concerning a proposed bridge over the St. Lawrence river between the Caughnawaga Indian Reserve and some point on the Island of Montreal, I am writing to inform you that provided the government of the province of Quebec is prepared to be responsible for the financing, either by guarantee as to principal and interest or by cash advances, of two-thirds of the amount of debentures issued for the construction of such bridge, the Dominion government, in view of the fact that the bridge will connect with the south shore of the St. Lawrence river on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve, is prepared to introduce at the next session of parliament a measure to authorize the guaranteeing of the payments of principal and interest of one-third of the amount of the debentures authorized to be issued by an act of the Quebec legislature entitled "An Act respecting the Construction and Maintenance Caughnawaga Bridge



of a Bridge over the River St. Lawrence at Caughnawaga/' the total amount of such debentures not to exceed one million seven hundred thousand dollars. Yours faithfully, Jas. A. Robb. Owing to the fact that there was some delay in the introduction of the bill at Quebec or need for its amendment, the matter was not proceeded with by the present administration; but at the beginning of this year I received from the Hon. Mr. Mercier, Minister of Lands and Forests, a communication enclosing a copy of the letter from Mr. Robb and reminding me of the undertaking given by the Dominion government promised in Mr. Robb's letter, and stating that the Quebec government was introducing the necessary legislation this session. I have since received a further communication that the legislation has been introduced and passed by the Quebec legislature. When the last communication was received, I was under the impression that our obligation in the matter could be met by an item in the supplementary estimates and I had my secretary so advise the Department of Finance. After the estimates were prepared, or rather during the consideration of them, it was discovered that a bill rather than a sum in the estimates would be necessary. What the government now asks of the house is permission to introduce legislation necessary to implement the undertaking given to the Quebec government. His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house. Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

I might well have desired that

this resolution had been introduced earlier in the session. I can quite understand the difficulties to which the right hon. the Prime Minister has referred. It is always very unfortunate that legislation of this character should be introduced in the closing days of the session when an election is not far distant, as I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) will agree. It seems to be quite clear that a promise was given in 1928 for work apparently that was to be begun the next year. The legislation does not seem to have been passed until 1930 by the province of Quebec, and presumably the obligation still continues. I suppose the theory is that when a promise is given by the crown

it must be implemented, whoever may have given it and whoever may have to carry it out. So I am not going to interpose any obstacles to the introduction of the bill, but when the bill is before us I may have something further to say once its terms are known.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PROPOSED CAUGHNAWAGA BRIDGE
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

In what constituency is

this bridge?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PROPOSED CAUGHNAWAGA BRIDGE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Caughnawaga is in Laprairie-Napierville and Lachine is in Cartier.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PROPOSED CAUGHNAWAGA BRIDGE
Permalink
CON

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):

Is the government going to follow this same practice with regard to the rest of Canada, especially the building of bridges in the province of Ontario? This resolution is outside the powers of this parliament because this is not an international bridge, nor an interprovincial bridge, nor does it affect navigation. Those are the only three grounds upon which this parliament can vote money for bridges. This is a purely municipal undertaking or a bridge between municipalities all in the same prov-nces-Lachine and Caughnawaga. The city of Toronto has had a contract with this government for seventeen years since 1913 for the building of a bridge across to the island at Toronto, and the government have backed out of the agreement although this order in council is enforceable in the exchequer court. There should be equality of treatment for all the provinces, and if the government is going to do this for the province of Quebec it should do the same thing for the province of Ontario, the maritime provinces and every other province. The British North America Act, as a matter of fact, does not allow aid to be granted for bridges that are purely municipal undertakings.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PROPOSED CAUGHNAWAGA BRIDGE
Permalink
UFA

William Irvine

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. IRVINE:

I wish the minister would

explain briefly what justification there is for this parliament having anything to do with the building of this bridge.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PROPOSED CAUGHNAWAGA BRIDGE
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart (Minister of Immigration and Colonization; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs; Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior)

Liberal

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):

Briefly, the reason why the

federal government is interested in the construction of this bridge is that the southern end^ of the structure is on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. We have spent considerable money on this reserve for the construction of a highway leading to the counties south of the St. Lawrence river and to the United States. We are forced to do this work on all the reserves where public highways pass through them, for the convenience of the public as well as for the convenience of the Indians. This matter first came to my attention in 1926 on representations made by the Hon. Mr. Robb. It was suggested that as the

Caughnawaga Bridge

Department of Indian Affairs was interested, a sum of money should be devoted towards the construction of this bridge. Negotiations went on with the Quebec government for some time, but no definite arrangement was made, although we did admit some responsibility. Later on, the Quebec government decided to give the construction of this bridge to a company and to charge tolls. They are now asking that there be a joint guarantee of the interest on the bonds which the company will sell for the purpose of getting funds to construct the bridge, and our share of the guarantee was deemed to be for one-third of the interest on the bonds.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PROPOSED CAUGHNAWAGA BRIDGE
Permalink

May 29, 1930