July 2, 1942

HONOURS AND DECORATIONS


First report of special committee on honours and decorations.-Mr. Macmillan.


QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


CANADIAN FLAG


Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency): What is the obstacle which prevents the government from adopting a national Canadian flag?


LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

If by "obstacle" is meant "legal obstacle," there is no obstacle to His Majesty, on the recommendation of

the Canadian government, authorizing the creation of a national Canadian flag. The government would not make such a recommendation without the prior approval of the House of Commons. It is the view of the government that, with war conditions what they are, it would not be justified in asking the House of Commons to debate the matter at the present time.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Permalink

SASKATCHEWAN SURVET PARTIES

NAT

Mr. PERLEY:

National Government

1. Have any investigation or survey parties been working in the Qu'Appelle river valley and its tributaries east of Lumsden in the province of Saskatchewan since March, 1942?

2. If so, (a) what is the personnel of each party; (b) what is the purpose of the work or surveying being done; (e) what has been the cost of such surveying parties to date?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SASKATCHEWAN SURVET PARTIES
Permalink
LIB

Mr. GARDINER: (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

1. Yes.

2. (a) Engineer, L. D. McMillan; draftsman, E. Nixon; engineer, H. G. Riesen; instru-mentmen, E. 0. Wood, E. Shienfield, T. R. Stuart; rodmen, M. J. Peace, H. F. King, W. M. Huddleston, D. A. Kennett, R. G. Ellis, D. Halliwell, C. Mohr, R. M. McWalters, T. W. Whitworth, A. Rowand, T. S. Farquharson.

(b) To determine the location and extent of irrigable areas and to locate sites for water storage for the same.

(c) $2,719.15 (April 1, 1942 to May 31, 1942).

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SASKATCHEWAN SURVET PARTIES
Permalink

WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-VANCOUVER OFFICES

CCF

Mr. MacINNIS:

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

1. What is the name of the building, and the street address in which the offices of the wartime prices and trade board is located at Vancouver?

2. How many square feet of floor space is occupied?

3. What is the rent per square foot?

4. Before offices in the said building were taken, did the government investigate the accommodation available in other buildings?

5. If so, (a) what buildings were considered, and (b) what was the rent per square foot in each instance?

6. Could other adequate accommodation have been secured at a lower rental?

7. If so, why was it not taken?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-VANCOUVER OFFICES
Permalink
LIB

Mr. ILSLEY: (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

1. Marine building, 355 Burrard street.

2. 10,000 square feet.

3. $1.50 per square foot. Other tenants in this building pay $2 per square foot.

4. Very exhaustively.

Questions

5. (a) (b)

Per sq. ft.

Royal bank building

$2 00Stock exchange building

1 60Rogers building

1 50Hall building

1 50402 Pender street west

1 40Pacific building

1 21Vancouver block

1 13Merchant's exchange building 1 05Crown building

1 00Northwest building

1 00Davis chambers

0 85Fairfield building

0 75*Holden building

0 75 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Without janitor service; 90 cents per sq. ft.

with janitor service.

6. No.

7. In most of the buildings listed above there was not sufficient space for our offices. Some second class space was available at lower rental, but it was definitely not suitable for the board's purposes, either as to location, efficient lay-out, services supplied, money spent by the owners of the building to fit the premises up for our requirements, or accessibility.

In the Marine building, the owners spent approximately $10,000 to fit the space up to provide efficient working conditions. Working conditions in the cheap space would have been so bad on account of inefficient lay-out, lighting services, etc., as to have been more expensive in the end than the space taken.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-VANCOUVER OFFICES
Permalink

STONEY POINT INDIAN RESERVE-PURCHASE OF LAND FOR MILITARY PURPOSES

?

Mr. COLD WELL:

1. Has land been acquired on the Stoney Point Indian reserve for military purposes by the government?

2. If so, what amount of land has been acquired?

3. What amount remains to the Indians on this reserve?

4. Under what authority was the land acquired?

5. Were the Indians consulted in the matter?

6. If so, was a vote taken?

7. With what result?

8. How much per acre was paid for this land?

9. Was this part of land ceded to this band of Indians under treaty in 1827?

10 Did this treaty expressly reserve to this band of Indians and their posterity for all time to come, the exclusive use of the land.

11. Was the opinion of the Department of Justice obtained as to the right of the government to supersede as solemn a treaty by order in council?

12. If so, what was the opinion?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   STONEY POINT INDIAN RESERVE-PURCHASE OF LAND FOR MILITARY PURPOSES
Permalink
LIB

Mr. CRERAR: (Minister of Mines and Resources)

Liberal

1. Yes.

2. Two thousand, two hundred and eleven point two hundred and twenty-five acres (2.211-225).

3. The Chippewas of the Chenail Ecarte and St. Clair band of Indians to which the Stoney and Kettle Point Indians belonged retained under the surrender of 1827, 12,343 acres. Of this area 5,873 acres were surrendered or disposed of through enfranchisement at various dates and times leaving 6,470 acres. From this amount was taken 2,211-225 acres for military purposes.

4. Department of National Defence.

5. Yes.

6. Yes.

7. Negative 59 to 13.

8. $15 per acre plus value of improvements at appraised value. (Land $33,168.75-improvements and moving costs $16,831.25- total, $50,000.)

9. Yes.

10. Yes.

11. Department of Justice expressed opinion that the government had the right to acquire property under War Measures Act.

12. Answered by No. 11.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   STONEY POINT INDIAN RESERVE-PURCHASE OF LAND FOR MILITARY PURPOSES
Permalink

NATIONAL FILM BOARD-RENTAL OF CAMERAS FROM EMPLOYEES

NAT

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

National Government

1. Does the national film board make a practice of renting either still or motion picture cameras from employees of the board? ,

2. If so, what are the names of each employee from whom a camera is or has been rented since March 31, 1941?

3. What is the total rental which has been paid to each such person since March 31, 1941?

4. What is the total annual salary received by each such person?

5. When did each such person purchase the camera which he rents to the board?

6. When did each such person first rent the camera to the board?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL FILM BOARD-RENTAL OF CAMERAS FROM EMPLOYEES
Permalink
LIB

Mr. THORSON: (Minister of National War Services)

Liberal

1. No. On four occasions the national film board has employed temporary camera men with cameras for the production of particular films.

2. The temporary camera men referred to in answer to No. 1 are: Roger Barlow, Leo Seltzer, LeRoy Robbins, Douglas Sinclair.

3. Total rental paid to temporary camera men referred to in answer to No. 1: Roger Barlow, $222; Leo Seltzer, $117.60 (rental for camera and equipment); LeRoy Robbins, $225 (rental for camera and lights); Douglas Sinclair, $11.

Housing

4. Total remuneration, for services paid to temporary camera men referred to in answer to No. 1: Roger Barlow, employed with camera September 22 to November 17, 1941. Total fee, $769.06. Leo Seltzer, employed January 20 to February 17, 1942. Fee $333. LeRoy Robbins, salary rate, $260 per month. Douglas Sinclair, salary rate $108 per month.

5. No information.

6. Date of first rental of cameras referred to in answer to No. 1: Roger Barlow, September 22, 1941; Leo Seltzer, January 20, 1942; LeRoy Robbins, April 1, 1942; Douglas Sinclair, May 15, 1942.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL FILM BOARD-RENTAL OF CAMERAS FROM EMPLOYEES
Permalink

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

July 2, 1942