October 10, 1945

LIB

Mr. MAYHEW: (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance)

Liberal

1. Three. (Three other companies made preliminary enquiries but have not followed them up with applications for approval. One of these companies subsequently amalgamated with a company which has been approved.)

2. Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company, Halifax, N.S.

Nova Scotia Savings, Loan and Building Society, 92-94 Granville Street, Halifax, N.S.

General Trust and Executor Corporation, Barrington at Prince, Halifax, N.S.

In addition the following companies, whose head offices are not in Nova Scotia, have made loans in that province under the National Housing Act, 1944:

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Montreal, Quebec; The Canada Life Assurance Company, Toronto, Ontario.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   HOUSING ACT-LENDING INSTITUTIONS
Permalink

SASKATCHEWAN IRRIGATION PROJECTS

CCF

Mr. BENTLEY:

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

1. What has been done with respect to proceeding with the irrigation project in the Duncairn, Swift Current. Waldeck, Rush Lake, Herbert, Morse, Hodgeville area?

2. What estimated time will be required to somplete this work?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SASKATCHEWAN IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Permalink
LIB

Mr. GARDINER: (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

1. Construction of irrigation works has been completed in the Duncairn, Swift Current, Waldeck and Rush Lake localities. Those of Duncairn and Swift Current were in operation in 1945. Water may be delivered to the farm lateral systems in the Waldeck and Rush Lake localities in 1946. The main supply channel has been constructed to the edge of the Herbert and Morse localities; construction of a pump station and a few miles of canal is required before water may be delivered to farm lateral systems of Herbert and Morse. The main canal supplying the Hodgeville locality is constructed as far as High Field reservoir; construction of a pump station and several miles of canal is required to supply water to farm lateral systems in the Hodgeville locality.

2. Construction in the Herbert and Morse localities would require six months for completion after commencement; that in the Hodgeville locality would require twelve months.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SASKATCHEWAN IRRIGATION PROJECTS
Permalink

SHELBURNE HARBOUR NAVAL BASE

PC

Mr. STANFIELD:

Progressive Conservative

1. What was the total cost of the construction of the naval base at Shelburne Harbour, Nova Scotia?

2. Was the work done under contract or on a cost plus basis?

3. What are the, (a) names of firms employed in construction; (b) nature of work done by each; (c) amount paid to each?

4. Is the base used at present time and, if so, for what purpose?

5. Are any naval personnel stationed there at the present time, and, if so, how many?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SHELBURNE HARBOUR NAVAL BASE
Permalink
LIB

Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax): (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

1. Total amount expended to 31 August, 1945, 84,029,751.10.

2. Both.

3. (a), (b), (c).

(1) Acadia Construction Co. Ltd., works and building, base generally, marine railway, drydock, 13,202,919.31.

(2) M. A. Condon & Son (through Department of Public Works), main wharf and approach boom, defence buildings, fencing, 8344,424.10.

(3) James N. Kenney, wharf sub-station, heating and power lines, etc., $103,832.89.

(4) Horton Steel Works, fuel oil storage tanks, $20,002.00.

(5) National Iron Corp. Ltd., pipe and fittings for water supply, $32,656.62.

(6) Supreme Power Supplies, transformers for building No. 25, $2,192.

Questions

Note.-Work on the naval base was also done by the Departments of Public Works, Transport, National Defence for Air and Army and by the Canadian National Railways, particulars of which are as follows:

(1) The Department of Public Works, dredging and crane, grading and levelling, boom, defence grounds, $238,124.05.

(2) The Department of Transport, naval share of power, naval share reconstructing Sand Point road, $54,264.39.

(3) Department of National Defence (Air), fire alarm system, $2,265.11.

(4) Department of National Defence (Army), naval share,' Diesel generator, $2,538.50.

(5) Canadian National Railways, railway sidings and spurs, $26,532.13.

Total amount, $4,029,751.10.

4. Shelburne is still in use as a refitting base and for storage of naval equipment and ammunition. Prior to the end of hostilities with Japan a number of ships allocated for service with the Royal Canadian Navy Pacific fleet were sent there for refit. These refits are being completed, and the ships are included among those which it is proposed to retain. Certain ships being declared surplus will, by arrangements with the War Assets Corporation, be sent to Shelburne to be winterized and will then be laid up in that port.

5. As at 28 September, 1945, there were 1,162 naval personnel stationed at Shelburne, Nova Scotia exclusive of naval personnel in ships based on Shelburne.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SHELBURNE HARBOUR NAVAL BASE
Permalink
PC

Mr. STANFIELD:

Progressive Conservative

1. On whose recommendation and on what date was the site for the naval base at Shelburne Harbour, Nova Scotia, selected?

2. From what persons was the land purchased and how much was paid to each?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SHELBURNE HARBOUR NAVAL BASE
Permalink
LIB

Mr. MACDONALD (Halifax): (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

1. Shelburne was originally recommended for the location of a defended harbour and small advance base by a special sub-committee of naval staff appointed to consider requirements for bases and fleet anchorages. This report was delivered to naval staff 25 June, 1940.

The war committee of the cabinet approved the establishment of a naval base at Shelburne on 17 July, 1940.

The actual site occupied on the harbour was selected following an investigation by experienced naval officers and engineers of the Department of Public Works. All possibilities were considered and the location now occupied selected as being the most suitable for naval development. The site was actually selected in September, 1940.

2. The following is a list of persons from whom land was purchased or expropriated and the amount paid to each of them:

Name Amount

1. Howard Firth et al (Adam Firth

Estate) $2,239 50

2. Henry Ebson Goodick (Wm. Hill

Estate) 161 00

3. Abigail Coffin, Ellen J. McGrath

& Ralph Own McGrath et al (Penny Estate) 124 20

4. Municipality of the District of

Shelburne 400 00

5. Martha S. Swansburg et al

(Ellsworth Swansburg Estate) 622 506. Locksley & Elzear Crowe et al ' 900 007. Albert McCarthy et al (AndrewClayton McCarthy Estate) ... 153 008. Bessie E. Ringer

150 009. The Colin C. King Estate 3,000 00Total

$7,750 20

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SHELBURNE HARBOUR NAVAL BASE
Permalink

ST. CATHARINES STEEL PRODUCTS LTD.

PC

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

Progressive Conservative

1. Has the government purchased or otherwise taken over the plant of the St. Catharines Steel Products Limited?

2. If so, upon what terms?

3. On what date was the transaction completed?

4. Was the equipment purchased as well?

5. If so, at what price and what terms?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ST. CATHARINES STEEL PRODUCTS LTD.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. McILRAITH: (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction)

Liberal

1. No, the plant in question was never owned by St. Catharines Steel Products Limited. The government in 1942 acquired the then existing part of the plant by expropriation, and has added to the plant from time to time since then. The whole plant has been, and still is, owned by the government. It was leased to St. Catharines Steel Products Limited for the production of munitions of war and supplies, and since this has now ceased the lease is being cancelled and the government is taking back possession of the plant.

2. Answered by No. 1.

3. Answered by No. 1.

4. Answered by No. 1.

5. Answered by No. 1.

Questions

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ST. CATHARINES STEEL PRODUCTS LTD.
Permalink

MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-PURCHASING DIVISION

WAR ASSETS-DROP FRAME TRAILERS

PC

Mr. HAZEN:

Progressive Conservative

1. Has the War Assets Corporation been instructed to dispose of drop frame trailers owned by the crown?

2. If so, how many?

3. How many have been sold, and how many have been scrapped?

4. How many of such trailers remain to be disposed of?

5. What disposition is it proposed to make of them?

Topic:   MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-PURCHASING DIVISION
Subtopic:   WAR ASSETS-DROP FRAME TRAILERS
Permalink
LIB

Mr. McILRAITH: (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction)

Liberal

1. No.

2. None.

3. None sold or scrapped.

4. None have yet been declared surplus.

5. Priorities will be filled, after which normal disposal procedure governing motor transport will be followed.

Questions

Topic:   MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-PURCHASING DIVISION
Subtopic:   WAR ASSETS-DROP FRAME TRAILERS
Permalink

CANTEEN FUNDS

PC

Mr. HAZEN:

Progressive Conservative

1. Have all the recommendations of the special committee of the House of Commons on canteen funds been adopted and put into effect?

2. If not, what recommendations have not been adopted?

Topic:   MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-PURCHASING DIVISION
Subtopic:   CANTEEN FUNDS
Permalink
LIB

Mr. LAPOINTE: (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

1. No.

2. (a) Recommendation of special committee that 2 per cent levy be made on all gross sales was not implemented in view of recommendation of select committee that large surpluses be not accumulated.

(b) That profits from the national organization canteens operated overseas be paid to central trust fund. All surpluses from operation of national organization canteens overseas have been frozen by Department of War Services but funds have been used as working capital and will be subject to subsequent adjustment.

Topic:   MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-PURCHASING DIVISION
Subtopic:   CANTEEN FUNDS
Permalink

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC RADIO ACT

October 10, 1945