What were the names of the lawyers of the Quebec Harbour Commission, from 1902 to 1912?
Subtopic: QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION-LAWYERS
Bill No, 76 from the Senate, for the relief of Laura Grace Davis.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 77 from the Senate, for the relief of Alice Brouse.-Mr. Duff. Bill No. 79 from the Senate, for the relief of Robert Lawrence Anderson.-Mr. Duff. Bill No. SO from the Senate, for the relief of Pearl Hibbard.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds). Bill No. 81 from the Senate, for the relief of William John Taylor.-Mr. Hanna. Bill No. 82 from the Senate, for the relief of Albert Edward Cottrell-Sir Henry Drayton. Bill No. 83 from the Senate, for the relief of Florence May Mott.-Mr. Clifford. Bill No. 84 from the Senate, for the relief of Ellen Mary Harvey.-Mr. Hanna. Bill No. 85 from the Senate, for the relief of Stella Florence Brickenden.-Mr. Euler. Bill No. 86 from the Senate, for the relief of Frank Alexander Michel (otherwise known as Frank Alexander Mitchell).-Mr. Euler. Bill No. 87 from the Senate, for the relief of Thelma Adeline Rose Hands.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 88 from the Senate, for the relief of Jean Veronica Margaret Wright.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 89 from the Senate, for the relief of Ruth Darcy Blinn McCrimmon.-Mr. Shaw. Bill No. 90 from the Senate, for the relief of Thomas George McElligott.-Mr. Hocken. Bill No. 91 from the Senate, for the relief of Alvin Wesley Richards.-Mr. Stewart . (Leeds). Bill No. 92 from the Senate, for the relief of Cecil Tanner.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 93 from the Senate, for the relief of Ruth Ellen McGowan.-Mr. Shaw. Bill No. 94 from the Senate, for the relief of Edith Kearsley Smith.-Mr. Boys. Bill No. 95 from the Senate, for the relief of James Raymond Armstrong.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 96 from the Senate, for the relief of Josephine Royant.-Mr. Sheard. Bill No. 97 from the Senate, for the relief of Gertrude Margaret Burkart.-Mr. Ryckman.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
What were the names of the lawyers of the Quebec Harbour Commission, from 1902 to 1912?
Hon. Mr. CARDIN:
1902- Mr. J. A. Lane.
1903- Mr. J. A. Lane.
1904- Mr. J. A. Lane.
1905- Mr. J. A. Lane.
1906- Mr. J. A. Lane.
1906- Mr. C. E. Dorion.
1907- Mr. C. E. Dorion.
1908- Mr. C. E. Dorion.
1909- Mr. C. E. Dorion.
1910- -Hon. L. E. Taschereau and Mr. J. A. Lane (special case).
1911- Mr. C. E. Dorion, until May 15, 1911, when appointed judge of the Superior Court.
19H_From May 15, Messrs. Taschereau, Roy, Cannon, Parent and Fitzpatrick.
1912-Messrs. Taschereau, Roy, Cannon; Parent and Fitzpatrick, until April 29, 1912, when Mr. A. C. Dobell was appointed.
1912-Messrs. I. N. Belleau and Hon. E. J. Flynn acted on special cases in 1912.
1. What is the name of the person or persons who sold to the government the land on which are located the workshops of the Canadian National Railways, at St. Malo, and what was the sale price?
2. What is (a) the amount and (b) the value of the machinery transferred from the workshops of the Canadian National Railways, at Riviere du Loup, to those of St. Malo?
3. What is the number of employees of the Canadian National Railways who were transferred from Riviere du Loup to St. Malo?
4. Was this transfer optional?
L'Association des Terrains
Wilfrid Emonds 00
Mrs. D. P. Bigaouette .. .. 1.000 00
Mrs. C. Langlois 00
Mrs. M. L. Montmigny . .. 1,000 00
Joseph Bigaouette 00
L'Companie des Carriers
des Beauport $9,983 90 Costs for above 434 19 - 10,418 09$188,179 562. (a) 22 machine tools; 3 sets blacksmiths' outfits, (b) $36,705. 3. Ninety-three. 4. Yes. ORTHOPAEDIC BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):
1. How much have the government Orthopaedic buildings, grounds and equipment, cost to date?
2. How many limbs have been constructed for each amputation case before the patient was able to wear one?
3. How many limbs have been discarded by the soldier amputation cases ?
4. How many soldiers who had amputations, are not able to wear the limbs provided?
5. Why is it that civilians can be fitted at Camp Hill, and does the government receive the money paid by said civilians?
6- (a) Is the stock of supplies at Camp Hill checked up at any time, and (b) does the official in charge sell and give supplies to civilians?
7. Could not Canadian makers do the work to greater advantage?
8. Why were Canadian makers not allowed to do this work in the first place?
(a) The factory occupies part of the buildings at the Christie Street hospital, Toronto; Unit depots are housed in the most suitable accommodation available for that purpose in departmental centres or hospitals: available statistics do not distinguish between the cost of the buildings as a whole and the parts set aside for the use of orthopaedic and surgical appliances division.
(b) The cost of all materials, labour and overhead charges' entering into the manufacture of appliances has been absorbed into the cost of each appliance, concerning which detailed1 2 3 4 5 * 7 8 statistics will be found in the sessional papers mentioned in the answer to Question 8.
3. The department is not aware that any limbs have been discarded.
4. None: an artificial appliance is never issued to a patient unless it is certified) by medical opinion-specialist orthopaedic consultants
that he will be able to wear and make use of it.
5. The department does not deal with individuals other than war disabled ex-service men, but, appliances are supplied in certain cases at the request of other departments of the government and of Provincial Workmen's Compensation Boards, as authorized by order in council P.C. 2311 of the 25th September, 1920. (Published in Sessional Paper No. 14, 1920, page 157).
(a) Yes. (b) No.
8. The circumstances which influenced policy in undertaking the manufacture of orthopaedic and opthalmic appliances, and the subsequent developments, are set forth in detail in the annual reports of the department:
Sessional Paper No. 14. 1920, page 26 Sessional Paper No. 14. 1921, page 47 Sessional Paper No. 14a. 1922, page 37 Sessional Paper No. 18. 1923, page 63 Sessional Paper No. 18. 1924, page 27 Sessional Paper No. 18. 1925, page 18
1. Have any ships formerly belonging to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine been sold?
2. If so, what amount was chargeable against each vessel on books of Canadian Government Merchant Marine: (a) cost; (b) permanent changes or betterments; (c) interest and depreciation; (d) all other charges?
3. What price was received for each vessel sold and who was purchaser?
4. Was the amount chargeable to Canadian Government Merchant Marine reduced by all items in question (2)?
5. If not, why?
1. Does item 555 of the customs tariff provide for a duty upon combing wool of two cents per pound, British preference, and three cents per pound under the general tariff ?
2. Does item 556 of the customs tariff provide for duty on worsted tops of 10 per cent British preference and 15 per cent under the general tariff?
3. Is the government enforcing the collection of duty on these two items, as provided for by law?
4. Has the government received any complaints that the said duty is not being collected on these two items, 555 and 556, of the customs tariff?
5. Were the said items (555 and 556) included in the customs tariff to encourage the establishment of the manufacture of wool tops in Canada?
6. Since the inclusion of the said items in the customs tariff, has a factory to manufacture wool tops been established in Canada?
7. Was such a factory established in Trenton, Ontario, and is the government aware that over 15,000 Oanadian citizens have invested in such a factory?
8. Is the government aware that failure to enforce the collection of the aforementioned duties has resulted in serious loss to the aforementioned factory ?
Hon. Mr. COPP;
1. Yes, upon wools of the following description: Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Southdown, combing wools, or wools known as lustre wools and other like combing wools, such as are grown in Canada.
2. Yes, when such tops are made from Leicester, Cotswold, Lincolnshire, Southdown, combing wools, or wools known as lustre wools and other like combing wools, such as are grown in Canada.
3. Duty is not collected when the importer certifies on the customs entry that the wool, or tops are such as are not provided for in tariff items 555 or 556. This has been the practice of the departments since 1897.
4. Yes, from the Dominion Combing Mills Ltd., Trenton, Ont.
5. No information.
7. The government is aware that such a factory is established in Trenton, but there is no information in the records of the Department of Customs and Excise of the number of Canadian citizens who have invested in such factory.
8. Representations to that effect have been received from The Dominion Combing Mills, Limited, of Trenton.
1. What amounts have been received from Great Britain on adjustment of war accounts and other indebtedness since January 1st, 1922?
2. What amount has been received each month?