John Douglas HAZEN

HAZEN, The Hon. Sir John Douglas, P.C., K.C., LL.D.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
City and County of St. John (New Brunswick)
Birth Date
June 5, 1860
Deceased Date
December 27, 1937
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Douglas_Hazen
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=15b270da-620f-48bb-be53-9255fee3838d&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

March 5, 1891 - April 24, 1896
CON
  City and County of St. John (New Brunswick)
October 27, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  City and County of St. John (New Brunswick)
  • Minister of the Naval Service (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)
  • Minister of Marine and Fisheries (October 10, 1911 - October 11, 1917)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 929 of 930)


February 1, 1912

Mr. HAZEN.

When you were about to leave the Chair at six o'clock the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair! asked what rate of interest would be paid on 'advances to the Harbour Commissioners. I would call attention to section 6 of the printed Bill, Which provides that:

The corporation shall, upon any advances being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General debentures of Mr. MEIGHEN.

the corporation equal in par value to the advance so made, which debentures the corporation is hereby authorized to issue; and such debentures so issued shall be of such amounts as the Minister of Finance and Receiver General may determine, and shall bear date from the day when such advance is made, and shall be repayable in 25 years from the date of their issue, and in the meantime shall bear interest at the rate of three and a half per cent per annum, such interest to be payable half yearly on the 1st day of July and on the 1st day of January each year.

I might further say to my hon. friend that there was u 'similar provision in the Act that was passed,ia few years ago under which, during these few years, the Harbour Commission of Montreal have been carrying on the work of development.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMMIS-SIONERS.
Full View Permalink

February 1, 1912

Mr. HAZEN.

From inquiry I have made I am afraid that $50,000 would not go very far in acquiring such a property as is needed for this purpose. It would take a much larger sum.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   L, 1912
Full View Permalink

February 1, 1912

Mr. HAZEN.

My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) has referred to the fact that $50,000 in the estimates last year for the purpose of building a wharf for government steamers at St. John is not in the estimates this year. I would point out that there is no necessity for that vote being in the estimates this year. That wharf is no doubt required for the Marine and Fisheries Department, upon which the buoys and material belonging to the government might be stored, and at which vessels might lay up from time to time, vessels that are under the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department to supply lighthouses and to look after the buoys. Incidentally also it might serve as a wharf to which steamers under the control of the Public Works Department might resort. I may say to my hon. friend that it is not at haphazard that this vote is left out of the estimates. I am advised by the officials of my department that at any time we wish to acquire property in St. John for that purpose, we have the funds to do so; and I may say that negotiations are going on now, and I have instructed the engineer of my department to consider different places that have been suggested as available. If the minister should decide to buy a property of that sort we have ample funds at our disposal with which to do it, and which we are authorized by law to expend for that purpose. Under the vote that was made last session, a vote for general purposes

in connection with the Marine and Fisheries Department, I am advised by my deputy minister, and also by the engineer of the department, that we can use the money for this purpose. So that if we determine to buy that property, there are plenty of funds at our disposal.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   L, 1912
Full View Permalink

February 1, 1912

Mr. HAZEN.

I do not think there is a sinking fund. It is claimed by the_ commissioners that the charges upon shipping at .the port of Montreal are light in comparison with what they are at many other ports. No tonnage dues are exacted from the steamers that come to that port. Practically the only dues which the steamers pay are the sick mariners and pilotage dues such as would be paid by steamers at any other ports. There is no tonnage tax for the use of the port or the wharfs further than the revenues from the rental of sheds or the wharfage on goods that pass over the wharfs or through the sheds or the revenues from the grain elevators and the railway alongside of the dock. It is claimed by the commissioners that in the course of time the facilities provided at the port of Montreal will be equal to the facilities that are provided at any shipping port in the world and that they are now far in advance of what they were a few years ago, while at the same time the dues are being so arranged as not to be an undue exaction upon the shipping of the port or upon the trade of the country that is done through that port. As far as I can gather from conversations with people from Montreal with whom I come in contact, from the reports which are submitted to the department over which I preside and from other sources of information, I believe that the work is proceeding along lines which are approved of by the people of Montreal and would be approved of, were they generally known, by the general business community of this country, who are just as much interested as the people of Montreal in the development of a great national harbour there. I do not think for a moment that the money which is being spent on the harbour of Montreal can fairly be regarded as a local expenditure. It is true it is of very great advantage to the harbour and it is naturally of great advantage to the community, but at

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMMIS-SIONERS.
Full View Permalink

January 29, 1912

1. Yes.

2. Yes, on February 6, 1911, to the postmasters in 72 localities.

3. The matter has not been considered.

4 and 5. Questions irregular.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NAVAL SERVICE OE CANADA.
Full View Permalink