January 27, 1909

REPORT PRESENTED.


Part I of report of Department of Trade and Commerce for fiscal year ending March 31, 1909.-Mr. Paterson.


QUESTIONS.

PAYMENTS TO CANADIAN ECONOMIC LUBRICANT COMPANY.

CON

Mr. FOSTER asked :

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Whiat amount of money has been paid out to the Canadian Economic Lubricant Company each year since 1906 ?

2. Who is the manager of this company?

3. Is the oil supplied under contract after public advertisement for tenders?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PAYMENTS TO CANADIAN ECONOMIC LUBRICANT COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) : (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

1. By Department of Public Works :

In 1903-1 $795 551907- 8

11 251908- 9

It 82Total $821 622. Has been answered by Department of Marine and Fisheries.3. No.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PAYMENTS TO CANADIAN ECONOMIC LUBRICANT COMPANY.
Permalink

MARCONI STATIONS.

CON

Mr. FOSTER asked :

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What is the amount paid to March 31, 1907, for Marconi stations under the heads of construction, maintenance and other expenses?

2. What was paid under same heads during fiscal year 1907-8?

3. How many stations are there and what number of messages were sent for and received by the government during 1907-8?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MARCONI STATIONS.
Permalink
?

Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries):

1. Construction, $132,641.65, maintenance, $67,556.83. Total, $200,198.48.

2. Maintenance, $56,232.56.

3. 15 stations: total messages, 4,886, total words, 57,583.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MARCONI STATIONS.
Permalink

ROOMS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

CON

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR asked :

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Outside of the Chamber of the House of Commons, the reading room and library, how many rooms are available in the parliament buildings for members of the House of Commons, including members of the administration and the staff of the House of Commons?

2. What is the total floor space of the said rooms ?

3. By whom are the said rooms occupied, to whom have they been allotted, and what is the floor space of the rooms in question in each case?

4. Under whose direction has such allotment or arrangement been made, and when was it last made or revised?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ROOMS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).

I would ask that this question might be allowed to stand. But while upon my feet, with the permission of the House, and with the permission of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), I would like to call attention to an answer to a similar question which he complained was not sufficient. I would say to my hon. friend that I have now the information which he desires ; and in doing so, I would point out to him that the question of which notice was given, asked how many cubic feet of space there were.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ROOMS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
CON

George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOSTER.

If my hon. friend will read the question which immediately preceded his answer he will find that it was floor space. The mistake was made in the

first insertion. I suppose my writing was so good that the clerk could not read it well.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ROOMS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

It was put cubic space in both cases, and that is what misled the officials of my department. I thought the question had been answered. But if my hon. friend says it was owing to his handwriting, which I thought was very good, I will cheerfully accept his statement. But the answer was in accordance with the question of which notice had been given. I have now the answer to the second part of the question :

b. 43 new rooms added in new building containing 18,320 sup. feet.

13 new rooms in old building containing 4,722 sup. feet.

c. 7 rooms eliminated containing 1,617 sup. feet.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   ROOMS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Permalink

GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-ALLEGED OVER-CLASSIFICATION.

CON

Mr. LENNOX asked :

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What action has been taken by the government, tlie Transcontinental Railway Commission, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, since April 28, 1908, to determine the questions then at issue between the company and the commission as to alleged over-classification, or to ascertain whether there had been over-classification upon the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway, and the extent of such over-classification, if any, and with what result?

2. Have all differences between the company and the commission been adjusted? If so, how?

3. Who acted for the government or commission, and who for the company, in investigating and determining the matters aforesaid or an endeavouring to do so?

4. Under what provision of the contract, or statute relating to it was action taken?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-ALLEGED OVER-CLASSIFICATION.
Permalink
?

Right Hon. S@

1 and 3. Early in the month of May last the question of alleged over classification was submitted to the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway, and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, arbitrators. They completed their work in the month of July and failed to agree. Whereupon the said engineers determined to choose a third arbitrator, and after several names had been submitted, no decision was reached until November, when Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, general consulting engineer to the government was chosen. Mr. Schreiber on the 21st of November consented to act, and the matter will be taken up as soon as conditions will permit.

2. No.

4. Under clause seven of the agreement of the 29th of July, 1903, between His Majesty the King and the Grand Trunk Pacific, chapter 71, 3 Edward VII.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-ALLEGED OVER-CLASSIFICATION.
Permalink

RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.


Mr. ARMSTRONG -by Mr. Taylor - asked : 1. How many mail boxes for the rural districts has the government purchased and how many of said boxes have been delivered to the government? 2. Where were the rural mail boxes manufactured, and was the contract for them let by tender or private arrangement? 3. If let by tender, how many tenders were received, and what are the names of the tenderers and the price quoted in each? 4. Were any boxes for rural mail purposes manufactured in Canada? If so, how many, and what is the name of the manufacturer? 5. Did the government pay any duty on the boxes purchased in the United States? If so, how much duty was paid on each box, and when was the duty paid? 6. What is the price charged patrons for mail boxes in rural districts, and does said price cover cost paid by government to manufacturer and include duty, freight and delivery ? | 7. Have many boxes been paid for by patrons to January 1, 1909? 8. How many mail delivery routes are in operation which supply mail to individual box holders under the regulation covering rural mail delivery issued in September, 1908, and what is the extra cost to the department of operating each route over the amount paid for carrying the mails previous to September, 1908? [DOT] 9. How many rural mail boxes have been placed on routes, and tbe name of each route, with the number of miles covered on each, and the number of boxes placed in position and receiving mail on each route? 10. What was the estimated increased cost to the government of the adoption of the Postmaster General's proposal, of September last, in which he agreed to furnish free mail delivery to people living on established mail and stage route?


LIB

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) : (Minister of Labour; Postmaster General)

Liberal

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.
Permalink

January 27, 1909