January 16, 1911

PRIVATE BILLS.

FIRST READINGS.


Bill (No. 88) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr. Currie (Prince Edward). Bill (No. 89) respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Lafortune. Bill (No. 90) respecting the Indian River Railway Company.-Mr. Turcotte (Quebec). Bill (No. 91) to incorporate the Pacific and Peace Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.


SECOND READINGS.


Bill (No. 62) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Tolmie. Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the British Columbia and Dawson Railway Company. -Mr. Burrell. „ Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the British Columbia and White River Railway Company.-Mr. Congdon. Bill (No. 68) respecting the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company ,-rMi. Fowke. Bill (No. 69) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt. Bill (No. 72) respecting the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company.-Mr. Currie (Simcoe). Bill (No. 75) respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Beattie. Bill (No. 76) respecting the Ontario, Hudson Bay and Western Railway Company.- Mr. Tolmie.


QUESTIONS.


' The questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.'


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

CON

*Mr. BORDEN (Halifax): (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. At what date will that portion of the National Transcontinental railway which lies between the River St. Lawrence and Moncton be completed?

2. What work still remains to be done thereon ?

3. How many men are now employed thereon, and what is the number on each contract?

4. Has any and what provision been made for equipment thereon?

5. At what date is it expected that this portion of the said railway will be in operation and ready to receive passengers and freight traffic ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Permalink
LIB

THE BEAUHARNOIS CANAL.


* Mr. MONK : 1. Have the grantees of the Beauharnois canal carried out all the improvements and Mr. PUGSLEY. development work which they were obliged to under the conditions of their grant? If not, what works have so far been omitted? 2. Is there, in the deed of alienation, a proviso that the grant should become void in case of failure by the grantees to observe the conditions of their deed? 3. Is it the intention of the government to resume possession of the Beauharnois canal, if it has a right to do so? 4. Is the government aware that the said canal could be leased to-day upon far more favourable terms than it was to the actual grantees ? 5. Has the government ever had an estimate made of the value of the franchises and privileges of the said canal which have been alienated? If so, when and by whom?


LIB

Mr. GRAHAM : (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

1. Yes.

2. There is no explicit proviso to that effect, but the whole lease is subject to terms and conditions thsrein enumerated.

3. The government had not considered the matter.

4. The government is not so aware.

5. No estimate was made of the value of the franchises, which, naturally should depend upon the enterprise of the lessees; but an estimate, however, was made, by the superintending engineer, of the horsepower that could be developed without extansive and costly alterations, viz.: 2,259 hors 2-power.

* Mr. MONK ;

1. Were the privileges or rights upon the Beauharnois canal ever advertised to be tendered for before they were conceded to the present users or their predecessors? If not, why not?

2. To whom was the concession of said privilege made in the first instance and at what date ?

3. Did the concessionnaire make a regular proposal in writing previous to said concession? If so, at what date, and to whom was said proposal addressed?

4. What was the amount paid by the concessionnaire for the use of the said Beauharnois canal ?

5. What is the amount of annual rental payable by the grantee or his assigns?

G. What is the term or duration of the alienation so made by the government of said Beauharnois canal?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BEAUHARNOIS CANAL.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. GRAHAM : (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

1. No.

2. The lease was first grantsd to Messrs. McIntyre and Robert in virtue of an order in council dated 14th October, 1907.

3. Yes, April 21, 1904, addressed to th? Minister of Railways and Canals.

4. $12,000 per annum.

5. $12,000 per annum.

6. The lease was granted for 21 years ; being renewable for two further consecutive periods of 21 years.

* Mr. MONK :

1. At what date and by whom was the proposal for the alienation of the Beauharnois canal made first to the government?

2. Did the government have a special report prepared upon the state of the said canal before deciding upon its alienation, and by whom was such report made?

3. What power is it possible to develop with the said Beauharnois canal?

4. Is the rental to be paid by the lessees or grantees subject to increase with the increase of power developed?

5. Is there any proviso in the agreement allowing the government to control the terms which powder will be sold to the public?

6. Has the government spent any money upon the canal in question? If so, what amount and upon what objects?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BEAUHARNOIS CANAL.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. GRAHAM : (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

1. October 9, 1903.

2. Yes ; by the superintending engineer of the Quebec canals.

3. This is a variable quantity depending entirely on the volume of water derived from Lake St. Francis.

4. No.

5. Yes ; clause 6, of the lease.

6. None since the granting of the lease.

* Mr. MONK :

1. What is the total cost to the country of the Beauharnois canal to date?

2. What is the total revenue derived by the government from the grantees or lessees of the said canal since the date of its alienation?

3. Are any arrears of rental or payments due at present from the holders of the canal to the government? If so, what is the amount thereof ?

4. Why are not such arrears collected?

5. Have the rights of the original grantees or coneessionnaires of the canal been transferred since the first alienation? If so, how often and to whom?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BEAUHARNOIS CANAL.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. GRAHAM : (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

1. $1,902,501.10.

2. $42,000, grantees. $11,244.15, other l;ssees.

3. None.

4. Answered by No. 3.

5. Yes, only ones, original grantees assigned their lease to the Canadian Light and Rower Company.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BEAUHARNOIS CANAL.
Permalink

MONTREAL MILITARY SCHOOL.

CON

*Mr. MONK:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Has the government selected a site for a military school-or station at or near the city of Montreal? If so, where?

2. What is the size of the property selected, and from whom has it been acquired?

3. What is the purchase price of said property, and by what department was it acquired in the first instance?

4. Is the property now in the possession of the Militia Department, and when is it intended to utilize it for military purposes?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MONTREAL MILITARY SCHOOL.
Permalink
LIB

Mr. PUGSLEY: (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

1. Yes, at Longueuil.

2 190 acres. The property was acquired from various individuals in 1846-7 by the Honourable Board of Ordnance for the purpose of a tete du pont on the east side of Hochelaga bay, below St. Helen's island for the defence of Montreal.

3. Not known.

4. Yes. Action is now being taken to commence construction on the proposed barracks at the earliest possible date.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   MONTREAL MILITARY SCHOOL.
Permalink

RIVIERE DBS PRAIRIES.

January 16, 1911