May 28, 1925

QUESTIONS


(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


CORRESPONDENCE WITH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

LIB

Lewis Johnstone Lovett

Liberal

Mr. LOVETT:

Wbat percentage of all letters, applications, requisitions, correspondence, etc., received and sent out by the following departments, Marine and Fisheries, Interior, Public Works, Agriculture, Post Office, National Defence was with the Civil Service Commission?

Questions

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CORRESPONDENCE WITH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Bliss Copp (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. Mr. COPP:

Department of Marine and Fisheries:

2.7 per cent for year ended March 31, 1925.

Department of the Interior:

(a) Of the total correspondence received in the department during the first three months of the present year, the percentage received from the Civil Service Commission was .329 per cent, (b) Of the total correspondence sent out by the department during the first three months of the present year, the percentage sent to the Civil Service Commission was .529 per cent.

Department of Public Works:

2.2 per cent of all letters, etc., was with the Civil Sendee Commission.

Department of Agriculture:

All correspondence with the Civil Service Commission is carried on through the deputy minister's office, and approximately 5 per cent of the correspondence of that office is with the Civil Service Commission. Correspondence with the various branches of the department in connection with appointments or other civil service matters amounts to approximately fifty per cent of the total correspondence of the deputy minister's office.

As to the branches, correspondence on civil service matters will probably be less than five per cent of the whole. It is exceedingly difficult to make an accurate estimate as the correspondence varies greatly at different seasons of the year.

Post Office Department:

One-half of one per cent.

Department of National Defence:

No special record is kept of letters to the Civil Service Commission and it is, therefore, impossible to furnish this information without going through the whole of the correspondence of the Department of National Defence.

No. 3 ELEVATOR-VANCOUVER Hon. Mr. STEVENS:

1. Having reference to sessional paper 165 of the present session, regarding No. 3 elevator, Vancouver, B.C., under the terms of clause 6, page 42, of the said return: (a) do the rates and charges to be made by the lessee become subject to the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners under the Canada Grain Act; (b) have the owners or shippers of grain using this elevator any right of appeal on a question of charges to the Board of Grain Commissioners?

2. Having reference to clause 12 on page 43, of th8 said return, 165, is the said bond of $25,000 considered by the government to be sufficient security for good faith on the part of the lessee, in view of the total cost of the property being $824,412 as set forth in answer to question No. 7 on page 2052 of Hansard ?

3. Has the government, or the Board of Harbour Commissioners, Vancouver, received at any time any communications prior to the execution of the lease between the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners and the British Oriental Grain and Elevator Company, dated March 1, 1924, protesting that the said bond of $25,000, was inadequate protection of the public interest, in view of the magnitude of the investment of public funds in this elevator?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CORRESPONDENCE WITH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Hon. Mr. CARDIN: (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

1. (a) Yes. (ib) Yes.

2. The harbour commissioners report that they consider the guarantee of $25,000 ample in the circumstances. The rental is paid in advance.

3. No.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CORRESPONDENCE WITH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Permalink

COLONEL G. B. BEGY

LIB

Mr. STEWART (Hamilton): (Minister of Mines; Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

1. Has Colonel G. B. Begy, of Belleville, a contract with the government respecting the purchase of fish?

2. If so, when is the contract dated, for what period does it last and what fish in what areas are covered by such contract?

3. Was such contract secured by tender?

4. If not, what prices were to be paid for such fish, and who fixed the prices?

5. How much has been paid to or on behalf of Colonel Begy on this contract and how much is owing and unpaid at the present time?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COLONEL G. B. BEGY
Permalink
LIB

GRATUITIES TO SOLDIERS

CON

Hon. Mr. MANION:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What was the total amount paid as bonus or gratuities for the solders enlisted for the late war?

2. In what years was the amount paid, and how much each year?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GRATUITIES TO SOLDIERS
Sub-subtopic:   QUEBEC BRIDGE
Permalink
LIB

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou): (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

1. 8162,310,156.12.

2.

To March 31, 1920

April 1, 1920, to March 31, 1921 April 1, 1921, to March 31, 1922 April 1, 1922, to March 31, 1923 April 1, 1923, to March 31, 1924 April 1, 1924, to March 31, 1925

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   GRATUITIES TO SOLDIERS
Sub-subtopic:   QUEBEC BRIDGE
Permalink

$156,924,519 44 4,607,647 77 294,815 91 289.360 17 115,173 22 78,639 61 $162,310,156 12 CORNWALL CANAL

CON

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Is the standard rate charged for leases of water power in the Cornwall canal four dollars per electrical horse-power year?

2. If not, what is the rate now charged?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   $156,924,519 44 4,607,647 77 294,815 91 289.360 17 115,173 22 78,639 61 $162,310,156 12 CORNWALL CANAL
Permalink
LIB

Hon. Mr. GRAHAM: (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

1. Yes.

2. Answered by No. 1.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   $156,924,519 44 4,607,647 77 294,815 91 289.360 17 115,173 22 78,639 61 $162,310,156 12 CORNWALL CANAL
Permalink

QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS

CON

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What is the total amount of money advanced by the government to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners?

2. How much more money may be advanced by the Governor in Council under existing legislation?

3. What is the amount of the total obligations of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners funded or unfunded?

4. What is the amount of bonds at present issued by the said commission?

5. What amount of such bonds are held (a) by the government: (b) by the public?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Permalink
LIB

Hon. Mr. CARDIN: (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

1. $12,612,995.

2. $119,138.62.

3.

Debentures-old and new

issues $13,221,602

Advances without debentures 541,393

Accrued interest unpaid.. 8,077,962

Account old loans. Account new loans Sold to public.. .

(a) By government.. ..

(b) By public

[DOT]8,458,800

1,150,000

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Permalink
CON

Mr. DOUCET:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. What was the cost of the Quebec bridge, excluding the cost of the two bridges which foundered?

2. Were the plans of the Quebec bridge, at its inception, approved by order in council as provided by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, c. 115, R.S. 1906 and previous identical acts?

3. Have the plans of the bridge to be erected between Montreal and the south shore been deposited at the Department of Public Works (c. 115, sec. 7, R.S.C. 1906)?

4. In what newspapers of Montreal was the notice of the deposit of said plans at the Department of Public Works, published (c. 115, sec. 7, R.S.C. 1906)?

5. Did the Canada Gazette publish said notice? If so, in what numbers (c. 115, sec. 7)?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Permalink
LIB

Hon. Mr. COPP: (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

1. $15,821,315.12. Plans of the original Quebec bridge were approved by order in council, P.C. 1172, of May 16, 1898.

2. No, but they were approved by order in council dated May 16, 1898, as result of consideration by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.

3. No, this bridge was authorized by special act, being Chapter 58, of the statutes of 1924, which requires plans of such bridge shall be submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before beginning the construction thereof.

4 and 5. No information.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Permalink

May 28, 1925