1. Are appeals taken before the Board ol Hearing against certain items of the re-classification of the Civil Service dealt with finally by the said board?

2. If not, is the Governor General in Council or the Civil Service Commission, or both jointly, passing finally on the decisions of the board?

3. If the latter is the case, what is the use of the Board of Hearing?

4. Has the Governor General in Council or the Civil Service Commission, or both jointly, refused to confirm decisions of the Board of Hearing or ignored them altogether?

1. No.

2. All. decisions of the Board of Hearing are submitted to the Civil Service Commission, for final action. In cases where an increase of compensation is involved, the recommendations of the commission are submitted for the approval of the Governor in Council.

3. The Board of Hearing was established to enable employees of the Public Service to make their representations regarding the dompensation, duties and qualifications to a board, composed of representatives of the departments and the service itself and to give the Civil Service Commission the benefit of the views of men in the service who have made a study of the Civil Service Classification and to facilitate the hearing of complaints and adjusting the classifies- . tion. The Civil Service Commission has expressed itself favourable to the establishment and continuance of the board.

4. The Civil Service Commission has confirmed all recommendations of the Board of Appeal. The Governor in Council has approved all but one, and in this case the department concerned reported that the office is to be abolished.

1. Are there any unused linotypes at the Printing Bureau, as a result of the dismissal of employees?

2. If so, how many?

3. Is it true that the Government, instead of selling these machines, tolerates their breaking up and deterioration?

1. There are no unused linotypes at the Printing Bureau as a result of the dismissal of employees.

2. Ten linotypes are not now operated because they are not required to handle the output of the Bureau.

3. No.

1. Was the peat manufacturing plant at Alfred operated during the past year? If so, hy whom?

2. If not hy the Government, under what agreement or arrangement was it operated?

3. What was the cost per ton of production when operated hy the Government?

4. At what price per ton was peat retailed to the consumer under governmental operation?

5. If the plant is now operated hy private interests, what agreement, if any, is there restricting the price at which peat produced at the plant shall he sold to the consumer?

1. Peat fuel manufacturing operations were conducted at Alfred last season by the Peat Committee which was appointed jointly in 1918 by the Dominion Government and the Government of the Province of Ontario.'

2. The answer to this question is the same as to No. 1.

3. At the conclusion of the Government's manufacturing operations at Alfred in 1911 an estimate was made of the cost during 93 working days (not a full season) of manufacturing one ton of peat fuel. This cost, including overhead charges, was $3.05 per ton. This was the cost of the peat on the field ready for loading into cars or into shed. It was further estimated that this cost per ton of fuel would be reduced to $1.82 during another season's work, but at the end of this year (1911) governmental activities in this line were discontinued.

4. A limited quantity of peat was sold to consumers in Ottawa for $3.50 per ton. It was sold at this low figure, which was below the cost of manufacturing, plus shipping and delivery, for the purpose of introducing this fuel to the public and to get an expression of their views concerning its value as a fuel for domestic purposes.

5. The Peat Committee has not yet concluded their investigation and nothing at the present has been done concerning restrictions of the, price at which peat produced at this plant or any other plant for the manufacture of peat fuel, shall be sold to the consumer.

1. How many employees of the Department of Militia in London, England, were brought to Canada and placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Militia and Defence since the signing of the armistice?

2. How many of these employees are still in the service of that department?

3. How many of those who are still employed were residents of Canada at the outbreak of the war?

4. How many Canadians have been dismissed from the Department of Militia and Defence since the date of the armistice?

1. 59.

2. 47.

3. 43.

4. 67.

1. How many acres of land comprise the Connaught Rifle Ranges, situated in the County of Carleton, Ont. ?

2. From whom was the land for said ranges purchased?

3. What was the total cost of the land?

4. What has been the total cost to date of equipping the Connaught Rifle Ranges?

5. What has it cost each year to maintain these ranges?

6. "What has been the total cost of everything to date in connection with the purchase of land, equipment and maintenance of these ranges?

7. Has any revenue been derived from the land comprising said ranges?

S. If so, how much per year?

9. Have the ranges ever been used for competitions?

1. 2,717.70 acres, including roads.

2. G. A. Armstrong, J. Armstrong, N. Boucher, Catherine Burk, T. Burk, A. Davidson, I. B. Davis, Jennie V. Kennedy, J. Lavelle, R. Richardson, W. O. Riddell, J. Scissons, S. Scissons, G. Sparks, G. H. Sparks, W. Smith (Estate), G. I. Scott, G. Taylor, E. B. Whelan, Andrew Whelan, J. Whelan, Thos. Watt, Wilson Bros., E. Y ounghusband.

3. $206,700.

4. $770,490.45.

5. $1,684 per annum.

6. $986,160.45.

7. Yes.

8. Pasturage (tenders called for), 1915, $250, 1916, $250; 1917, $925; 1918, $925; 1919, $925. Total, $3,275.

1920-Pasturage rights transferred to Central Experimental Farm (Dominion Government) .

9. No, the construction of the Ranges has not been entirely completed.