1. Was Major General A. G. L. McNaughton, *chief of general staff, seconded to the National Research Council; if so, on what date?

_ 2. Was he retired as chief of general staff; if so, on what date; if not, why?

3. Referring to the previous paragraph, in the affirmative, what is his pension as chief of general staff, from the date of his retirement?

4. If the answer to paragraph 2 is in the

negative, what pension will be paid to the said McNaughton: (a) if he is sent back to the

Department of National Defence and retired as chief of general staff before July 4, 1936; (b) if his retirement takes place on or after July 4, 1942, and if he is seconded until then by the Department of National Defence to the National Research Council?

5. Did his predecessor, Dr. H. M. Tory, the former president of the National Research Council, receive a pension?

6. Is there any statutory provision for a pension to be paid to the president of the National Research Council; if so, what is it?

1. Yes. On, the 1st June, 1935, in the following terms: "Branch of the General Staff, Maj.-Gen. A. G. L. McNaughton, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., M.Sc. LL.D., i.d.c., ps.c., chief of the general staff is seconded, whilst holding the appointment of president of the National Research Council, 1st June, 1935."

2. No, because it was then decided that he should be seconded.

3. Answered by No. 2.

4. (a) 14,800 per annum, as of July 4, 1936; (b) $9,000 per annum, as of July 4, 1942.

5. No.

6. No.

1. Has the government signed the lease with the Three Rivers Grain and Elevator Company,

Questions

1933. 1934. 1935.$ 420 05 $ 74 52 $ 123 9275 55 424 05 307 89- 74 43 14 65102 55 112 98 -- - 174 0425 60 - 7 25857 15 639 35 703 7146 75 45 90 -- - 31 10195 18 346 42 359 85- 191 40 630 2540 95 58 78 175 55541 26 428 20 330 86271 20 900 51 720 8241 45 - 89 55436 24 170 70 20 05125 83 211 41 118 37$3,179 76 $3,678 65 $3,807 86

Limited, covering construction of a private elevator on a government owned wharf; if so, when?

2. Has work on this elevator started; if so, who gave the necessary authority, and was it given before the expiratory date for the approval of plans had elapsed?

3. What money was spent by the government in developing the site upon which the elevator is being constructed?

4. What annual revenue does the government expect to receive, and what yield does this give on the investment?

5. Are not the present elevator facilities at Montreal and Quebec adequate?

6. If an elevator is required at Three Rivers, why does the government not build and operate it when they already have developed this site?

Mr. HOWE;

1. Yes. The Three Rivers harbour commissioners who went out of office 31st October, 1935, had authorized and executed a lease of a site on the 29th October, 1935. The new board of harbour commissioners who assumed office 1st November, 1935, recognized the dbligation entered into by the old board but found a modification and revision of the terms embodied in the lease necessary in the public interest. The revised lease was executed 26th February, 1936.

2. Yes. Approval of the plans under the Navigable Waters Protection Act was found to be unnecessary.

3. The site leased forms part of the property Which was made available for use by dredging, filling and reclaiming 834,512 sq. ft. of land and by building 2,690 lineal feet of wharf frontage. The cost of the reclaimed area based on the total cost of the work is approximately $3 per sq. ft. On this basis the value of the site leased is $206,100.

Questions

4. Estimated annual revenue:

1. Rental of land, 68,700 sq. ft.

at 5c. per sq. ft $ 3,435

2. For use of wharf frontage,

300 ft. at $2 per ft 600

3. 6c. per ton on all grain passing through the elevator estimated at 16,000,000 bus 28,800

Total $32,835

This revenue would yield 16 per cent on the investment in the land leased.

5. This is a matter of opinion.

6. In the opinion of the government if private capital is willing to build and operate a grain elevator at Three Rivers, it should be allowed to do so.

Mr. MALLETTE:

How many settlers in the district of Jacques-Cartier took up land under the act that ensured them a grant of $600?

Mr. ROGERS:

Under relief legislation the dominion government has entered into an agreement with the province of Quebec, under the terms of which the dominion, province, and municipality contribute each a sum not exceeding $200 towards the settling on the land of any family which is on relief, or which would otherwise be in receipt of relief. Provision is made for an additional contribution of $33.33 for subsistence expenditures during the third year of settlement by each party to the agreement if the family is not self-supporting at the end of the two year period.

Selection of settlers is made by a committee which includes representatives of the federal government, the province, and the colonization departments of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. This committee has selected for settlement 976 families with 5,029 dependents, of which number 21 settlers with 97 dependents are from the district of Jacques-Cartier.

1. What are the names and addresses of all persons appointed (a) as temporary employees, and (t>) as permanent employees at the printing bureau since October 14, 1935?

2. Who made such appointments?

3. Who recommended them?

1. (a) Name-Address-Duties

(1) Wm. J. McCabe, 198 Woodbine ave., Toronto, Ont., hand compositor.

(2) Antonio Gariepy, 44 Bolton st., Ottawa, Ont., typist, grade 1.

(3) Marc A. Berube, 139 Notre Dame st., Hull, Que., typist, grade 1.

(4) Laurent St. Amour, 33 Montcalm st., Hull, Que., stenographer, grade 1.

(5) T. D. Donoghue, 141 Patterson ave., Ottawa, Ont., hand compositor.

(6) Alfred Schingh, 338 St. Patrick st., Ottawa, Ont., labourer.

(b) None.

2. First to fifth by civil, service commission. Sixth by the minister.

3. First to fifth-no knowledge. Sixth-the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. MARSHALL:

What public buildings has the dominion government erected in the province of Alberta in 1935 (a) from moneys chargeable to

capital; (b) from moneys chargeable to

income?

Mr. RINFRET:

Return tabled herewith.

1. How many appeals were pending consideration by the appeal court as at December 31,

1934, in the following categories (a) appeals

by the crown from quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other

categories? .

2. How many appeals were filed with the

appeal court during 1935, as follows (a)appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other

categories?

3. How many appeals were heard by the

appeal court during 1935, as follows (a)appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) othercategories? .4. Hoiv many appeals were allowed m 1935,as follows (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories? _5. How many appeals were disallowed in1935, as follows (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?6. How many appeals were referred by theappeal court to the pensions commission in 1935 (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories? .7. How many appeals were awaiting consideration by the appeal court as at December 31, 1935 (a) appeals of crown from quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?

Canada-U. S. Trade Agreement

BROADVIEW, SASIC, POST OFFICE On the orders of the day:

Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

I should like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) the reason for the delay in opening a new post office at Broadview, Saskatchewan. This very fine building was completed last November and taken over from the contractor, and the people would like to know what is the occasion for the delay in opening it.

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General) :

This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. The Post Office Department was advised by the chief architect on December 17 that a contract had been awarded for the supply and installation of interior fittings for this building, and under date of February 19 a request was made to the chief architect to ascertain when it would be possible to occupy the building. I understand that inquiries were made of whoever was in charge in the district, and that as soon as a decision has been reached my hon. friend will be advised.

ELMWOOD, MAN., POST OFFICE On the orders of the day:

Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):

May I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) when the post office at Elmwood, near Winnipeg, which is now completed, will be opened?