Mr. CARDIN:

In 1934 the total ordinary

appropriation for the Department of Public Works amounted to $10,240,080. In the same year the amount allotted to the department under the Public Works Construction Act was $26,476,444.96. In 1935, out of the amount voted the amount allotted to the Department of Public Works was $7,892,243. So the total amount allotted to the department was $34,368,688.

Mr. STEWART:

That is the information

I wanted. Could the minister supplement it by giving the committee the total amount that goes to the Department of Public Works this year? He has said that the main estimates amount to $13,411,000. Would he tell the committee what amount of new work is included in the estimates he has submitted? Possibly we could have the corresponding total for the current year.

Mr. CARDIN:

Under projects already

undertaken, which we have just passed, the amount is $9,615,930, and those which we are considering presently amount to 85340,655. We have the main estimates of about $13,411,000.

Mr. STEWART:

I take it that for the

current year provision is being made for expenditures on new projects, through the Department of Public Works, of about $19,000,000, $13,000,000 of which is in the main estimates and the remaining sum in the new projects now before us. In 1935 the amount placed at the disposal of the department, through the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, was $34,000,000, and in 1934 it was $36,000,000. Therefore, notwithstanding the demand in the current year for relief of

Supply-Public Works-Buildings

unemployment through expenditures on public works, the amount of new money [DOT] or new appropriations is substantially less than it was in the last two years. We have to deduct the appropriation made in prior years under the Public Works Construction Act of 1934 and the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act of 1935.

That brings me to the same position I have taken several times in committee, namely that the summary at the back indicates that in these estimates there is provision for an expenditure of 8124,748,743.42. If we take the 830,418,341.66 shown in the summary for projects already undertaken, and the deficit of the Canadian National Railways, which has never before appeared in the estimates, the result will be to reduce substantially what appears to be the appropriation of the government this year for the relief of unemployment by means of public works.

Mr. STEWART:

Was there not some provision for this building in the estimates prior to this?

Mr. CARDIN:

Yes.

Mr. STEWART:

If it was provided for previously under the act, why is it inserted in these special supplementaries as another project, as if it were a new undertaking?

Mr. BENNETT:

They want to spend twice as much money.

Mr. CARDIN:

The money was provided for but the building was not proceeded with. That is why the amount is repeated here. There was some difficulty with the tenders as the lowest tenderer did not send his *certified cheque as required by the regulations of the department. He was asked to have his cheque accepted by the bank but he never came through.

Mr. BENNETT:

He must have been a Conservative.

Mr. CARDIN:

No.

Mr. STEWART:

The minister will clear up this matter if he will just tell the committee whether this item was in the main or supplementary estimates of last year or under the Public Works Construction Act. I think it was in the estimates and, if so, it would lapse and would be properly in these 12739-169

items. If it had appeared in the main estimates there would be a revote. It should appear as a revote instead of as a new project.

Mr. CARDIN:

It is practically a revote.

Mr. BENNETT:

That is the reason why it should not be in the supplementary estimates.

Mr. CARDIN:

There was an appropriation for this building in the estimates of 1935-36.

Mr. STEWART:

I suggest that the proper place for this is in the main or supplementary estimates of this year. It should not be placed in the special supplementary estimates for the relief of unemployment.

Mr. STIRLING:

Would the minister explain what he proposes to do to the East block upon which there is to be an expenditure of $250,000?

Mr. CARDIN:

I will tell the committee quite frankly that we are not in a position to state exactly what work will be undertaken. I do not know if other hon. members of the committee are aware of the condition of this building-I know I was not until informed by the officers of the department-but the fact is that the roof, being constructed of wood, is a bad fire hazard. The employees of the Department of Finance are working in inadequate quarters.