Mr. KNOWLES:

It seems to me that the point which the hon. member for South York is raising must have been met by the very nature of the item that is before us, because item 287 includes a good many sub-items. I have been checking up, and I find that thirty sub-items in item 287 are revotes. Of these thirty, fifteen are exactly the same as they were last year; ten have been increased and five decreased. That seems to me to suggest that the items have been reconsidered. It is not a case of merely bringing them back.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

They certainly were.

Mr. KNOWLES:

In some cases there has been a considerable increase. It seems to me that the point raised by the hon. member has been met.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

He would like to have in every instance an increase because of labour and material having gone up in the last year, but I am relying on my architects to give estimates for certain projects.

Mr. KNOWLES:

And apparently they have done that.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

For this building at Armstrong, when they prepared this estimate in October they said it would cost $45,000. I shall know when the tenders come in whether they are above that sum, but you cannot ask me what will be the difference in these projects. I asked this house for a vote in the last days of August.

Mr. KNOWLES:

They have changed fifteen out of thirty.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

It is from thirty-five to forty-five.

Mr. COCKERAM:

It is crazjr.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

I do not believe the hon. gentleman means that.

Mr. HACKETT:

Can the minister tell me whether the item of $75,000 which is down for a public building for Sherbrooke has to do with the acquisition of a building by the government, or whether it has to do with repairs to a building which is being leased and about which I asked a question the other day?

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull) :

This $75,000 in the estimates will be employed for the pur-

IMr. A. Fournier.]

chase of a site. I believe we have taken expropriation proceedings. If not, they are to be taken in the near future.

Mr. HACKETT:

I should like to be certain that this item does not refer to the building which has been leased for a period of five years and which is to be used by the Department of-

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

Income tax. This is a revote of $75,000 to provide toward the purchase of a site and the erection thereon of a public building to accommodate the following government services at Sherbrooke: Post

Office Department, department of health and welfare, labour, marine-transport-

Mr. HACKETT:

It is not necessary for the minister to g.o any farther to satisfy me. It is not the item concerning which I asked a question the other day having to do with the housing of income tax department.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

No.

Mr. COCKERAM:

I am not satisfied to let this thing go right now. We have a tremendous sum of money, millions of dollars being voted>, and I have in my mind as a businessman the necessity for being a little more explicit about these figures. I do not think you can say it is simply a revote from last year, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said.

Ur. FOURNIER (Hull):

The hon. gentleman understands what a revote is.

Mr. COCKERAM:

I understand just as well as the minister what a revote is, but it seems to me we are voting money for a specific job and the money is collected from the taxpayers of the country. I know we have to get down and save dollars and cents for the benefit of the people, and it seems to me that if we revote everything, we are not trying to economize on their behalf. I think the Canadian people are perfectly willing to pay a fair shot, but when in public works we disregard everything and come out and vote this and that, which we were prepared to do in war time, and then revote it, the minister should be more explicit. I suggest that he should be more explicit about this revoting. If we are revoting money on the old expenditures it should be increased; it should not be the same amount. If we are revoting it on other grounds, then it should be cancelled completely. I repeat, the minister should be more explicit on the question of revoting. When we read these estimates that are being presented today we see revote after revote. What does it mean? It is the same money we voted last

Post-UNRRA Relief

year and are asked to vote now. Unless there is a good reason why it should be revoted, unless the figures are exactly the same, we should not revote the same money.

Mr. POULIOT:

I have a word to say to my hon. friend. He will admit that the amounts mentioned in the estimates are approximate.