1955-03-30

Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake) moved:: That the petition for a private bill to incorporate Consolidated Pipe Lines Company, presented on March 29, 1955, together with the clerk of petitions' report thereon of March 30, 1955, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Caslleden:: What are the requirements of grain content of No. 1 feed screenings, as certified by the board of grain commissioners?


Mr. Dickey:: Regulation No. 7:
No. 1 feed screenings shall consist of wild buckwheat and broken and shrunken grain and may contain small portions of other seeds of feeding value and wheat scour-ings. It shall contain not more than three per cent (3 per cent) small weed seeds, chaff and dust combined, not more than five per cent (5 per cent) ball mustard, not more than six per cent (6 per cent) small weed seeds, chaff, dust and ball mustard combined, not more than eight per cent (8 per cent) wild oats, and shall be cool and sweet.


UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS, QUEBEC
Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	How many persons were registered with the national employment offices in (a) Trois-Rivieres;
(b)	Sorel; (c) Drummondville, in the province of Quebec, on the 1st of January, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955?
2.	How many of these persons were in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits at the same dates?


Mr. Gregg:: 1. The number of unplaced applicants on the reporting dates closest to January 1, 19501955 and the number of active claimants for unemployment insurance benefit (exclusive of short-time claimants who are not usually registered for employment) on December 31,
1949-1954 in the Drummondville, Sorel and Trois-Rivieres employment offices are as follows:
Unplaced Applicants
Reporting Date	Drummond- ville	Sorel	Trois- RivieresDec.	29,	1949	
1,367	2,189	4,116Dec.	28,	1950	
1,170	1,759	3,279Jan.	3,	1952	
1,695	1,365	3,813Dec.	31,	1952	
2,022	1,655	5,040Dec.	31,	1953	
2,918	2,149	5,293Dec.	30,	1954 	
2,243 3,070 Active Claimants	5,225Reporting Date	Drummond- ville	Sorel	Trois- RivieresDec.	31,	1949	
1,117	1,760	3,377Dec.	31,	1950	
840	1,731	2,606Dec.	31,	1951	
1,537	1,215	3,574Dec.	31,	1952	
1,891	1,366	4,585Dec.	31,	1953	
2,923	1,992	4,355Dec.	31,	1954	
2,141	2,980	4,721
2. The records in local employment offices are not kept in a manner which readily identifies those applicants for employment who are actually in receipt of benefit. The data described as active claimants represent those applicants who make a claim for benefit. In the process of adjudication some of these claims may be disallowed.
Unplaced applicant statistics are compiled by the employment branch of the local office and claimant statistics by the insurance branch. Because there is always a certain number of applications and claims in process, it is possible on occasion, such as is shown above for Drummondville on December 31, 1953, for the number of claimants reported to be slightly in excess of the number of applicants.


MENTAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Proudfoot:: 1.	How many patients were residing in Canadian mental institutions at the end of the calendar years 1943 and 1953?
2.	What are the ratios of the numbers of these residents to the number of persons in Canada?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	1943, 46,631; 1953, 60,565.
2.	1943, 395.9 per 100,000 population; 1953, 410.4 per 100,000 population.

Questions


GOVERNMENT EGG PURCHASES
Mr. Hahn:: 1.	How many dozen eggs were purchased by the government to place in storage, during the years 1952, 1953 and 1954?
2.	What was the total cost of handling, phone calls, telegrams and meetings, in the procurement and holding of these eggs for each of the years indicated?
3.	In each of the above years, what was the (a) freight cost; (b) expense of regrading; (c) over-all gross cost of the eggs?
4.	What was the net loss or gain to the government in the handling of eggs for each of the above years?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Shell eggs were purchased in storage according to the specifications of the agricultural prices support board as follows: 1952 production, 1,345,980 dozen; 1953 production, nil; 1954 production, 4,953,768 dozen.
2,	3 and 4. (a) 1952 egg costs subdivide
as follows:
Egg purchase cost	 $548,854.65
Freight and cartage	 24,984.47
Telephones and telegraph ..	2,228.90
Storage following purchase	4,107.12
Other costs of handling ....	3,769.15
Gross cost	 583,944.29
Revenue from sales	 520,401.84
1952 net loss to the board .. $ 63,542.45
The trade was responsible for any regrading in both buying and selling operations.
(b)	No eggs purchased in 1953.
(c)	Accounts are not yet complete for 1954 shell eggs but all eggs not resold as shell eggs have now been processed into frozen egg melange by the board. Present estimates indicate that the total net loss may be about the $700,000 estimated by the Minister of Agriculture in his statement to the agricultural conference in December 1954.


FISH STICKS
Mr. Bell:: 1.	Do any concerns process fish sticks in Canada?
2.	If so, what concerns, and where?
3.	What has been the total production each month since January, 1954, of cooked and uncooked fish sticks in Canada?
4.	What has been the total export of cooked and uncooked fish sticks to the United States since January, 1954?
5.	How does the export tariff on fish sticks compare with the tariff on the other main fish products?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	Yes.
2.	There is no official record but it is known there is production by eight or nine firms.
3.	Information not available on monthly basis. Total production 1954-1,693,000 lbs. Production 1955 to February 28-836,181 lbs.
4.	Figure not available but quantity
insignificant.	[DOT]
5.	Presuming reference is to United States market, import tariff in that country makes it uneconomic to export fish sticks to that market.


R.C.M.P., NELSON, B.C.-AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Goode:: 1.	How many automobiles have been purchased for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Nelson, British Columbia, in 1954, 1955?
2.	Were these purchased subject to tender?
3.	If so, what firms tendered and what were the tender prices submitted to the government?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	1954, 6 automobiles; 1955, 3 automobiles.
2.	Yes.
3.	List of firms and net prices quoted after deduction of trade-in allowance on old car
are set forth below:-
Dealer	Net Price
(A)
Dafoe Service Ltd	$1,494.35
Beacon Motors	 1,663.21
Superior Motors	 1,740.83
Mel. Buerge Ltd	 1,746.08
Nelson Transfer Ltd	 1,831.79
Wiginton Motors	 1,884.85
Peebles Motors	 1,888.97
(B)
Wiginton Motors	 1,744.40
Nelson Transfer Ltd	1,810.79
Beacon Motors	 1,823.93
Peebles Motors	 1,820.25
Mel. Buerge Ltd	 1,897.18
Superior Motors	 1,963.77
(C)
Beacon Motors	 1,691.37
Peebles Motors	 1,762.20
Mel. Buerge Ltd	 1,847.13
Nelson Transfer Ltd	 1,881.79
Superior Motors	 1,943.16
Wiginton Motors	 2,066.85
(D)
Peebles Motors ..'	 1,986.90
Beacon Motors	 2,085.03
Wiginton Motors	 2,202.05
Nelson Transfer Ltd	 2,287.21
(E)
Beacon Motors	 1,724.78
Peebles Motors	 1,755.55
Wiginton Motors	 2,058.55
Nelson Transfer Ltd	2,143.44

Dealer	Net Price
(F)
Wiginton Motors	 1,705.07
Mel. Buerge Ltd	 1,732.12
Nelson Transfer Ltd	 1,774.36
Beacon Motors	 1,814.87
Note:-Quotation of Wiginton Motors later withdrawn as firm unable to
supply car.
(A)
Nelson Transfer Ltd	$ 973.10
Peebles Motors	 999.93
Wiginton Motors	 1,346.35
(B)
Nelson Transfer Ltd	 1,373.10
Peebles Motors	 1,346.43
Wiginton Motors	 1,646.35
(C)
Nelson Transfer Ltd	 1,673.10
Peebles Motors	 1,829.39
Wiginton Motors	 1,861.35
Note:-In cases of 1955 purchases listed above, no prices on Ford products were procurable owing to strike.


MENTAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Proudfool:: 1.	How many patients were admitted to Canadian mental institutions in 1943 and 1953?
2.	What are the ratios of the numbers of these admissions to the number of persons in Canada?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	1943, 10,946; 1953, 23,131.
The above includes first admissions and readmissions.
2.	1943, 92.9 per 100,000 population; 1953, 156.8 per 100,000 population.
The above includes first admissions and readmissions.


STATIONARY ENGINEERS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have arrangements yet been made for stationary engineers and firemen employed by the federal government to be put on the five-day 40-hour week?
2.	If not, will such arrangements be made soon?


Mr. Pinard:: 1 and 2.
Approval has been given to a five-day 40-hour week for stationary engineers and firemen and will become effective as soon as sufficient additional stationary engineers have been trained to meet departmental requirements.
Motion for Papers


INSTITUTIONAL COSTS PER PATIENT
Mr. Proudfooi:: 1.	What was the average per diem cost of caring for and treating patients in Canadian mental institutions in 1943 and 1953?
2.	What were the corresponding costs for patients in tuberculosis sanatoria and in public general hospitals, during each of these years?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	1943, $0.98; 1953, $2.70.
2.	Tuberculosis sanatoria (non-federal sanatoria only) 1943, $2.65; 1953, $6.25.
Public general hospitals: 1943, $4.08; 1952, $10.45; 1953, data not yet available.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the abbreviation and designation of "O.H.M.S." been discontinued on letters dispatched by any of the departments of the government and the designation "G" substituted in lieu thereof?
2.	If so, for what reason was the change made?
3.	Who authorized the change and what was the date of such authorization?


Roch Pinard: Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of all letters, memoranda, etc., in the possession of the Department of National Defence, which have been exchanged between the Auditor General or any official on his staff and the Department of National Defence or the minister or any official thereof, since January 1,	1950,
concerning irregularities in accounting and other procedures as referred to in appendix "B" of the Currie report.


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, without judging in any way the propriety of tabling the documents referred to in the motion, if there were any, I should like to say that a search of the files of my department has been made and that, so far as can be determined, there has never been any exchange of correspondence between the Auditor General or any official on his staff and the Department of National Defence or any official of the department concerning irregularities in accounting and other procedures as asked for in this motion with regard to appendix "B" of the Currie report. I would suggest that the motion be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
2528	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT



AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE BENEFIT RATES, ADJUST CONTRIBUTIONS, ETC.

Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend and consolidate the Unemployment Insurance Act and, inter alia,
(a)	to increase benefit rates, as well as to provide for certain changes in the duration of both regular and seasonal benefits;
(b)	to adjust the contributions, and to change contributions from a daily basis to a weekly earnings basis, and benefits from a daily to a weekly basis;
(c)	to provide a graduated scale of allowable earnings in place of present provisions related to casual earnings and non-compensable days and,
(d)	to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Minister of Public Works if the government proposes to introduce at this session any legislation with a view to extending the lending provisions of the National Housing Act to include older houses? If not, why did the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation advocate such policy yesterday in a speech in Toronto?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the general question is that these are matters of government policy which are always announced at the appropriate time and in the proper place. As to the remarks yesterday by the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as I understand it they were made in the course of a forum held in Toronto at the meeting of the national home builders association. I don't believe this was a text, and I did not hear the remarks. I saw only the report in the paper, and as the president is absent from Ottawa now 1 have not had an opportunity to discuss it with him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the minister says that announcements of such matters will be made in the proper place and at the proper time, does he mean they will be made in parliament by a minister of the crown?
[Mr. Speaker.)


Robert Henry Winters: I think it goes without saying this is the place in which legislative changes are made, and in the first instance my hon. friend referred in his question to changes in the legislation.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the late spring and its effect upon seasonal unemployment, will the government extend the deadline for unemployment insurance supplementary benefits beyond April 15?


Milton Fowler Gregg: A good deal of consideration has been given to that matter but the government has not decided to take the step referred to.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Will he advise the house if he is making any progress toward appointing a cabinet minister to represent the great industrial section of southern Ontario?


Mr. Weir:: You have no chance.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, whenever there are appointments to the cabinet they will be announced in the house immediately.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an article in this morning's Gazette concerning the report that a high government source has indicated that Canada may soon have to make a decision on conscription for northern defence? If so, has the minister any comment to make on the report?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National
Defence): I must thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I have seen

the article to which he refers, and I may say in reply to his question that there is no basis in fact for the assumption in the article to which he has referred.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Palleil (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Are any steps being taken to relocate the people who are being dismissed by the A. V. Roe company as a result of the order of the government to cut back production of the CF-100?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: The Minister of Defence Production follows the instructions of the Department of National Defence as to the requirements of that department. If any program of the type mentioned is initiated, it will be initiated by the Minister of Labour.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Has
the department any more recent plans for another type of plane which will replace this type of production?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Speaker. [Later:!


John Borden Hamilton: I do not want to be too persistent, but can the minister give us any idea if the new plans for another plane will have any effect in creating employment for the people who are being laid off, and how soon that will be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No lay-off has taken place. The A. V. Roe company has been given notice of a cut-back in the number of planes to be produced which will take place some time next summer, I think next September. The intention is to maintain as normal employment as we can until the new aircraft comes into production. That is the purpose of regulating the flow of aircraft from that plant. I do not know that I can give my hon. friend any more information.



REQUEST BY UNITED STATES REFINERIES FOR GREATER DELIVERIES FROM CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


William Gilbert Weir: Make it quick.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Carl Olof Nickle: In view of the minister's recent statement concerning the possibility of United States restriction on the importation of Canadian crude oil, could he now comment upon the fact that United States refineries in the Pacific northwest and great lakes areas-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Sinclair:: You made your speech yesterday.


Carl Olof Nickle: -have now formally requested-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Carl Olof Nickle: -from the Alberta conservation board-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
began his question by asking the minister if he could comment, and in order to find out what he has in mind we will have to hear on what he proposes the comment should be made.


Carl Olof Nickle: Would he comment on the fact that United States refineries in the Pacific northwest and great lakes areas of the United States have now formally requested from the Alberta conservation board delivery during the next month of even more Canadian crude oil than has been taken-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Carl Olof Nickle: -by United States refineries in recent months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is the victim of his own ambition. Could he not shorten his question and give less information?


Carl Olof Nickle: I think I have now asked the whole question provided the minister was able to hear the last few words over the interruptions that were being made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am quite satisfied to read the information my hon. friend has given me in his very well annotated bulletin, but I have not done so yet. If I have an opportunity to do so I will be glad to inquire into the matter.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. On March 16 I asked a question regarding Canadians abroad not being allowed to return to Canada as settlers. Has this

Supply-Public Works matter been brought to his attention? Many of our young men are going to be kept out.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No
one wants to keep out Canadians if they want to return to Canada, and what my hon. friend has said has been drawn to my attention.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

The Chairman:: When the committee rose previously we had reached resolution 601. Architectural branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public; buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amounts required-
601. Ottawa, $1,732,666.


Mr. Hodgson:: Mr. Chairman, this item is to complete payment for the expropriation of a property at the corner of Bay and Wellington streets, and for the acquisition of a former seminary building. The further amount required to complete payment for the seminary building is $1,576,666. I have been looking through the estimates, and while this item is to complete payment may I say I have always understood that the purpose of supplementary estimates was to tidy up odds and ends here and there. In June last year an amount of $2 million was voted of which $1 million was for practically the same item. Here we have an item of over $1,500,000 to tidy up things, and I do not see any reason why the government has brought in this item at this time as a supplementary estimate. I have newspaper clippings here to prove that the seminary building has been under the control of the government for some three years. I want to find out why this item was brought in as a supplementary estimate and not as an ordinary estimate in the regular routine of providing for government requirements. This matter is not new. It has been before parliament for some three or four years. It was a new building, and there is no doubt in the world that the mounted police certainly needed new quarters. They were spread all over the city of Ottawa and had no real home. Why this building has been purchased when, even during the time it was occupied under a rental basis, it was found to be inadequate for mounted police purposes,


I do not understand. Yet, the government has gone ahead with the purchase of this property.
In the Ottawa Journal of May 21, 1951, we find this:
New seminary being acquired by government.
The new seminary today was slated to become headquarters for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Some R.C.M.P. staffs in the city are reported getting ready to move into the building about August 1.
No official figure on the deal could be obtained. It was understood that final details still had to be ironed out between federal and diocesan authorities.
The seminary, just now nearing completion, cost almost $4 million. It is located in Overbrook.
The large building will provide badly needed space for the R.C.M.P.'s expansion program, which will see new laboratories and training facilities all gathered under one roof.
The R.C.M.P. now is spread over the city in the following locations:
Then there is a list of the locations given.
Then again on September 12, 1952, there was an article in the Ottawa Citizen headed "Seminary as Mounties' HQ". It reads as follows:
A sprawling building in Overbrook that was built as a seminary but never occupied will become the headquarters of Canada's federal police starting next month, it was learned today.
Millions of fingerprints, thousands of records-
And so on. There follows a list of things to be moved.
It will concentrate under one roof offices and divisions which have been scattered all over Ottawa. It will free about six floors of the justice building on Wellington street and smaller offices in a score of locations throughout the downtown area.
All R.C.M.P. divisions except "A" division, the local police detachment and the training division at Rockcliffe will move to the seminary. "A" division will move across from the Canadian Bank Note building into the justice building to occupy some of the space that will become vacant. The training division and the crime detection laboratory will stay at Rockcliffe barracks.
The move will rank with that of the dominion bureau of statistics in magnitude. It will take several weeks to complete owing to the mass of fingerprints and records that must be transferred. Divisions will be moved in sequence to their new offices.
Evidently the building was occupied on a rental basis at that time, in September of 1952.
In the Ottawa Journal of April, 1953, we find an article headed, "Fournier backs building policy". The article reads in part:
As to the seminary building, Mr. Fournier told the house that this new structure and an additional building which will cost $150,000 "is absolutely necessary for the efficient operation of their headquarters, and to take care of their normal expansion requirements." The smaller building to be put near the huge seminary will have 12,500 feet of floor space.
Evidently the new building was in process of being purchased, that is April 10, 1953.

In the Ottawa Citizen of November 16, 1953, some six months later, we find an article with this heading, "$10 million project; New R.C.M.P. buildings will be built here".
The subheadings are as follows, "Homes, offices for men"; "Have choice of two sites", and the article reads:
A new permanent R.C.M.P. headquarters and housing development is to be built in Ottawa within the next five years at a cost that may run well over $10 million, it was learned today. The force said in its annual report that it is making plans for construction of the new headquarters which will replace its temporary quarters in Overbrook-
This is the new building they are talking about here. The building was rented at that time.
The site has not been picked out, but it may be on land already owned by the government, either south of the Rideau river and not far from the projected Ottawa railway station when it is moved from its present centretown area, or east of the city on the proving ground site at Green's creek which has been mentioned as a possible site for the proposed national defence headquarters.
In any event, officials said, it would not be in or near the centre of the city, but would definitely be in a suburban location.
It will be larger than the present temporary headquarters building, running to around 260,000 square feet of space, and designed to accommodate all branches of the force, including stores which are still located in rented quarters in downtown Ottawa.
Adjoining the new headquarters will be a housing development for members of the force, and shops, stores and other subsidiary buildings.
The present temporary headquarters building was occupied by the force only a few months ago but already is inadequate. Halls and passages are used for filing cases and records and the building is not the most suitable because it was designed originally as a religious centre.
It is held by the Public Works Department on a five-year lease with an option for two more years if required.
"It is definitely hoped that the new headquarters will be ready when the lease runs out", a works department official said today.
That would mean that work would have to start on the new headquarters within two or three years. The site must be approved by the national capital planning committee and the federal district commission, as well as the Public Works Department and the force itself.
Preliminary plans have been submitted by the force to the Public Works Department, and there may be an appropriation in the estimates for the 1954-55 fiscal year to cover the cost of preparing detailed plans.
Once the site is picked, it is expected there will be few delays in proceeding with the plans and the letting of a contract.
That article was written on November 16, 1953, and the building still had not been purchased but was occupied on a rental basis. Even at that time the building was found to be inadequate for a mounted police headquarters. The government decided, after renting it for two or three years, to go ahead and purchase it. I should like to know why the government delayed so long in buying it. If it was suitable and large enough at the 50433-161i
Supply-Public Works
start, it is probably big enough now. The article in the newspapers says it is inadequate. Another question I should like answered is whether or not the rental paid has been applied on the purchase price. Will the Minister of Finance answer that when he has time? I should like to know also why some of this money has not been put in the regular estimates. Is it an attempt to slip it through with appropriations for other buildings in the Ottawa district? It looks as if this was something the government was trying to keep out of sight.
In June, 1954, there was an amount in the supplementary estimates of $1 million for this building, that is a year ago. On June 23, 1954, a question was asked by the hon. member for Kamloops concerning this building, and it appears at page 6575 of Hansard for June 23, 1954:


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a question or two about this item. I understood that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were acquiring a large building out here as a new headquarters at a cost of some $6 million.
The amount now mentioned is $6 million, but before that time an amount of $5 million had been mentioned. We would like to know what it is going to cost when the additional building is added. I continue the quotation:
I do not find it listed anywhere under acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, or under the administration item or anywhere else.


Mr. Garson:: I am afraid that I cannot assist my hon. friend in that regard. We are the occupants of it as the mounted police, but the purchase of it would be arranged through the Department of Public Works.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is different from the other
items in the minister's department.
That is another thing I want answered: why make any difference in connection with this building?
Then, on June 25, two days later, there was a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra which appears at page 6773 of Hansard. It reads as follows:


Mr. Green:: Why was it necessary to have this amount in the supplementary estimates? It is two-thirds of the total vote. The Department of Public Works is supposed to have the new look, and we understood that they had everything up to date.


Mr. Mcllraith:: They have.


Mr. Macdonnell:: We want evidence of it.
That is what we want, evidence of it.


Howard Charles Green: They are asking for an additional
$2 million for public buildings in Ottawa, in the supplementary estimates.
Why was not at least some of this amount put in the main estimates?


Mr. Bourget:: I am told that $1 million is for the seminary and $1 million for property on Wellington street which was expropriated last year.


Howard Charles Green: Why was not at least some of this amount indicated in the main estimates?
2532	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works


Maurice Bourget: I am told that at that time the
decision had not been taken. That is why it had to be brought in with the supplementary estimates.
They had this building. Evidently they knew they were going to buy it. But still the minister's representative said at that time:
I am told that at that time the decision had not been taken. That is why it had to be brought in with the supplementary estimates.
That was last year. Why has this been brought in with the supplementary estimates this year? Why was it not included in the regular estimates? It is about time that this government, in its business activities, would put them out in the open so that people could see them, and not try to mix them up with other buildings, with other moneys invested for the district commission of Ottawa. It looks as if this might be a hidden fixture. It is just another part of the government's secret activities in hiding the estimates that refer to the business done throughout the year.
I do not see why they did not put it through as an order in council. That is one way they have been hiding things for years. I know the official opposition is sick and tired of this kind of business, and I think the people of Canada are getting sick of it, too. I do not see why the Minister of Finance could not have included this in the regular estimates. I do not see why he has coupled it up with something else, and called it money for the district commission, or for Ottawa, or something else. Then it might appear that only $1 million was spent last year. Does this mean that it is costing $6 million, or does it mean that the original purchase price was $5 million? Why has there not been something in the regular estimates either last year or this year?


Mr. Mclvor:: Carried.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: No, it is not carried yet, and it will not be carried for a while. And I am surprised that the hon. member for Fort William is calling "carried" on an item of this kind that has been hidden for some three or four years. He is surely not the man who would stand up for that sort of principle.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I am paying close attention to the hon. member.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have the floor, and I am making the speech; and if you want to speak, you can speak afterwards.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Thank you.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I would be glad to hear what you have to say about it, if you are a minister of the gospel and a member of the House of Commons.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


An hon. Member:: Don't bring that into it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I will bring anything I like into it. I have the floor. And I would like to hear from some of you rubber stamps.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member should confine his remarks to item 601, which is under consideration.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Let the rubber stamps keep quiet, and I will finish my speech. I would like to know the total purchase price, and what it is estimated it will cost when completed. I would like to know why this has not been brought in, in the regular way, in the main estimates rather than leaving it to the supplementary estimates both last year and this year.
There is no doubt about it that, as I said before, the mounted police need new quarters. But I think I have proven that this building is inadequate for them. They needed a new building. Probably it will cost $10 million before we are through. We know that the Hon. Mr. Fournier, when minister of public works, brought in an estimate on one occasion for $140,000 for a building in the city of Ottawa, and before he was through it cost $600,000. So we want to know whether this is going to be the same set-up. This seems to be the way the government is doing business, and I think it is about time they got down to doing it in a straightforward and frank manner, so that the people would know what they are doing.


Mr. Lennard:: Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel at the moment over the price being paid for this building, but I would like to make reference to the manner in which it is being purchased. At page 3648 of Hansard for	April	9, 1953, the	hon. member	for
Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), in questioning the then minister of public works, Mr. Fournier, had this to say:
Is	there	any intention	to expropriate	the
seminary?
In reply the then minister said:
I	would	not give any	inkling as to	that.
Actually tor the space we	get in that building,
I think we are paying a little bit less than we do in the normal unit price over the city. I would not say yes or no. The government has not considered that. We needed space badly for the staff of the mounted police who had been asking for it since the war, and this was the only place that we could get rapidly. We have taken a lease on it for five years. As to the future intention of the government, the matter has not been considered, to my knowledge.
On May 22, 1954, I find this in the Ottawa Citizen:
The government Friday provided $1 million in supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year

toward acquisition of the Overbrook seminary building now occupied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters.
And on November 30, 1954, the following:
A new concentration of government buildings at Hurdmans Bridge was in prospect today with announcement that the purchase of the seminary there had been completed at a cost of $5 million, the purchase including 114 acres of land.
The seminary now is occupied by the R.C.M.P. as a headquarters and there is no proposal to move the Rockcliffe training establishment or the A division uptown offices from their existing locations . . .
The purchase of the building had been practically decided a year ago but the Public Works Department and the vendors decided to wait until November 1 to have the final arrangements made.
It is mentioned there that in the late spring of 1954, which was a year ago, the government had provided $1 million in the supplementary estimates for the purchase of this building. Then, in the estimates before us at the moment there is an amount of $1,576,666 as payment toward the purchase price of this building. On Friday evening the Minister of Finance stated that this was the final payment. What I wish to know is this: Are any of the payments made by way of rentals for this building included in the purchase price? Are they being applied against the purchase price?
One further question is this: Have any of these payments been estimated for in the regular estimates? If not, when were other requests brought down for the completion of the payments on this building? I must say I have been unable to find them in any of the estimates, other than these two amounts which total something more than $2,500,000.
Finally, let me say that I have no quarrel with the purchase of the building. At the moment I have no quarrel with the price being paid; but I think these payments have been made in an irregular fashion, and not according to the practice of the House of Commons.


Mr. Small:: 
Mr. Ferguson:: Would the Minister of Justice not save a lot of time-and time has already

Supply-Public Works been wasted-if he produced the facts regarding this transaction so that the members of parliament could get the information and transmit it to the public that this deal is open and aboveboard in every respect, instead of taking pot shots at various ministers and getting no definite information? Surely the pressure could be relieved and we could go on to other subjects if the facts were laid before parliament, where they should be given. Are we now to believe that during Mr. Fournier's regime as minister of public works, and the regime of the present Prime Minister when he was minister of justice, something happened and all of a sudden overnight it was realized that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ought to have a building that would cost millions of dollars? If that is so, then some person in charge of that department at that time was negligent in performing his duties. He should have been well aware of the requirements of the police and should have been preparing for them. He should have known that the department would require a building to house the police adequately. Apparently they had to jump in and buy a building which does not suit the requirements and nobody in this house can get any information about it.
Nobody in the country would ever think of purchasing a building under this method, a building that would be adequate to perform the services as efficiently as one which was designed for the purpose of housing the police. This deal should never be rammed down anybody's throat. We should not be told that we can buy a building already constructed that will meet all of the requirements of the police and enable them to function properly in that building. That is ridiculous. This building must have been purchased because of some unforeseen pressure that there was no other building suitable for the police. How ridiculous that is. Imagine any government or any private corporation functioning in that manner. This government is not prepared to cope with circumstances as they arise from time to time. The situation is that this government either does not know, or knowing, is not doing its job. If they know, then they are ignoring their duty. They suddenly realize that we must purchase this building for $5 million, $7 million, or $8 million. The amount is still unknown. The facts of the transaction are still unknown. If that is the way they are carrying on business, then the public should know what is going on. If we are to get the facts from the Minister of Finance, I would like to hear them. I do not think he can

give us the facts regarding this deal in the few minutes that he has at his disposal.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, out of politeness I have been waiting for all the questions from the other side to be asked at the one time. I did not expect, however, to sit here and be lectured by one who apparently did not pay any attention even to what the members of his own party were saying about the deal.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If I did not pay any attention to them, I know I will not get anything by paying attention to you. I will learn nothing from you.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree that the hon. member cannot learn anything from very many people.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You learn nothing; we all know you.


Walter Edward Harris: This transaction is a perfectly simple one.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You are too big for your shoes.


Walter Edward Harris: If hon. members had followed the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., they would have heard, I think, a strictly correct chronological statement of what happened, with one exception. This building was being constructed from 1948 on. About 1950 it was decided that the R.C.M.P. who, of course, had need of extra quarters for quite some time and not overnight, as my hon. friend seems to think, would have to be given extra and better quarters. The result was this building- and I am going to telescope for a moment- was rented for the purposes of the R.C.M.P. under negotiations which ran from 1951 and were concluded in 1952. It was not until 1953 that the owner of the property indicated that the property might be for sale. It was not until 1954 that the property was bought, and that is the simple explanation of the timing of the whole transaction.
That also explains why there was no item in the estimates that were prepared a year ago last fall. The explanation as to why it is not in the estimates for the coming year is that we put it in the supplementary estimates for this year to clean it up at this time. It is finished. I do not think there is anything hidden about that. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that this is the normal method of dealing with supplementaries.


Frank Exton Lennard: Will the minister permit a question? Will he fill in the gap between the first supplementary estimate and the last one?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I will come to that. At the time that the supplementary estimate was being discussed here last May or June-I think I heard a date of June 22 referred to but I cannot find a reference to it on that date-the first supplementary estimate of a year ago was a sum of money to be used to secure the transaction, if it could be negotiated. I think hon. members will agree, however, that at that point, without a firm agreement, it would not be likely that there would be any indication given in parliament as to what price we would be prepared to pay for the property. Negotiations for the property were continued throughout the summer last year and only completed by a treasury board minute in August of last year. From then on the next step and the only step to be taken is to put a further item in the final supplementaries for the current fiscal year and vote it, and that is what I am asking parliament to do at the moment.
I think I have given the committee the basis of the transaction, but I should like to comment on the price for a moment. 1 notice that the hon. member for Wentworth was not complaining about the purchase price, so I take it, but I notice that the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., and the hon. member for Sim-coe North thought that we ought to have spent $10 million on a new building instead of the $5 million we are spending on this one. I want to warn them that while I was not minister of finance-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Does the minister not think that it is sometimes better to spend $10 million and get $10 million worth than to spend $5 million and not get your value? That is what I said; that was the implication. Do not make statements that are misleading.


Walter Edward Harris: In every expenditure made by the government there is always the problem that if you spend $1 you might not possibly get the most you can hope to get, but if you spend $2 you are sure of getting it. That is a decision that has to be made every time something is purchased, particularly a large property of this kind.
I agree that if the Minister of Public Works were to build a building designed specifically for the R.C.M.P. it would be a better building from the standpoint of the police force; no question about that. The point is: is it worth another $5 million? That is the point, and I suggest that in this case-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Are you paying $5 million for this or $6 million? How much would the other building cost that would make it a $10 million building?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not familiar with the expenditure on any other building that is being built. I have not an estimate for this
Supply-Public Works and I do not know. I do know the purchase price for this building which is $5 million.


Frank Exton Lennard: I asked the minister to fill in the gap between the first $1 million in the supplementary estimates and this amount of $1,500,000. There is a difference of nearly $2,500,000 that has to be accounted for.


Walter Edward Harris: I thought my hon. friend was referring to the time rather than the money. In every public works vote for a province there is an item which can be used or transferred to permit the construction of buildings that can be completed in that one year when other items are not completed. We have transferred $2,500,000 from that fund toward the purchase price of this building. In doing so we saved interest on the purchase price and that is why it was transferred.


Frank Exton Lennard: In what year was that?


Walter Edward Harris: This would be in the normal estimates for the current year. No money was paid on this building until the calendar year 1954.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The minister has suggested a figure of $10 million for a properly designed building. I never suggested any figure whatever. I merely suggested and said that in my opinion the requirements of the police should have been known over a period of years.


Walter Edward Harris: They were.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Long before this building was purchased a concrete idea of their requirements or a near-concrete idea should have been formulated. Therefore the government should have inquired into the cost of a building, whether it be $1 million, $2 million, $5 million, $10 million or $20 million. That figure should have been arrived at as a comparison figure between the cost of building a building suitable for the requirements of the police and any other. They should have had that figure to compare with the price they paid for this building which the minister admits does not meet the requirements fully.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: But you agreed that if a building had been designed for the purposes of the police it probably would have been a better building.


Walter Edward Harris: For $10 million it certainly would have been.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Would you suggest that you might even have improved it for $5 million over the same figure?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not suggest that.

Supply-Public Works


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is it not possible, leaving out studding the building with diamonds, that it might have been better even at $5 million if it had been planned for the purpose? Your answer to that is simply yes. I am sure it would have been better at $5 million if properly planned. Is that right? You will not concede that.


Walter Edward Harris: Of course not. After considering this building and the use to which it could be put, we purchased it. We think it is a good building for the purpose. I quite agree that if we had hired an architect and told him to design a building for the R.C.M.P. he could have designed one which probably would have had more outside entrances, probably a back door for motor cars to come into the building and probably a larger mess hall for the sergeants. But we cannot afford these things in some cases.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The minister says "We cannot afford these things." This is one of the first instances I have ever known this government to say "We cannot afford these things."


Walter Edward Harris: You have heard it many times.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Since the government has lost the support of the Vancouver Sun they are probably getting down to earth and giving consideration to these things. They are afraid of the signs right across this country. The minister says that he has never had an estimate placed before him of the cost of a building adequate for the use of the police and then he says that we cannot afford these things. They cannot afford it even if it costs less than $5 million. That is a fine admission from the Minister of Finance of the Dominion of Canada.


John Borden Hamilton: I should like to refer specifically to the question of cost, and perhaps the minister would be good enough to help us. I understand from a previous question that the usable space of this building is 229,500 square feet, and a rental of $370,000 a year seems to be reasonable. However, the purchase price would appear to work out at about $22.50 a square foot. Could the minister indicate if this building is completely air-conditioned, does it have all these fine finishes such as terrazzo floors, does it have a modern type of heating and cooling system? Perhaps the minister could give us some information on that because this would seem to be an outside price. I understand that architects consider that they can provide the best type of accommodation with all these facilities I am speaking of for somewhere between $15 and $20 per square foot. As the hon. member for Simcoe North has said, there

must have been a few diamonds in it if you are going to be able to squeeze it up any higher than that.


Walter Edward Harris: I warn the hon. member that the average cost of these items he mentioned should not be applied to the city of Ottawa. If he confines himself to asking whether or not these costs are average for Ottawa we will be able to find the information for him. The practice has been for the Department of Public Works to obtain at least two valuations of a building before it is purchased and that practice was followed in this case. We obtained two valuations, one of $4,491,750 and the other $5,386,242, and the purchase price was $5 million. Both firms are well known for their competence in making valuations and I think it will be found that the building is well worth $5 million.
I quite agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North that if ten years ago we had gone to work on a plan we could have planned for a perfect R.C.M.P. building, but in 1954 we had to decide whether we should build a building for the R.C.M.P. We probably might have spent the $10 million that the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., mentioned. But the building would not have been ready for another three or four years. This building is ready. It has a value to that extent that we would not be able to be in a building that we built until three or four years from now.


John Borden Hamilton: Do I understand from the minister that building costs in this area are generally considerably higher than they would be, say, in cities of comparable size in the province of Ontario?


Walter Edward Harris: I have always understood that building costs in Ottawa were slightly higher.


John Borden Hamilton: That situation might be caused by the fact that the government was prepared and willing to pay slightly more.


Walter Edward Harris: I think it is caused by the terrain.


John Borden Hamilton: I understand that there was an option. I understand that this building could have continued to be rented under an option during this period when plans might have been drawn and a building quite acceptable to the R.C.M.P. could have been constructed. Is that right?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not quite understand.


John Borden Hamilton: There was an option to renew, at the same rental, the lease that was in existence covering the building?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. The lease was for five years with an option of renewing it for two years.


John Borden Hamilton: What I mean is this. Would that have been adequate time to construct a building according to plans and specifications which would have met R.C.M.P. requirements?


Walter Edward Harris: No; not from last year. We could not have had a building of this kind ready for three years from last year, with the building difficulties we have in Ottawa.


Mr. Low:: Is the building complete now?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. We have been in it for three years.


Solon Earl Low: I understand that you have been in it; but sometimes you go into these buildings when they are not completed. What I am anxious to know is whether this is the final, complete price of the whole business.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, as far as I know. I have been looking in this coming year's estimates and while I have not been able to run through all the items while we have been talking here, I do not see any. There may be additions such as garages and the like. But there is no substantial building going on, so far as I know. Certainly there is nothing here except completion of the purchase price of the main building.


Solon Earl Low: As to the two figures which the minister quoted as having been given by reputable firms as to the value, there is a difference of nearly $900,000. Was one estimate to be for sale and the other for purchase? That is a rather broad spread, it seems to me, in the valuations made by reputable firms on a building of a value of about $5 million.


Walter Edward Harris: I think there is not a difference of $900,000 in their valuations; there is a difference of about $400,000.


John Borden Hamilton: Not in the
figures the minister read out.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon. That is right. The difference is about $900,000.


Solon Earl Low: Does the minister not think that is a rather -broad spread in valuation on a $5 million building?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not in the business. These are two companies which have done a considerable amount of this work for us. I would suppose that nearly a million dollars in five is probably quite a considerable variation. At the same time I would not want to say that these people do not know what they are doing.
Supply-Public Works


Frank Exton Lennard: Some short time ago I understood the minister to say that about $2,500,000 of this amount was used from appropriations that had not been used by the Department of Public Works for some other building or buildings?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Frank Exton Lennard: What I want to know is this. Is it common practice for the Department of Public Works to use moneys that have been allocated to certain specific buildings; that is, instead of building those buildings, to use the money for some other building without those buildings ever appearing in the estimates at any time, and without their being mentioned by the government in any part of the picture?


Walter Edward Harris: No. That is not the practice. In fact, it would be contrary to the financial practice and to the Financial Administration Act. When parliament passed this first $1 million item last spring, parliament authorized the purchase of this building. Thereafter it was in order to allocate funds on hand to the purchase of that building.


Frank Exton Lennard: What funds?


Walter Edward Harris: The funds that were in the unused portion of the public works vote of last year.


Frank Exton Lennard: What were those votes from which that $2,500,000 was taken? What buildings were those votes specifically for?


Walter Edward Harris: The Ottawa grant is usually a lump sum which is set out, of course, in the original estimates. That is true of all the provinces. The money is gathered together and listed under provincial items; and you can transfer from any unspent money within a province, if you will.


Mr. Nowlan:: Will the minister tell me what that money was allocated for when it was voted by parliament a year ago? Parliament apparently was asked to vote X dollars for buildings in Ottawa. Did not the minister know for what buildings that money was to be allocated? If so, what buildings were dropped?


Walter Edward Harris: No buildings were dropped. I do not want hon. members to understand that the treasury board or the Department of Public Works arbitrarily decides, after a vote in the house, that building X will not be built but that building Y will be built. That is not what is done. If the progress of building X has not used up the amount of money which has been allocated to it, the unspent balance may be used to build the other building. That is what is done here.

Supply-Public Works


George Clyde Nowlan: We have heard a great deal about this mythical treasury board which scrutinizes so carefully every government expenditure. Treasury board apparently passed X dollars for the acquisition or the building of buildings in Ottawa. I want to know what particular building or buildings treasury board approved in this expenditure of X dollars which afterwards was diverted to the purchase of this building.


Walter Edward Harris: I perhaps misled my hon. friend. I did not suggest that there was any one particular building in Ottawa about which the item was underspent. I did say as to the province of Ontario that if your provincial sum is underspent, you can allocate within the province. When it comes before treasury board, it comes in the form of a recommendation that a sum-$2,500,000 in this case- might be used towards the purchase price of this building; and attached to it is a certificate that the moneys allocated for the province are sufficient to provide for this payment having in mind the progress of other various works.


Mr. Pearkes:: Can the minister say at what date that decision was made?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. A while ago I said August, 1954.


George Clyde Nowlan: August, 1954? That was after we voted the estimate.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to go over the dates again with the minister. I understood him to say that this seminary building was under construction from the year 1948 on. Is that correct?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Victoria, Ont., read from a press dispatch a statement that the building had cost under $4 million. Is that figure correct?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not that figure.


Howard Charles Green: I beg the minister's pardon?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not keep the clippings. I do not know whether that was in the press dispatch or not.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has no information as to what the building cost in the first place? Is that right?


Walter Edward Harris: We did not build it. I would not know what it cost.


Howard Charles Green: Then apparently in 1952 the government entered into a five-year lease of the building?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: At a rental of $370,000 a year or just a little bit over $1,000 a day. Is that correct?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Then for how long did the government pay this rental of $370,000 a
year?


Walter Edward Harris: My understanding is that the rental was paid down to the date of the purchase which was, as I say, last year and that the purchase price then bore interest from then on, and we would pay interest and not rental.


Howard Charles Green: Then it was not part of the agreement that the moneys paid by way of rental would apply on the purchase price?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Howard Charles Green: How much rent was paid altogether for the building?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not know whether that has been adjusted. Total payments for rental to March 10, 1954, were $449,166.62. I take it that was the day on which there was a firm offer made by the owner of the property.


Howard Charles Green: What date was that?


Walter Edward Harris: March 10, 1954.


Howard Charles Green: So that on March 10, 1954, the government made a firm offer to purchase the building.


Walter Edward Harris: No, they made a firm offer to us that they would sell.


Howard Charles Green: What was paid from that date in March, 1954, until the date the purchase went through?


Walter Edward Harris: Nothing was paid until after the $1 million vote was put through the house on the supplementary estimates early last summer. Since that time we have paid $3,500,000.


Howard Charles Green: Did I not understand the minister to say interest was paid from the time the building was offered for sale by the owner? Is that right?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: How much interest did the government pay?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry, I did not understand my hon. friend. The bill for interest will of course be adjusted when we complete final payment. We expect that will run to $56,666 at 5 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: First of all there was $449,000 odd paid for rent. Then there was $66,000-


Walter Edward Harris: It is $56,000.


Howard Charles Green: Then there is $56,000 for
interest.


Walter Edward Harris: Right.


Howard Charles Green: The minister said something about the building being offered for sale in March. At what price did the owners offer it?


Walter Edward Harris: Five million dollars.


Howard Charles Green: They offered it then at $5 million, and apparently in June of 1954 there was a vote of $1 million placed in the supplementary estimates. Is that correct?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: 
Walter Edward Harris: Right.


Howard Charles Green: -and applied it on this purchase.


Mr. Knowles:: Is it Ottawa or Ontario?


Walter Edward Harris: Ottawa.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us whether he is referring to vote No. 369 under the Department of Public Works, which was for $10,640,000?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The details of that vote are found at page 442 of last year's estimates, and they include roughly 20 different buildings in Ottawa, each of which has a figure placed opposite it. Apparently the government just picked $2J million out of that vote. Is that what happened?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Why was something not put either in the original estimate for last year or in the supplementary estimates which were dealt with in June-


Frank Exton Lennard: Or in the regular estimates this year.


Howard Charles Green: -or in the regular estimates for the fiscal year which starts the day after tomorrow, rather than taking $2J million, half the total cost of this building, from this vote for other buildings so that there was not the slightest possible chance of any member of parliament being able to trace that vote?


Walter Edward Harris: The answer is of course the one I have already made, that the time factor is involved. We did not have an offer from the owners that they would sell the property at the time these estimates were being prepared. My hon. friend would have been the first to suggest to the government we
Supply-Public Works should not put an item in the blue book for a building that we had no idea was for sale. The first occasion on which we could bring it before parliament was on the presentation of the first supplementaries to last year's estimates, namely, in late May or early June, because at that time we had an intimation from these people that they would sell at the given price. Far from there being any secrecy about the matter, we bring it to the attention of parliament at the earliest possible moment we can in the ordinary and everyday way. Parliament approved of the purchase by voting $1 million in last year's supplementaries. That is all. It could not have been done in any better way, if I may say so.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but at that time I think the house was not told what the total purchase price would be. I may be wrong.


Walter Edward Harris: I think you are perfectly right, but the reason is that the government had not in fact agreed to purchase the property at $5 million. At that time the offer was outstanding but had not been accepted and we were in the process of trying to negotiate the purchase price. Hon. members will understand that under those circumstances we would not want to be indicating what our view was about the value of the property. It is true that at a later time we did complete the purchase by agreeing to buy at the price of $5 million. We might have been able to get it for less, but as it turned out we did not.


Howard Charles Green: Why could the balance of the purchase price not have been included in the estimates for 1955? Then the house would have known exactly what the deal was. If this practice is followed by the government in other cases we have no possible way of checking these purchases. If buildings are going to be bought with moneys taken out of a vote covering 20 other buildings, how is it going to be possible for members of parliament to make an adequate check of these transactions?


Walter Edward Harris: I quite agree that this is the type of thing one should avoid if one can, not that there is anything wrong in it, but if you can have an orderly purchase of property through the public works branch for a 12-month period, well and good. However, I would think that hon. members would not suppose that we would close our minds and our thoughts to purchasing property in any period other than in September, October and November when the estimates are made up for a given year. When the item of $1 million was drawn to the attention of hon. members in the supplementary estimates last year they were asked to vote for the purchase of this

Supply-Public Works particular property. I agree that because of the fact negotiations were continuing it was not possible to disclose the purchase price, and I do not think the minister who presented the item to the committee did in fact do so.
As I say, the purchase price had not been negotiated so that to that extent hon. members might very well say that they voted $1 million thinking that the purchase price was going to be $2 million. I agree that is one criticism that can be directed at this particular item. On the other hand, hon. members are now being given the item with all the details of the purchase. If they feel that $5 million is not the proper price to be paid for the property they have precisely the same right as they would have had if the item had appeared in the blue book.


George Clyde Nowlan: Oh, no.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, yes. That is the situation. As I say, I would hope that we would not do this too often. I would hope that you could have orderly planning.


Howard Charles Green: How many times have you done it in the last year?


Walter Edward Harris: So far as I know, we have not done it at all. I would hope that it will not happen, but here it is. Nevertheless, there is no difference in virtue between a supplementary estimate authorizing the purchase of a building and an item in the main estimates. It does the same thing, as my hon. friend knows.


Howard Charles Green: Why would it not have been fairer to the house if the whole balance of the purchase price had been included in this supplementary estimate rather than picking up $2i million, half of the total price, from a vote covering other buildings?


Walter Edward Harris: 
Howard Charles Green: We were told last year by the Minister of Public Works that he had taken a broom and cleaned up his department; we were going to have a new deal in the Department of Public Works. They were only going

to call for money to be voted that they would spend, and yet in his own department apparently we have the one case where they picked up $2-5 million out of a vote which was supposed to cover other buildings and used that money rather than put it in the estimates and have it brought before parliament. Surely the Minister of Finance does not condone procedure of that kind.


Walter Edward Harris: I think we are disagreeing, Mr. Chairman, and I hesitate to say it again, on the timing. This is the only occasion on which we could vote this money. We could not have put it in the blue book until the transaction was completed and part of the purchase price paid. Even if you forget for a moment the $2 [DOT] 5 million, we have already paid $1 million, and the purchase is in fact authorized. We have an outstanding agreement of sale from last summer bearing interest at 5 per cent. The sooner the money is paid the more interest we will save. Surely, the only way to do it is to bring it forward into the supplementary estimates, get the money and pay it on the purchase price to complete the transaction.


Mr. Rowe:: Why did we vote the $1 million?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the $1 million probably could have been in the $3 [DOT] 5 million, but once again it is a case of voting enough to secure a contract and not enough to make the purchaser feel he is getting all he is asking.


William Earl Rowe: The purchase had not been made.


Walter Edward Harris: No, the purchase had not been made. We had an offer then from the owner of the property and we were engaged in negotiations which would lead to purchase. We had to have money to make a down payment if we got an agreement, and that is what, in fact, the $1 million was intended for.
If my hon. friend will forgive me, if we voted this in the main estimates for this coming year, we might not pass that item for some time to come. At any rate, it is not something for the future, it is something in the past; it is done. The arrangements have been made. This is just like every other item; it is to clean up existing obligations of the government of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Did the Minister of Finance know that the Department of Public Works had picked up $2-5 million to apply on the purchase price of this building by getting it from the moneys voted for other buildings?


Walter Edward Harris: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Finance was the chairman of a meeting of treasury board that authorized this manner of dealing with the subject.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Was the $2 million the net down payment?


Walter Edward Harris: No, the down payment was $1 million. We are speaking now of the $2-5 million.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I know you are.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Finance was a party to this transaction, then, of taking the $2 [DOT] 5 million from the other vote in public works and applying it on the purchase price of this building, without bringing the expenditure to parliament; is that correct?


Walter Edward Harris: I hope the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra does not think I am so simple as to fall into a trap like that.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is no trap; it is a fact.


Walter Edward Harris: The Minister of Finance
authorized the payment on the property which had already been purchased by agreement on which a payment of $1 million had been made as a down payment, consequent upon parliament having passed it. Now, without the item in the supplementary estimates of last May or June there would have been no subsequent payment because parliament had not authorized the purchase.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not seem to know anything about this $2-5 million last Friday night when we were asking about it.


Walter Edward Harris: As I said a moment ago, that was my fault. I had the figure in front of me and I did not read it out. I accept full responsibility for not explaining the method of financing this building until this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a further word regarding this $2-5 million. As I understand it, when parliament passed item 369 in the estimates for the year which ends tomorrow, it was under the usual provision that that money was to be spent as detailed in the back of the book, with the usual statutory provision that if any changes in those details were to be made they had to be submitted to and approved by the treasury board. The Minister of Finance now indicates that was done. I suggest that there must have been some pretty clear-cut report or recommendation laid before the treasury board. There must have been a formal minute which would indicate how it came about that out of a vote of $10,640,000, there was spare money to the tune of $2-5 million.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made a guess that was fairly accurate; he said there were about 20 buildings here and I count 21, so that is getting pretty close. They varied in amounts from $50,000 for the construction of a parking area north of Wellington Street to a vote of $2,400,000 for
Supply-Public Works a food and drug laboratory for the Department of National Health and Welfare. I believe that was built. As I look over these estimates, it seems to me that something was done on most of them. What I am trying to do now is set out what I believe to be the picture, and I believe I have stated it correctly. I am asking the minister to produce, if he cannot do it today he can table it in the house very soon, the minute of treasury board and the recommendations dealing with this matter so we will know just how it was that $2-5 million was saved out of this item. He should let us know the secret as to which of these items was not spent or was underspent. Surely the treasury board, of which the Minister of Finance was chairman at the time, did not pass this minute without knowing what it was doing. How about letting us know what was done? Will he table this minute of the treasury board?


Walter Edward Harris: I am glad to tell my hon. friend the date on which the treasury board changed the $2-5 million, and I can assure him now, and will give him any evidence he wants, that treasury board does not act on those things until there is a recommendation that, in fact, there is a deficiency in the vote and these moneys can be used for that purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to be obnoxious about this, but it does seem to me we have a right to see that minute of treasury board. In fact, it is pretty near to an order in council. I believe that it has the same status as an order in council. It is a little different from the ordinary order in council in that automatic publication is not required. Surely these matters are not secret. This makes me wonder how many other instances there may be where the details in the back of the book have been altered after the item has been voted by parliament, as laid down in the Financial Administration Act. I am ready to admit that is provided for by law. When we pass an item in the front of the book, the details at the back of the book are mainly for our information, but it is more than that. The money is to be spent as provided in the details, unless the government wants to make a change which it can do by application to the treasury board. Surely that application must include all the facts. Surely we are entitled to those facts.
The minister nods his head, but that is not recorded in Hansard. I ask again, can this minute be tabled?


Walter Edward Harris: Certainly.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I want to ask a couple of questions here. The minister

Supply-Public Works said the decision to buy this building was not made until a year ago. However, back in 1952 according to the public accounts some $203,000 was spent on repairs and alterations to that building. Now, were any other repairs and alterations besides that $203,000 made?


Walter Edward Harris: Did my hon. friend say $303,000?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I said $203,230.18.


Walter Edward Harris: My notes say that we spent $247,305.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This would be spent in 1952?


Walter Edward Harris: That is the grand total in repairs and alterations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Was any consideration given, in the final figure, on account of those payments, and these alterations?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, we took it into account in considering the valuation of the $5 million on the other building we are buying.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They never gave consideration in regard to the rentals.


George Randolph Pearkes: One of the most serious aspects of the situation seems to be that in June of last year we received assurances from the Minister of Public Works that in the future there was to be no inflation in his estimates. Yet, two months later, in this one item, they are able to collect 25 per cent of the amount authorized for expenditure in Ottawa. Surely there is a case in which there was very definite inflation of the estimates. Within two months of the passing of the estimates in the House of Commons he was able to collect $2,500,000.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say that. August, 1954, is the treasury board minute authorizing the purchase of the building. That was not the date on which the $2,500,000 was transferred.


George Randolph Pearkes: When was this money made available? The minister told me, if I heard him correctly, that it was made available in August of last year.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, but that was the date of the purchase agreement. Is the hon. member asking when the $2,500,000 was paid?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, when the $2,500,000 was paid.


Walter Edward Harris: Well, $1 million of it was paid, or authorized, on September 30, and $1,500,000 on February 11.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two separate treasury board minutes?
[Mr. Fraser (Peterborough) .1


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Is it not a fact that this $2,500,000 that was not spent on other buildings was used on this one so as to save interest?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: To save face.


William Earl Rowe: It does appear, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very irregular way of doing business.


Walter Edward Harris: Perfectly regular.


William Earl Rowe: It is irregular, despite what the hon. member for Fort William has said. I note that the minister says it is entirely regular. Well, if it is, it is strange that when the government asked us to vote $1 million they must have known what the situation was. Treasury board would not vote $1 million unless they knew what it was for.


Walter Edward Harris: Treasury board did not vote it; parliament voted it.


William Earl Rowe: But it was voted, and your intention was to buy the building.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: The intention was to buy the building at the time. Then, $1 million should not have been voted, unless $5 million was voted. It would not have cost any more, if these moneys had been voted in the regular fashion. Surely, when it is making a purchase, the government does not need to tell the seller that because a vote is passed in parliament the government has to use the total amount when making the purchase.


Walter Edward Harris: No, but what vendor would not pay any attention to the vote?


William Earl Rowe: As the hon. member for Simcoe North points out, at the rate the government spends money, sellers know that you do not need to pay out all that is voted. I know the minister has lived in a rural district and traded horses, and he will know that you do not-


Walter Edward Harris: I know my hon. friend trades them, and he never tells in advance what he is going to pay for an animal, so that that information gets to the ears of the man who is selling it.


William Earl Rowe: No, but I will say this to the minister, that nobody has ever charged me $1,000 more for a horse, merely because he thought that that meant I had $1,500 more in my pocket.
Nobody is going to sell anything to the government of Canada without knowing he is going to get paid for it. No salesman expects that the minister, spending upwards of $5

billion each year, is not going to have enough to pay for an item like this. If it was the intention, as it appears to have been, to pay that amount, then it should have been voted as $5 million. And if it required only $4,500,000 it would be easy to come back and say that in the vote of $5 million you had $500,000 more than you needed.
And so I think we should have the information asked for by the hon. member from Winnipeg. We should have the details. I am glad to hear the minister admit that it must be irregular, because it had not happened before. And I think he has given the intimation today that he does not intend to let it happen again. In any event we would hope that it would not happen again. While I am casting no reflection upon the integrity of any of the parties to the deal, and while I am not questioning the value-I am not arguing whether it is worth $5 million or $5,500,000 or $4,500,000 or $7 million; you may have got a bargain; we do not know about that- I certainly do feel that this is a very irregular procedure. It is unfair to the opposition, unfair to parliament and unfair to the taxpayers to make a deal in the way this one was made.
The minister seems to imply that it would have made some difference had the vendor known that a vote for $5 million had been passed. But surely that would not affect the price of the building. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich points out that you had $2,500,000 that you picked up from somewhere else. We do not know what other building that was dropped from, but we do know there was $2,500,000 from somewhere. If you had been aboveboard in stating what it was to be spent for it would not have cost any more. I think we should be told what other building suffered, if any did suffer. And if no other building suffered, then you voted $2,500,000 you should not have voted in the first place.
I do not think we should hold up the item indefinitely. It is a matter that can be regretted, and I think the government more or less admits that its procedure has been a bit irregular.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not said that.


William Earl Rowe: No, I know the minister has not. He says he is not going to be led into any trap, by admitting anything. Somebody says that it is not a trap, that it is a fact. Whether you admit it or not, the fact is that we say this was highly irregular.


George Harris Hees: In addition to tabling the minute of treasury board which, I understand, the minister has agreed to do, would he also table the lease agreement and the sale agreement, as well as the evaluation certificates?
Supply-Public Works


Walter Edward Harris: Before we go further, of course I have no objection to the tabling of all these papers in the normal way. I would not wish to undertake to do it myself, but I presume the Minister of Public Works, or whoever negotiated the transaction, would do it. I can give the details of the lease, and the bare fact that $5 million was the purchase price. I do not know of there being any arrangements other than that. If my hon. friend wants to have the papers, I would have no objection.
But I have one word to say about the treasury board item. I regret I shall have to inform the committee that it has not been the custom to table treasury board minutes. I was not aware of that a moment ago. I am prepared to answer any questions asked, but I gather that the tabling of treasury board minutes is not done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it because of custom that it is not done, or is it prohibited by law, or is this part of the veil of secrecy?


Walter Edward Harris: As hon. members know, treasury board is in fact a committee of cabinet, and the only results of cabinet meetings which are tabled are orders in council. Under those conditions I cannot table it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I must say I have seen such things tabled as minutes of treasury board. Now, whether there were various categories I do not know. If that cannot be done, will the minister answer a question if someone puts it on the order paper-I can think of someone who will-as to what happened to the details of this particular vote? Which of the items were spent in full, which were not spent at all, and which were spent in part? How did $2,500,000 come to be saved?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I shall get that information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That set of questions will be on the order paper shortly.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: On an item of $5 million we have two appraisers acting for this government and on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. There is a difference of $500,000.


William Earl Rowe: It is $900,000.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am taking the minister's word, although I do not believe it is very accurate. I am willing to take his word, but I have another figure of around $900,000.


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: If that is what he said my hearing is not any better than a lot of your statements. There is a difference of $900 million.


An hon. Member:: It is $900,000.

Supply-Public Works


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I got that from the Minister of Trade and Commerce; what's a million here or there? If the minister were doing business for himself or the Minister of Public Works were doing business for himself, if he were buying a piece of property for around $5 million and obtained two appraisals on the building in which there was a difference of $900 million-


Walter Edward Harris: It is not $900 million.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, $900,000. I would think the first thing he would do would be to say there is something radically wrong here. I am going to call in competent appraisers. Certainly one of these firms is crazy or has made a great error. But no, that is not the way this government does business. That is not a sufficiently large figure to stop them in their tracks from purchasing the building and seeking the correct value somewhere else. They say one firm says so and so and another firm says something else, and there is a difference of $900,000. What does that amount to? After all, the ministers are just human beings. Do not lose sight of the usual practice of human beings in transacting business, because any human being in the world in charge of a transaction of this magnitude would be struck dumb with a difference of $900,000 in the evaluations.
I am going to ask some friends of mine who are doing federal government contract work to give me a figure at which they would be glad to tender on a similar building, to give me a figure they would be glad to submit in this day and age when construction costs have risen above what they were when the government purchased the building. I believe we still might find, and I believe the government would be glad to know, that they should not be so foolish as to be stampeded into buying this building to provide the accommodation they need. They rush into it. They obtain two evaluations. There is a difference of $900,000 in the figures. They say they have to get this money; there has to be the utmost secrecy in the whole transaction, or the vendor will not sell us the most valuable piece of property in Canada. We will take a five-year lease with the vendor-how long was the lease? Was it five years?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. If my hon. friend is saying we had this property then he is quite wrong.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You needed the building and you leased it for five years.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That was not satisfactory. You had plenty of time to erect a building at proper costs before you closed this deal.


If you had done that you would not be guessing at where you stand today. The public of Canada would know where they were heading, and they would not be guessing at the course you have taken.


John Borden Hamilton: Apparently I am a little unusual, Mr. Chairman. I am still interested in the value of this building and the price paid for it. I notice that in the public accounts for 1953, volume I, at page V-8, it is indicated that 269,000 square feet of space were occupied in this building. I also notice that the minister indicated at page 2425 of Hansard that 229,500 square feet were occupied. Does this mean that the space leased was greater than the space purchased?


Walter Edward Harris: No. The simple explanation is that the larger figure is the gross area; the smaller figure is the net that is used.


John Borden Hamilton: These figures would indicate that in Ottawa the purchase price is high and the rental is fairly reasonable. In connection with the observations of the hon. member for Simcoe North, may I ask whether this figure was arrived at simply by an offer from the vendor, or was it simply a split the difference transaction between two evaluations, or how was the figure of $5 million arrived at?


Walter Edward Harris: The $5 million was arrived at by the usual process of having evaluations and having the department itself come to the conclusion that the purchase price was fair, after all the investigation of the building as to its value, as to its usefulness to the government, and so on.


John Borden Hamilton: In connection with the evaluation, I think the minister said that he had no access to the cost of this building. I think he indicated that by nodding his head.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not understand what the hon. member is saying now.


John Borden Hamilton: The minister had no indication of the actual building costs, because he did not put up the building.


Walter Edward Harris: No, I did not say that. I said I did not have them. I presume the Department of Public Works has them.


John Borden Hamilton: Did the government have an indication of the actual amount spent by the vendor to put up the building?


Walter Edward Harris: I would doubt very much whether the vendor of a building would disclose to a would-be purchaser the cost of that building.


John Borden Hamilton: That may be true, but in connection with the closing of this transaction I assume the minister had a statement of adjustments of some kind.


Walter Edward Harris: Not until we get this money to close the deal.


John Borden Hamilton: It is still not closed?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


John Borden Hamilton: Has there been any indication to the government that there are any arrears on mortgages on the property, or of liens filed against the property.


Walter Edward Harris: Not that I know of.


John Borden Hamilton: Has there been any indication that the vendor has taken care of the outside purchase price and has paid all bills?


Walter Edward Harris: If he has not they will be deducted on the completion of the transaction, in the usual legal way.


John Borden Hamilton: That may be so;
but his reasons for selling or the price he might have to get may have some bearing on that.


Mr. Brooks:: The minister has told us there were two appraisal firms and there was a difference of $900,000 in their evaluations. Can the minister give us the names of the two appraisal firms and the evaluation set by each, and also when they were given?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not the dates. The appraisers were E. S. Sherwood of Ottawa and J. E. Pitt of Montreal. The Sherwood appraisal was $4,491,750 and the Pitt appraisal, the higher one, was $5,386,242.


Frank Exton Lennard: Can the minister say whether the government put a heating system in this building, and if so, what was the cost?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not aware of the government putting in a heating system.


Frank Exton Lennard: I understood they did.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister tell the committee the fees paid to these two firms that appraised the building?


Walter Edward Harris: No, but I shall get that for the hon. member.


Mr. Montgomery:: I have a question on item 369 out of which I understood the minister said the $2,500,000 was taken to complete the purchase price. In this item there is $150,000 for improved accommodation for the R.C.M.P. at the seminary building. Was that $150,000 spent in addition to the $2,500,000?
Supply-Public Works


Walter Edward Harris: The $150,000 is what I gave a moment ago, and then there is $247,000 for additions and repairs.


Howard Charles Green: What money has been spent on the upkeep of the grounds, landscaping and work of that kind? This property comprises some 113 acres.


Walter Edward Harris: We have no property yet; we have not spent any money except the amount of $247,000 I have given.


Howard Charles Green: Is there anything in the estimates for the next fiscal year covering an expenditure of that kind or of any other kind in connection with this building?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall let my hon. friend know in a minute.


Frank Exton Lennard: I think this is a case where the Minister of Public Works could well have been here this afternoon, on an important item like this.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister to say that what one might call the cost over and above the purchase price of $5 million, or rather the expenditure by the government over and above the $5 million, amounted to approximately $449,000 paid as rent, $56,000 paid as interest, $247,000 for alterations, and then there was a vote of $150,000 to which the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) referred and which was covered by vote No. 369 of last year, which was described by Hon. Mr. Fournier as being absolutely necessary for the efficient operation of the headquarters and to take care of normal expansion requirements. That adds up to about $900,000 over and above the purchase price. Am I right in saying that is what it cost the government in addition to the purchase price? Are there any other expenditures in connection with the building which have not been taken into account in the discussion today?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the $150,000 referred to by the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., is part of the total expenditure of $247,000 which I gave. To answer my hon. friend, the expected cost of valuations, surveyor fees and legal fees is $20,000.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister tabling the lease and the sale agreement?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I will do that.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I think we should tidy this up a little bit before we finish. The purchase price was $5 million and now we have added to that nearly $900,000.


An hon. Member:: No.

Supply-Public Works


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Half a million for rent, a quarter of a million for something else; $150,000 for repairs. That is $900,000 according to my figures, although it may be up or down $2. That brings it pretty close to the $6 million mark. This big building is not adequate for the mounted police requirements, is that not right?


Walter Edward Harris: It is very suitable.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In 1953 when they moved in it was said that this was not big enough or was not adequate. Even yet all the mounted police and their equipment are not out there. You are still renting space in the city of Ottawa. Are you going to build more buildings out there?


Walter Edward Harris: We have 988 people in the building. Should it be necessary to provide for another 1,000 people some day no doubt we will do so.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You are still paying rentals in the city of Ottawa for the R.C.M.P.?


Walter Edward Harris: There is hardly a department of government which is not located in three or four different buildings in Ottawa. We have never been able to find money to provide separate buildings for all departments and I do not suppose we ever shall, except in the case of veterans affairs and their new building. It seems to be the lot of the civil service and the government to have departments divided up all the time.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: In November, 1953, the
Department of Public Works had this to say:
It will be larger than the present temporary headquarters building, running to around 260,000 square feet of space, and designed to accommodate all branches of the force, including stores, which are still located in rented quarters in downtown Ottawa.
Adjoining the new headquarters will be a housing development for members of the force, and shops, stores and other subsidiary buildings.
The present temporary headquarters building was occupied by the force only a few months ago but already is inadequate. Halls and passages are used for filing cases and records and the building is not the most suitable . . .
What has the minister to say to that?


Walter Edward Harris: As I said before, personally I am happy that we are spending $5 million, or $6 million if you like, rather than building a new building. I think these quarters are much better than the quarters the police had before and I think they will do for some time to come. The time will come, no doubt, when it will get so crowded that we will have to find another building, but I do not suppose I shall be around at that time.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: This building is' not adequate now.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not admit that. This
building is doing the work for practically all the R.C.M.P. except for some storage space for goods of one kind and another in downtown Ottawa. There is no reason in the world why that storage space should not be downtown instead of out at this particular building. Perhaps it would be more convenient if it were out there, but once again there is a great deal of inconvenience in these things and one has to put up with it. I doubt very much if we will be able to build a special building for the R.C.M.P. for some time to come.


William Earl Rowe: Is it the intention of the department to use the 100 acres of extra land purchased with this building for a housing project or for future additions, or is it the intention of the department to dispose of this land, which might reduce the cost?


Walter Edward Harris: No. The moneys which my hon. friend was referring to were in connection with a new building project.


William Earl Rowe: It did not go with this building? I thought it went with this building.


Walter Edward Harris: We bought 113 acres with the building, but the money the hon. member referred to, to build a new building and a housing development in connection with it, was not this project.


William Earl Rowe: What are you going to do with the land?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That was in your estimate of $10 million.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not an estimate of $10 million.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The other day the public works department estimated $10 million for the over-all picture. You still have buildings rented downtown and will have for years to come. This building is not adequate. There is no force or organization in Canada that needs proper attention and care and proper housing more than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think it is a mistake for the government to go ahead and buy a building which is not adequate for the force. The R.C.M.P. are going to be increasing by leaps and bounds because province after province is doing away with its provincial police and turning things over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
This is just like building a post office which is too small in the beginning. You are not planning for the future at all. In future years we may have an estimate for the construction of another building alongside this one, and the result will be a mixed up, jumbled affair. I suppose we will have to

follow the late Mr. Mackenzie King's policy and wait and see what is going to happen. The fact is that this building is inadequate, and the minister knows it.


Frank Exton Lennard: I might say it was not adequate at the time, because Hon. Mr. Fournier, the then minister of public works, stated in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that they were going to construct an additional building to cost $150,000. Mr. Fournier at that time said this:


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Even at that, when they moved out of the justice building and went over there, they still found that they did not have sufficient space. They made this request to the Department of Public Works to furnish them with another 12,500 feet. So this building, I am told, will not be of a permanent character as are the buildings you have on Wellington street, like the veterans' building or the justice building. It will be to complete the space that they need for their operations.
At that time the space was not adequate. They asked for an additional 12,500 feet, and that was several years ago, in 1953, when they were merely renting the property. I imagine that today they are still cramped.


Walter Edward Harris: As I say, we have spent $247,000 in making the building more adaptable to their needs. But I can assure hon. members that at this moment I know of no request from the R.C.M.P. for a new building of that nature.


George Randolph Pearkes: Earlier this afternoon the minister referred to garages. Are there garages on this property?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: There are garages constructed?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Adequate in number?


Walter Edward Harris: I am told so.


Robert Hardy Small: What part of the establishment is housed at Rockcliffe? Is there not part of the establishment out at Rockcliffe yet?


Walter Edward Harris: There will be establishments of a small nature, of course, here and there in order to be located closer to the work they are dealing with. But this is the headquarters of the R.C.M.P.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since the last time I was on my feet I have managed to draft the questions that I suggested I would put on the order paper, and they will appear in print tomorrow. In the meantime it seems to me that this whole question has raised an issue even more important than the particular item of expenditure we have been discussing.
Supply-Public Works
It has been clearly brought out that there was this amount of $2,500,000 which was paid by saving it out of item 369 of the estimates of 1954-55. The minister at first seemed to think I had made a reasonable request when I asked for the tabling of the minutes of treasury board making that alteration. He now tells me, or rather he told me later, that it is not the custom to table such minutes.
I have been looking through the Financial Administration Act to see if I can find any authority for withholding such minutes, and I have been unable to find any such authority. It might be there, but as yet it has escaped my notice, at any rate. However, in the Financial Administration Act there is section 29, which is pertinent to this discussion. It comes under part III of the act which is headed "Public Disbursements". After all, this is a fairly important activity of government over which there is laid down strict parliamentary control. Section 29 reads as follows:
At the commencement of each fiscal year or at such other times as the treasury board may direct, the deputy head or other officer charged with the administration of a service for which there is an appropriation by parliament or an item included in estimates then before the House of Commons shall prepare and submit to the treasury board through the comptroller a division of such appropriation or item into allotments in the form detailed in the estimates submitted to parliament for such appropriation or item-
It is quite clear that the deputy minister is required to submit to treasury board the details of an item in the form in which they are set out in the back of the book. In other words we rely on it when we pass an item, that the intention is to spend it as set out in the back of the book. The section continues: -or in such other form as the board may prescribe, and when approved by the board the allotments shall not be varied or amended without the approval of the board, and the expenditures charged to the appropriation shall be limited to the amounts of such allotments.
I think I was perfectly fair in my previous statement when I recognized the fact that the department has the right, under the statute, to request a variation in the details. But that variation cannot be made unless it is approved by the treasury board. But I submit that two-thirds of this blue book of estimates becomes a mockery if these details can be altered time and again without our being able to get the minutes of treasury board which indicate such changes as have been made.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this matter now goes a great deal further than the question of this particular expenditure now before us. As I indicated a moment ago, I have taken the minister's suggestion and have submitted order paper questions which I trust will get the information we want with respect

Supply-Public Works to this particular item. But I ask the minister to consider further the seriousness of his statement that it is not the custom to table these minutes.
I am the last one to suggest that every last minute of treasury board or every last little order in council or regulation that is passed should be tabled. The table would not hold them. Everyone knows that there is a great deal of detail that is routine and administrative, about which we do not need to be concerned. It may also be true that there may be alterations in details of expenditures which are minor and about which we do not need to be unduly exercised. But surely we should have the right at any time to have brought down before the House of Commons a minute of treasury board altering any of the details that are set out in the back of the book of estimates.
I give as my authority for that submission section 29 of the Financial Administration Act, to which I have just referred. I realize that perhaps the minister is not now in a position to look up the authorities to find out why this custom has been as it is, but I seriously ask him to review the statement he made to me a few minutes ago.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall do so, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be prepared to discuss the matter on my own estimates.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have one more question, Mr. Chairman, and then I am through. The government purchased 114 acres in this property out there. Will the minister say what they are going to do with all this land? Is it going to be space for officials and officers of the R.C.M.P.?


Walter Edward Harris: The present intention is not to sell the land but to retain it as part of the federal district authority. If, however, additions to this building should be needed from time to time in order to house additional staff, if that can be done effectively and efficiently, it will be done; and we shall continue to have this as a good headquarters for the R.C.M.P.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The minister says this land is to be retained as part of the federal district commission over-all picture. Is that his own opinion or is it according to the planning of the commission? Are we to believe that from now on if we purchase a building or make some deal with regard to a building with 100 acres attached, whether it is in accordance or in keeping with the general over-all plan, if there is around there a 100-acre area more or less that cost $2,500,000, we will just keep it too? Does the minister know for a positive

fact that it is part of the plan to retain that property? He spoke with authority.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the great difficulty one always has when dealing with vacant land which is expensive is this. If you dispose of it, in a few years you may regret it because you will need it for other purposes. If you dispose of it you can no longer have a certain amount of park land in a heavily populated city. In this particular case, holding the land has two virtues. The first is that some day we may feel that we have to add to this building, and add to it substantially. We may also have to erect other buildings as they are needed, if we have room on this ground. In the meantime it is desirable to hold it as part of the long-term buildup of the federal district area and it will be suitable, during the period of time that is desirable. Ultimately it would no doubt be used as commercial property, either by government or otherwise.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: From the point of view of ordinary common-sense business methods, does the minister not hope for the sake of the taxpayers of Canada that there will not be many more such purchases involving an excess amount of land, certainly to the extent of 80 acres? If the government purchased 100 similar properties with the same amount of land would the minister still think it would be advisable to retain the extra 80 acres whether or not the government knew what it was going to do with it, and pay out the taxpayers' money in that way? Does the minister sincerely believe the statement he has just made, that they are going to hold the land because they are not sure what they are going to do with it and, although it has been purchased with the taxpayers' money, they are going to hold it because they may want to use it for a building or as park land? It may be required for a polo park.
We have purchased it, and the minister says when we did so we intended to get a building large enough to accommodate the mounted police adequately. That was the reason the building was purchased. It was not a venture on which money might be made or lost as holders of land on behalf of the taxpayers. The purpose was purely and simply to purchase a building because there was dire necessity for it to house the mounted police. We have done that. Now the minister comes along and says they are going to keep the land because it may be needed for a park or for expansion. We do not know what it will be used for. But that is what we are spending the taxpayers' money on, and it is a most improbable proposition when we do not know definitely what is going to be done with it.

We are putting the taxpayers of Canada into the real estate business. That is what we are doing.


Mr. Trainor:: Would the minister say a building could not have been designed specifically for the needs of the mounted police and constructed for $6 million or less on an adequate amount of ground?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not a builder and I could not say that. What I have said is that both on the basis of the valuations received and on the basis of the judgment of the Department of Public Works, who are charged with the responsibility of making the decision for the government of Canada, it was thought that this building at $5 million and the additions that have been made to it would be suitable for the purpose. It was also decided, as I have already indicated, that it was preferable to buy the building at that time rather than design and wait for the completion of a building which might cost more. As a matter of fact I still rely on the hon. member for Victoria, Ont., who has quoted from a document indicating that such a building would cost $10 million.


Owen C. Trainor: Does the minister not think it would have been desirable to have the Department of Public Works look into the question and find out if it would have been possible to design a building specifically for the needs of the mounted police, rather than put the mounted police in a building which admittedly is not altogether suitable for their needs, and that could have been improved upon if a building had been designed specifically for the purpose?


Walter Edward Harris: I have said before that the
ideal would be to design a building for a particular purpose every time, but we cannot achieve the idea. We try to get something less than that and get value for our money. I suggest to the committee that that will always be the viewpoint. Certainly in this case it was. I am quite prepared to agree with my hon. friend that a building for the R.C.M.P. could have been designed which would not have been the same as this building. There is no question about that. But, as I say, the people we have on our payroll who are charged with the responsibility of making such decisions decided that this building was suitable and valuable at that price. If they are not acting wisely and giving proper advice to the government in the discharge of their duties I would listen to a suggestion from my hon. friend that we might dispense with their services, but I have faith that these people do not make these decisions without careful consideration.
Supply-Public Works


Owen C. Trainor: But the minister admits he did not get an alternative price. He did not find out how much it would cost to design and construct a building specifically for the purpose of the mounted police. He did not explore the alternative. He took the recommendation of the valuators that this building would probably do and that the mounted police could get along with it, but he did not explore the possibility of securing for the mounted police exactly what they required and finding out how much that would cost.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Mr. Chairman, I was all
through but the minister has tried to put words in my mouth. He said that I said a building costing $10 million was required. I do not know whether those were his exact words, but may I say that so far as I am concerned there is nothing too good for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Their numbers are increasing all the time, and we certainly need them. However, when I referred to the figure of $10 million I said for that amount you could have a much better building than the present one and could also construct a housing project for all the officers and officials who go with the mounted police.
This may not be a bad deal. I do not know, and I am not prepared to say. It may be a good deal, but you have not an adequate building for the mounted police. There was plenty of time to build a new building after this one was rented, if the department had seen fit to do so.
I do not like the minister to say that I suggested a building costing $10 million. I do not suggest that the government should spend a dollar more than it has to, but when you are constructing a building and spending money it may be better to look ahead a little and spend $10 million now for a suitable building. You will need the 114 acres; don't worry about that. 1 would gamble money- I will spend the odd dollar that way any time-that within four or five years you will decide you have made a bad deal because you will have to construct another building costing $5 million before adequate accommodation is provided for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. Vincent:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


George Clyde Nowlan: You do not have to answer questions.


Auguste Vincent: Has he ever seen the building?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes, I have seen the building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

[Stage Direction]
Railway and steamship services-
614. Canadian National Railways deficit, 1954- amount required to provide tor the payment during the fiscal year 1954-55, to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1954, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the national company from the consolidated revenue fund, $28,758,098.
Howard Charles Green: This is the item covering the Canadian National Railways deficit for 1954. I understand it has been considered in the sessional committee on government-owned railways and shipping, and we have no further questions to ask.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
621. Departmental administration-further amount required, $39,738.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the minister what this amount is for. In the details on page 25 there is reference to office stationery, supplies and equipment. Is that for the new veterans affairs building in Ottawa or is it for supplies throughout the country?


Walter Edward Harris: It is for microfilm cameras and Recordak cameras and things of that nature at headquarters, for the card index system.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In the new building.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans allowances and other benefits-
623. Assistance fund (war veterans allowances) -further amount required, $50,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice this is quite an increase in the assistance fund. Is it on account of more applications by veterans for such assistance?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The number is increasing all the time?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
626.	To provide, subject to regulations of the treasury board, for working capital advances in the current and subsequent fiscal years to posts and employees on posting abroad, and to authorize the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be charged such advances and to which shall be credited ex-
(Mr. Hodgson.l
penditures made by and advances recovered from the said posts and employees, the excess of the amounts charged over the amounts credited to the account at any time not to exceed $230,000.
Mr. Mitchell (London):: There are one or
two observations I should like to make and one or two questions I should like to ask. The minister has said this afternoon that the function of these further supplementary estimates is to catch up during the course of the fiscal year on payments which it was found necessary to make over and above those provided in the main estimates for specific items. Here we find that he is providing funds both for current advances and subsequent advances. This in fact, I submit, represents a change of policy, and the time for changes of policy to be considered is when the main estimates are before us, not when we are considering supplementary or further supplementary estimates. I suggest to the minister that this item should not be appearing in these further supplementary estimates at all, but should be appearing in the estimates for the coming fiscal year.
My second observation is that it also covers subsequent fiscal years, and that is worse. That figure should, ih fact, also appear in the estimates for 1955-56. I would be glad if the minister would advise the committee as to the reasons for this change in policy being made in this manner.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree partially with what my hon. friend has said, Mr. Chairman. However, my remarks as to the purpose of the final supplementary estimates were not to be taken as an exclusive definition of every item that could appear. As he knows quite well, we cannot let the treasury board and its officials cease to work when the blue book is brought out. In this particular case, and I confess it without any difficulty, it was not decided upon at the time the main estimates were certified by me in late December.
Subsequent to that time it was decided to carry a revolving fund of this kind for the immigration people. Now then, there is a choice, either to put it in here when it should get dealt with at the earliest possible moment, or leave it until next year when it would appear in the main estimates. There seems to be no particular point in waiting. This is a principle which has already been approved by parliament. We have these revolving funds for persons who are far away from Ottawa and who need money for the purposes set out in the fund. We do it in external affairs, for example, and for that reason we are asking that we may be permitted to do it with respect to immigration personnel.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Do 1 understand that this policy was decided upon subsequent to the time the blue book for the coming year was printed?


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Robert Weld Mitchell: Then may I ask the
minister how much of that $230,000 has been spent in the current fiscal year?


Walter Edward Harris: I could not give that, Mr. Chairman. This money is spent by the various officers abroad and then reimbursed by the government. I could get the figures for the total disbursed up to any given date my friend wants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Loans, investments and advances-
627.	To provide for advances to the government of Nova Scotia (not to exceed $42,084) and to the government of Prince Edward Island (not to exceed $74,257) in accordance with the terms of agreements to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, by the government of Canada with each of the said governments; the advances to be seventy-five per cent of the loans made by each of the said governments for the purpose of replacing abnormal losses of equipment suffered by reason of severe weather conditions during the period February 1 to July 1. 1953, $116,341.
George Clyde Nowlan: In connection with this item my argument somewhat follows the lines suggested by the hon. member for London. Certainly I am very happy to see this item in here. I think it should have been provided long ago. Nevertheless, I am somewhat intrigued by the particulars given for this item. This is a payment in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be entered into, and that suggests some future arrangement. At least when these supplementary estimates were printed-I am not sure what the situation may be today-apparently the agreement had not yet been executed. Will the Minister of Finance say if that is the situation? Has the agreement been executed? If not, does he think, as Minister of Finance and as a matter of principle, it is advisable to include in the supplementary estimates for a year which is to conclude tomorrow an item which apparently will not be paid until the financial year which begins the day after tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman; this government is so very careful about its conduct of affairs that the Minister of Fisheries is not going to sign the agreement until parliament has authorized him to spend the money.


George Clyde Nowlan: Then we are legislating here by supplementary estimates for an expenditure which has not yet been made in this fiscal year?


Walter Edward Harris: No, no.
Supply-Fisheries


George Clyde Nowlan: Is it not the basis of the supplementary estimates that they are to provide for moneys which were spent or were overspent for purposes authorized by parliament?


Walter Edward Harris: No, that is not the sole reason. It is the principal reason, as I indicated before. But as I think my hon. friend knows, we have a 13-month accounting year, and these moneys could be paid out during the next month.


Mr. Stick:: I notice that this proposed agreement applies to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Is there any contemplated agreement with Newfoundland in this regard?


Walter Edward Harris: No, this vote arises as a result of a severe storm in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia two or three years ago. Its purpose is to carry out an arrangement which was tentatively made with the provinces at that time to grant money to the lobster fishermen to repair their nets.


Solon Earl Low: I was going to ask the minister if this vote does not provide for loans to the provinces, and I was going to ask him the terms of the agreement with respect to the rate of interest and the length of time for repayment.


Walter Edward Harris: There is no interest, Mr. Chairman. This is not a loan to the provinces, but is a loan to the lobster fishermen who lost their gear. It was understood between the province and the federal government that loans would be made to the fishermen to replace their gear, and that we would advance 75 per cent of the amount required and the province would advance the remainder of the loan, which would be interest free.


Solon Earl Low: Interest free, and over what period of time?


James Sinclair: Three years.


George Clyde Nowlan: Have these loans been made already?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, by the provinces, and this is authority to reimburse the provinces.


George Clyde Nowlan: Why the delay in having the agreement executed? This damage occurred between February and July, 1953, about two years ago. Has the delay been due to the government at Ottawa or to the government at Halifax, in not getting the agreement signed?


Walter Edward Harris: There has been no delay. These advances have been made and are now audited. A specified amount is ready to be paid. All the money is now accounted for in the sense that we know precisely the share we have to pay, and that has caused the delay. There has been no delay in advancing the money to the fishermen.
2552	HOUSE OF
Supply-Northern Affairs Mr. Nowlan: There has been a delay in negotiating the agreement, because it has not been signed yet.


Walter Edward Harris: This was one occasion on which we did not want to make the agreement until we had authority from parliament to do so.


George Clyde Nowlan: There is no authority yet?


Walter Edward Harris: No, but I hope you will vote it.


George Clyde Nowlan: The agreement has been signed by the provinces, signed by Nova Scotia, but not by Ottawa?


Walter Edward Harris: The agreement has not been signed but will be when this vote is put through and the money is available.


George Clyde Nowlan: You have just told us that the agreement has not been signed, yet you are voting moneys under it?


Walter Edward Harris: No, that is not what you are told. You are told we have waited to bring this forward until we knew the precise amount that we have to reimburse the provinces. In the meantime they have made the loans to the fishermen and they are now billing us for our share.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Loans, investments and advances-
628.	To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purposes of acquiring, managing and manufacturing materials used in industrial work done for: (a) government departments, and (b) [penitentiaries including the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries: the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $300,000.
Robert Weld Mitchell: The remarks I made with respect to item 626 also apply to this item. I wonder if the minister could give us some further details of the work which it is intended shall be done or perhaps has been done as a result of this item.


Walter Edward Harris: This is merely a different way of doing the bookkeeping with regard to the penitentiary. In the past there have been two items in the accounts, and there was a credit of a sale given to the other account. This provides for a revolving fund which will be one bookkeeping entry to take care of the two we were formerly using.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES Loans, investments and advances-
629.	To authorize the operating of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, for the purpose of financing the purchase of stores to be used in construction projects at the new Aklavik site; and to authorize the charging to the revolving fund of expenditures already made for this purpose from votes 324 and
[Stage Direction]

695, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1954; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $500,000.
John Borden Hamilton: Perhaps the minister would outline some of the details in connection with this half million dollar expenditure? I assume it is in connection with the movement of Aklavik to a new site on firmer ground. Perhaps the minister will give us some idea of how the money is to be spent?


Walter Edward Harris: This covers a number of items which will be spent during the course of moving Aklavik to other ground. It will cover materials and supplies used in buildings and structures, utilities and services; materials and supplies used for administrative personnel and work crews, the operation of equipment and the maintenance of buildings and structures; and it relates to repairs, upkeep, small tools replacement and living quarters for administrative personnel and work crews.


John Borden Hamilton: Is this money being spent completely for government-owned structures, or is it to reimburse any others?


Walter Edward Harris: This is for government structures.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask certain questions on this item, in view of the fact that this is an historic site, as well as a site of some importance in the north. I think the committee might well be told by the minister the considerations which have determined its move to the location which has been chosen. I know there are members in the house who have seen this location. It is a great, broad, and flat land there, and the suggestion might well be made that the site could be on the west as well as on the east. The fact is that if it were on the west there might be the possibility of a road to the mining developments of the area which seem to be very promising, and which are attracting attention to the west.
While the main means of communication will be by air and water, the fact remains that with the extent of the mineral deposits generally throughout that area this conceivably could be a very interesting development. We have seen other movements of this kind in the flat silt lands of other areas, and we certainly know that it is of the utmost importance to be sure that the site chosen is the proper one. Without elaborating further, I feel sure the minister is aware, as I am, of the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the removal of some of these old historic sites, difficulties experienced not only by the dominion government but by other governments as well.

If the minister could give an explanation I believe it would be helpful, because this obviously will involve the removal of an historic site which has been part of the history of this country for almost 200 years in one way or another, and there would be involved such things as the removal of cemeteries. It would be desirable that we be certain that the proper site is chosen when the change is made.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition could advance good reasons for the choice that has been made, and perhaps good reasons for some other choice, because I am sure he is familiar with the area. It was for this reason, as a matter of fact, that we decided that the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources might properly be sent to the committee on estimates for consideration, where we expected this question might be canvassed at some length. I think the minister responsible is either covering it now, or is expecting to cover it, because there are items in his forthcoming estimates which would deal with this expenditure. While I would like to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition, I think perhaps the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources could make a better exposition of the reasons than I could at the moment. Probably he is doing so now in that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Loans, investments and advances-
630.	To extend the operation of the revolving fund authorized pursuant to subsection (2) of section 101 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of acquiring, managing, manufacturing, producing, processing or dealing in stores or materials. the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $5,000,000; additional amount required, $1,000,000.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain
this item?


Walter Edward Harris: This is an increase of $1 million in the revolving fund in the Department of Transport. I do not think I need go into detail as to the purpose and use of the revolving fund, because that was discussed at some length in the house when it was determined upon three or four years ago. However, with the increase in the activities of the department it is felt that the fund might be increased by $1 million to take care of additional sums needed, having in mind the experience we have had since the fund was set up.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total in the fund
now?


Walter Edward Harris: The total is $4 million, and it is being increased to $5 million.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport Loans, investments and advances-
Railway and steamship services-
631.	To authorize, on such terms and subject to such conditions as the governor in council may approve, the delivery to Her Majesty by Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, of
16.000	shares of capital stock of the company having a par value of $100 each in satisfaction of $1,600,000 of the loan made to the company under vote 764 of the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1954, $1.
George Clyde Nowlan: Would the minister give an explanation of this item? Obviously this is a refunding operation. It refers to a loan of $1,600,000 made under the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1954. Was that to cover accumulated deficits, or was it for capital; and w'hat is the capital position now, after the issue of the
16.000	shares? Are those additional shares which will be issued and, if so, what will be the capital?


Walter Edward Harris: As my hon. friend has said, this is an interest-free loan of $1,600,000 which falls due on June 30 next. The purpose is to take capital stock for that amount; and when that is done the situation will be that we shall have 16,400 shares at $100 each

$1,640,000- and we will have a fixed interest debt of $2 million to the government. I beg your pardon; I should have said that that is the change. The present situation is that there is capital stock of 400 shares at $100 each, $40,000, and a 25-year bond issue due to the government, or guaranteed by the government, for $9,400,000. So that at the moment the capitalization is $9,440,000, and in the future it will be $5,800,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, investments and advances-
Air services-
652. To provide for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of those airports-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Mr. Pallet!: How much of this is being allocated to each point?
Walter Edward Harris: This covers Vancouver to the extent of $311,000; Winnipeg, $231,000; Toronto, $759,000; and Montreal, $697,000, for a total of $2 million. That is the total estimate, including the main estimates and this supplementary item.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, with respect to item 632, may I point out that the wording is rather unusual. It states that it is to provide for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying, and for future development of those airports. And it states that a further amount of $1 million is required.

Supply-Transport
In the main estimates of either last year or this year I have been unable to find an item in these exact words. I am wondering if this item arises out of a regulation filed by the Department of Transport and passed in April of 1953. This was filed without notice to the land owners. This regulation has the effect of limiting considerably the use of these lands, and gives very arbitrary powers to the minister.
The Aeronautics Act provides that claims shall be honoured only if action is brought within two years of date of filing. These regulations were filed in the registry office, so far as they affect Malton airport located in the counties of Peel and York, without notice being given to the land owners at the time. The situation has only recently been brought to their attention.
It would seem that some steps are now being taken to give them compensation. I suggest that the amount for the airport at Toronto is only $759,000, and that it is quite insufficient in view of the amount of land involved. I also suggest that since the regulations were filed without individual notices being given to the land owners involved, the procedure taken is improper.
In addition, lands were actually expropriated after notice of expropriation, and people were deprived of ownership some years ago. Up to now they have not been paid for those lands. I do not know where the blame lies, whether it is that of the administration of the Department of Transport, or whether it is because the estimates were not placed before the house in time for the money to be voted. I do know the explanation has been given to some of the people that the money was not available to pay them, and this has been offered as the reason for delay.
This supplementary estimate is put in to take care of the claims of the people who will be filing under this order in council of April, 1953, and is also to provide the moneys to be paid to the people whose lands have been expropriated. The amount is completely insufficient. It will not even come close to the amount that will be required. I would hate to think the government are so misinformed as to the value of land in that area, or that they have a deliberate plan under which evaluators will be able to go out and say, "We can reach a conclusion but we have not the money to pay for it". If the money is not sufficient I would suggest to the minister that the proper amount be put in, if that is what this estimate is meant to cover.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, just a brief word. I appreciate that my hon. friend is
[Mr. Pallett.l
quite aware of the fact that $700,000, $800,000 or $1,000,000 will not meet the claims that are going to be made on this fund as these airports expand in the various cities I have mentioned. And I regret to say, in my official capacity, that I expect there will be larger claims than those we have had to deal with so far.


John Borden Hamilton: The problem raised by the hon. member for Peel also affects my constituency. What method is used where they restrict the use of the land only? I think it is referred to in the order in council mentioned by the hon. member. Is there some method of evaluating the restriction, or providing compensation?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure the Minister of Transport could describe the procedure better than I can, but I think the hon. member for York West knows that this is pretty well breaking new ground, and that we shall have to work out the principles as we go along. I am sure no one wants to do anything that would harm persons who own property around airports, except to the extent of carrying out the zoning rules and protecting the lives of people and property in so far as that can be done. But I am sure that, as I said before, this will grow on us and we shall have to work out the best way of dealing with the problem.


John Borden Hamilton: I have one other question. I do not want to get too technical with the Minister of Finance in connection with air problems here, but in connection with the money that is being spent to enlarge these airports this problem was raised by one of the members on the government side. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard discussed it in connection with the Vancouver airport. Has any attention been paid to the more recent developments in aerodynamic design and the recent theories on boundary layer control in aircraft development? We may be on the threshold of developments which will make expropriation of properties of this kind entirely unnecessary because of aeroplanes being able to take off and land in much shorter space than is required at the present time. Has the department taken that into account in setting up a fund of $14 million for airport development extension, and also this supplementary estimate?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do hope we will not have to pay damage claims of this kind, if we can avoid it. If the development of aircraft will lead to that result I shall be very happy.


John Cameron Pallett: I was interested to hear the minister say that the government does not

want to hurt anyone. I draw to his attention the fact that the regulation has very seriously hurt land owners around Malton airport, particularly since there is no provision in it for advances by the government on the payment of claims. There is no provision within the regulations themselves under which a proper negotiation can be made as to the payment of claims without the people concerned commencing an action. It seems to me that this is, to say the least, a little highhanded. It puts the owners of land to a much greater expense than they should be put to when their rights are arbitrarily taken from them. You are asking people who are by and large farmers to commence actions in the exchequer court to obtain payment of proper claims. They are put to all the extra legal expense involved. The government are exacting hardships which the minister says they do not wish to do.


John Borden Hamilton: Perhaps the minister would give an undertaking to use the same type of evaluation around Malton airport that was used in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

['As one member of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to see this bill go through the house as quickly as possible, but I am reasonably sure we are not going to get it through tonight. I have a few comments to make with respect to war veterans allowances.\nThe witnesses who appeared before the committee for the Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans in Canada in my judgment made one of the most reasonable presentations that has ever been made to any committee of which I have been a member. In fact their presentation was very temperate. In my opinion they did not ask for anything they could not have been given without any great strain on the treasury.', 'In my opinion this veterans affairs committee has lost its original function. The original function that it used to perform in years gone by was that when veterans legislation was referred to it, the committee had the privilege of opening up the old acts and relating them to the new forces. Back in the 1940\'s it was a committee that could initiate action and advise the Department of Veterans Affairs on veterans problems. It was a committee in which there was little political bickering. The members were unanimous in their efforts to get the best possible deal for the veterans. But in the last five years I have seen a complete change in the complexion of the committee. Today the government drafts a bill and decides upon policy. The committee has now deteriorated into the position of merely examining the legislation.\nI feel sorry for the government members on the committee, because they are placed in the position of having the cabinet make a decision and then being told, "This is what you are going to get." It is put in the form of a bill. Opposition members are at least free to express their opinion and say the things that should be said about certain sections of the bill, but in the last five years government members have been placed in the position that they are not free to get up and argue and express their opinions without being charged with disloyalty to the party or to the government. I feel that the committee is not performing the function it was intended to perform when it was first inaugurated as a non-partisan committee. Then the committee had the right to examine legislation and make recommendations.\nI recall occasions upon which the committee had the minister running back and forward to the cabinet day after day, week after week, getting a lot of beneficial changes made. I do not believe that, in so far as some special matters are concerned, the cabinet has all the brains. I do not believe the cabinet has the time to pay attention to different problems, to sit down and study them and decide what is reasonable. I feel this committee on veterans affairs should be a standing committee of the house. It could be called, under the chairmanship of the very capable-parliamentary assistant, to take a look at legislation and decide what should be done. The committee\'s views could be obtained and taken to cabinet, where they could be looked at and some decision arrived at that would be reasonable. I think the committee are reasonable and fair if they are met half way.\nI hope the cabinet will consider the advisability of making that committee a standing\n30. 1955\nWar Veterans Allowance Act committee of the house. It is about one minute to six, Mr. Chairman, and there are a few more comments I should like to make, so I wonder if we could call it six o\'clock.\nClause stands.\nProgress reported.']
Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 164, to amend the War Veterans Allowance 50433-1624
War Veterans Allowance Act Act, 1952-Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Definitions.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was before the committee of the whole a few days ago I intimated that there were a few remarks I wished to make. As you know, the resolution preceding the bill was debated in the house three weeks ago, and there was also a debate on the motion for second reading. The bill was then sent to the veterans affairs committee which held a number of sittings, during which the principles of the bill were discussed. The bill is now back in the house with very little change as far as the committee is concerned. In fact we could not make any changes, but I believe there is an amendment which will be suggested by the minister.
It will be recalled that the bill provides for a 20 per cent increase in war veterans allowances, bringing the single veteran's allowance from $50 to $60 per month and the married veteran's allowance from $90 to $108. I may say that as far as the committee were concerned this bill might as well have never been sent there, because we were not able to make even any recommendations. However we did have the benefit of briefs presented by the different veterans' organizations such as the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans' associations in Canada, and other organizations. As usual these briefs and representations were well prepared and quite logical, and I am sure these organizations deserve credit for the presentations they made.
As I have said in this house before, we find that when national veterans' organizations appear before our committee they never exaggerate. They state logically and clearly what they consider to be the requirements and needs of the veterans. As has been said many times in the house, the Canadian veteran has never tried to stampede the electorate or the elected members of the House of Commons into giving him more than he was entitled to. This cannot always be said of veterans in other countries.
We of the opposition were confirmed in the attitude we had taken with respect to Bill No. 164 before it was submitted to the committee. At that time we claimed that it did not go far enough. Along with the veterans we approved the increase from $50 to $60 a month for the single veteran. We all considered that was a step in the right direction, and the government was given approval for having recommended that increase. But the increase from $90 to $108 did not seem to us to be enough, and this also was the opinion of the veterans' organizations. But the chief point of disapproval as far as the

War Veterans Allowance Act bill was concerned was in conection with the ceilings on permissive income. I should like to read from the brief presented on March 11, 1955, to the committee by the Candian Legion, in particular their comments on the ceilings on permissive income, as follows:
Ceilings on permissive income-
Recommendation-
That the ceiling on total permissible income under W.V.A., be increased to $1,200 per year in the case ol a single recipient and $2,000 per year in the case of those married.
Comment-
We must again reiterate that, even if this section of the act is amended as proposed in Bill 164, the act will still tend to defeat its own purpose. If the allowance is intended to assist the aged and needy veteran the low ceilings on permissive income prevent him from supplementing the allowance sufficiently to enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
The national council of veterans' associations in Canada also presented a brief. Both these organizations are nation-wide and represent hundreds of thousands of veterans of both wars. The- recommendation made by this organization contained in the brief presented to the committee on March 14, 1955, was as follows:
That the total annual allowable income including war veterans allowance permitted under the War Veterans Allowance Act be the amount set as statutory exemptions under the Income Tax Act, subject to supplementation of $200 in the case of the single man.
As we know, the exemptions under the Income Tax Act are $1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for a married person. This recommendation amounts to $1,200 for the single man and $2,000 for the married man, and is the same as the recommendation by the Canadian Legion. Their comment on this is as follows:
We note with concern the means test limitations proposed by this bill for the single man is $840 per annum. This would permit only $120 per year or $10 per month through income from earnings or other sources. We consider that the means test for the single man should be at least set at the level of $1,200 which would permit $480 of supplementation.
In the case of the married man who must maintain a home, however modest, we consider that it should be advanced proportionately and suggest again the statutory exemption in respect to income tax, namely $2,000.
There were other recommendations by other veterans' organizations, but these were the main representations in connection with the permissive income. The Legion stated in its brief that the act will still tend to defeat its own purpose. As we understood it, the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act was to help those who most needed help. I think it is a fair comment to say that the whole act and the whole veterans allowance regulations are weighted in favour of the veteran who is employable and who is able

to obtain work. The veteran who needs it most, the veteran who is unemployable, is the one who receives the least consideration.
I do not think that is the intention of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
I admit-and it was admitted a few minutes ago-that as far as the allowance is concerned, the single veteran has received fair treatment. As far as the employable veteran is concerned, we acknowledge and admit that he is in a fair position. I say that, Mr. Chairman, taking into consideration the fact that the regulations now permit of a broader- I might almost say generous-interpretation of casual earnings as far as the employable veteran is concerned. As I say, the employable veteran is in a fair position. But as far as these veterans are concerned-and they are mostly veterans of the first war-we must take into consideration that fact that they are old men.
The act was brought into force in 1930. It is 25 years since the War Veterans Allowance Act was first passed. Twenty-five years have been added to the age of these men, many of whom in those days were considered not able to fend for themselves. Hence when I say the position is fair, we must take into consideration first whether the veteran's age permits him to take advantage of casual labour. That is the first consideration. Then there is another "if", and it is a big one, namely if his health permits a man of 67 to do so. That is the average age today, and many are years older than that. Then there is a third "if", namely if there is employment. We have been discussing unemployment in the House of Commons for some days now. When there is much unemployment in the country the man who is least likely to get employment is the old veteran 65, 66 or 67 years of age. In many parts of the country, while he might consider himself to be employable, nevertheless employment is not there for him.
In the committee we tried to find out just how many veterans could take advantage of casual earnings. We have no information as to the number of men. We have information as to the number that take advantage of section 4, which allows a man to take his war veterans allowance by the month and then, when he can get work, to go off the war veterans allowance and take that work. But only some 1,100 out of over 40,000 war veterans were able to take advantage of this section 4.
That is a fact which indicates that there - are very few war veterans today who can take advantage of the type of work permitted under section 4. I will venture to say that

the number who are able to take casual employment would turn out to be extremely disappointing to our hopes.
As I just stated, if the employable veteran can get employment, and if his health permits it, he is very well looked after. But this legislation does not help the unemployable veteran, the man who really needs the war veterans allowance more than any other veteran.
First, we have the man with a small pension, say of $25 a month. The ceiling is $70 a month. The war veterans allowance he would receive would not be $60 a month but would be only $45 a month, and the total income he would have would be $840 a year.
Then there is the veteran who has worked, has been thrifty and has been able to lay aside enough to purchase an annuity which brings him $20, $25 or $30 a month. He is in exactly the same position as the veteran with the disability pension. The ceiling for him is again $70 a month, and that man has to live on $840 a year.
Then again there is the veteran who has reached the age of 70. While every other man in Canada over the age of 70 years can take full advantage of the $40 monthly which the law allows him, as well as of whatever other income he has-whether it be $100, $1,000, $10,000 or more he can take full advantage of that income-the war veteran over 70 years of age is given the $40 old age security but his ceiling again is $70 a month and he is permitted to receive only $30 out of the $60 allowed him for war veterans allowance.
As to the unemployable veterans who are obliged to live on their very small pensions, who cannot go out and seek casual labour,
I say this act discriminates against them to a great extent.
During the sittings of the committee there were some members who said-and it was echoed and bandied about from one to another of the government members-that the $70 is not a ceiling but a floor. There is a certain amount of truth in that contention with regard to the employable veteran, the man who least needs the war veterans allowance. But as far as the unemployable veteran is concerned it is indeed a ceiling which cannot be penetrated as far as his income is concerned. To me that argument sounded shallow indeed.
Taking all these things into consideration, Mr. Chairman, and after listening to the Legion and the other veterans' organizations, the opposition members of the committee-and I refer to the official opposition, which was supported by the other opposition members-felt that the unemployable
30, 1955	2557
War Veterans Allowance Act veterans should be assisted. I might also say that in the Legion's brief, when they were recommending assistance, this statement was made:
We would urgently request that this committee recommend to the government the immediate adoption of the following measures:
The measures I read here a few moments ago were the measures they recommended that the committee should recommend to the government; and we thought they should be recommended to the government. We realized that we as a committee had no authority to make variations in any section dealing with money matters, and that the only motion we could make was one requesting the government to consider some increase. The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, moved the following motion in the committee:
That the committee recommend that the government give consideration to introducing legislation during the present session of parliament which will provide that the maximum of total income, as set out in section 1 of schedule "A" to Bill 164, be increased to $1,200, and that in sections 2 and 3 of said schedule "A" the monthly rate be increased to $120 and the maximum total income be increased to $2,000.
The meaning of this motion is simply that we recommend a ceiling of $1,200 for the single man and $2,000 for the married man, and that instead of a 20 per cent increase in the allowance to $108 per month the increase should be to $120 a month for married men. That was the substance of the recommendation we made, and we thought it would receive favourable consideration in the committee. As I say, the matter was placed before the committee. All members of the official opposition and all members of the other opposition groups supported it. They supported what the Legion and other veterans' organizations that had made a definite study of the situation thought was necessary.
I almost hesitate to state some of the arguments used by hon. members on the government side regarding our recommendation. One was that if it went through it would defeat the bill, and I believe some of them actually persuaded themselves that it might. Another was that we must get the bill through before the 1st of April. They said they had made representations to the government, they knew we could not get any more, and therefore we must hurry this matter through the committee. We were told we must not ask for more. That was the main argument, and it was said that we might lose what we had.
There are other members here who were on previous committees and will recall, as I do, that that was not the attitude of the

War Veterans Allowance Act committee in 1951 when it was considering increases in disability pensions. We had a bill presented to us at that time which provided for an increase of only 10 per cent. Every member of the committee was indignant that such a suggestion should be placed before a veterans affairs committee. They would not accept it. We told the government so. Resolutions were moved, the government were contacted and they offered an increase of 15 per cent. Again the veterans affairs committee said it was not enough, it was not fair, and the members of the committee demanded reconsideration. The matter was reconsidered and in the final result an increase of 25 per cent was provided instead of the 10 per cent that was first put before the committee.
We thought some such study would have been made by the committee this year. It may be-I do not know-that the amounts of $1,200 and $2,000 are too much. It may be that an allowance of $108 is enough, but no study was made. There is quite a difference between the total income of $720 now permitted a single veteran and the suggestion of $1,200. Some amount in between might have been more appropriate. It could be that $1,000 or $1,500 might have been considered proper, but the matter was never studied. We should have had some evidence.
So far as married veterans are concerned, it may be that the total annual income of $2,000, instead of the $1,440 provided by the bill, requested by the different organizations and by our resolution, was too much. The matter should at least have been studied. We were told, "This is the bill that has been put before you and there is to be no change; you will accept this and this only". That is the ultimatum that was handed to us as members of the veterans affairs committee.
It seemed to some of us that the committee had not been established for the purpose of finding out what was best for the veterans. I thought it was our purpose to study the bill and, if we did not consider it satisfactory, to make recommendations. But I found out that all we were to do was be rubber stamps and approve whatever was put before us. That is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that the veterans affairs committee might as well not have had any meetings at all. The committee held a number of meetings, but all it accomplished was simply to rubber stamp the bill that had been presented by the government.
I do not think it is necessary for me to prolong this argument. I think the house, people across Canada and particularly the veterans must consider that, this is a matter of unfinished business. We waited for three

and a half years for the war veterans allowance bill to be brought before the house to provide the increases which everybody knew were needed, but when we got it we found the amounts were practically the same as before. The allowances were raised 20 per cent, by $120 and $240 respectively. It would appear that we will have to wait another three or four years before these matters are properly adjusted. The war veterans allowance is the only means of livelihood for unemployable veterans without any other income, of whom there are thousands across the country.
When we considered the question of war veterans allowances in 1951 we had much more evidence placed before us on which to base a finding than we had this time. One of the chief yardsticks for determining what the amount of allowances should be was the cost of living at that time. According to the family spending schedule prepared by the Toronto welfare council at that time a veteran with 100 per cent disability and living alone needed $93.34 a month to provide a minimum basis of living. That is what the figure was in 1951, $93.34 for a single veteran. These figures were worked out scientifically by the Toronto welfare council. If $93.34 was needed in 1951, then just as much and more is needed today; but such a man is only to be allowed an income of $70 a month. For a veteran with a wife and no children the estimate worked out by the Toronto welfare council was $153.43, but we are only permitting him an income of $120 a month.
After waiting three years for the veterans affairs committee to be set up we now find that the business we felt we could and should have done has not been done and, as I said a moment ago, as far as the House of Commons is concerned it must certainly be regarded as being in the category of unfinished business.


Mr. Gillis:: As one member of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I should like to see this bill go through the house as quickly as possible, but I am reasonably sure we are not going to get it through tonight. I have a few comments to make with respect to war veterans allowances.
The witnesses who appeared before the committee for the Canadian Legion and the national council of veterans in Canada in my judgment made one of the most reasonable presentations that has ever been made to any committee of which I have been a member. In fact their presentation was very temperate. In my opinion they did not ask for anything they could not have been given without any great strain on the treasury.

In my opinion this veterans affairs committee has lost its original function. The original function that it used to perform in years gone by was that when veterans legislation was referred to it, the committee had the privilege of opening up the old acts and relating them to the new forces. Back in the 1940's it was a committee that could initiate action and advise the Department of Veterans Affairs on veterans problems. It was a committee in which there was little political bickering. The members were unanimous in their efforts to get the best possible deal for the veterans. But in the last five years I have seen a complete change in the complexion of the committee. Today the government drafts a bill and decides upon policy. The committee has now deteriorated into the position of merely examining the legislation.
I feel sorry for the government members on the committee, because they are placed in the position of having the cabinet make a decision and then being told, "This is what you are going to get." It is put in the form of a bill. Opposition members are at least free to express their opinion and say the things that should be said about certain sections of the bill, but in the last five years government members have been placed in the position that they are not free to get up and argue and express their opinions without being charged with disloyalty to the party or to the government. I feel that the committee is not performing the function it was intended to perform when it was first inaugurated as a non-partisan committee. Then the committee had the right to examine legislation and make recommendations.
I recall occasions upon which the committee had the minister running back and forward to the cabinet day after day, week after week, getting a lot of beneficial changes made. I do not believe that, in so far as some special matters are concerned, the cabinet has all the brains. I do not believe the cabinet has the time to pay attention to different problems, to sit down and study them and decide what is reasonable. I feel this committee on veterans affairs should be a standing committee of the house. It could be called, under the chairmanship of the very capable-parliamentary assistant, to take a look at legislation and decide what should be done. The committee's views could be obtained and taken to cabinet, where they could be looked at and some decision arrived at that would be reasonable. I think the committee are reasonable and fair if they are met half way.
I hope the cabinet will consider the advisability of making that committee a standing
30. 1955
War Veterans Allowance Act committee of the house. It is about one minute to six, Mr. Chairman, and there are a few more comments I should like to make, so I wonder if we could call it six o'clock.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this debate and hope we can complete it and give the bill third reading. Then we shall take legislation on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the order in which it appears. Then we shall resume- I think it would meet with the approval of hon. members-the debate on the motion that Your Honour do leave the chair.
On Friday it would be our intention to begin with the debate on external affairs, and if that does not carry through the day we would take legislation which I shall indicate tomorrow night. On Monday it is the intention to introduce the resolution with respect to the revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that may or may not take all of Monday. I would hope, however, that before we adjourn it may be possible to complete what I have indicated, particularly the motion that Your Honour do leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply ]:
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Architectural branch-
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-further amount required-
601. Ottawa, $1,732,666.

[Stage Direction]
614. Canadian National Railways deficit, 1954- amount required to provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1954-55, to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the national company to the Minister of Finance, and to be applied by the national company in payment of the system deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) arising in the calendar year 1954, subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the national company from the consolidated revenue fund, $28,758,098.
[Stage Direction]
Supply

[Stage Direction]
621.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $39,738.
Was veterans allowances and other benefits-
622.	War veterans allowances-further amount required, $921,500.
623.	Assistance fund (war veterans allowances) -further amount required, $50,000.
Canadian pension commission-
624.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the civilian government employees (war) compensation order P.C. 45/8848 of November 22, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act; and including Newfoundland special awards-further amount required, $865,000.
Terminable services-
625.	Rehabilitation benefits, including the training of certain pensioners under regulations approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $56,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
Immigration branch-
626.	To provide, subject to regulations of the treasury board, for working capital advances in the current and subsequent fiscal years to posts and employees on posting abroad, and to authorize the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be charged such advances and to which shall be credited expenditures made by and advances recovered from the said posts and employees, the excess of the amounts charged over the amounts credited to the account at any time not to exceed $230,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
627.	To provide for advances to the government of Nova Scotia (not to exceed $42,084) and to the government of Prince Edward Island (not to exceed $74,257) in accordance with the terms of agreements to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, by the government of Canada with each of the said governments; the advances to be seventy-five per cent of the loans made by each of the said governments for the purpose of replacing abnormal losses of equipment suffered by reason of severe weather conditions during the period February 1 to July 1, 1953, $116,341.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
628.	To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purposes of acquiring, managing and manufacturing materials used in industrial work done for: (a) government departments, and (b) penitentiaries including the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $300,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
629.	To authorize the operating of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act, for the purpose of financing the purchase of stores to be used in construction projects at the new Aklavik site; and to authorize the charging to the revolving fund of expenditures already made for this purpose from votes 324 and 695, Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1954; the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $500,000.

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
630.	To extend the operation of the revolving fund authorized pursuant to section (2) of section 101 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of acquiring, managing, manufacturing, producing, processing or dealing in stores or materials, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $5,000,000; additional amount required, $1,000,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Railway and steamship services-
631.	To authorize, on such terms and subject to such conditions as the governor in council may approve, the delivery to Her Majesty by Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, of 16,000 shares of capital stock of the company having a par value of $100 each in satisfaction of $1,600,000 of the loan made to the company under vote 764 of the Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1954, $1. Loans, investments and advances-
Air services-
632.	To provide for the acquisition of land required to control properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports in order to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of those airports-further amount required, $1,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 31, 1955