1980-05-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, the urgency of my rising under Standing Order 43 arises directly from the critical stage of present negotiations between the Government of Canada and the governments of Mexico and Japan.
Given the potential of millions of dollars accruing to Canadian interests and the creation of hundreds of new jobs for Canadian seamen which could flow from matters under discussion with Mexico for the movement of oil, and Japan with respect to new coal movements, and recognizing the need for Canada to continue to move toward the objectives of the UNCTAD 40-40-20 arrangements for the seaborne movement of goods, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House urgently asks the government to express in these discussions going on the Canadian desirability of moving toward the UNCTAD formula in all waterborne movement of these energy resources and other Canadian goods.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the western provinces have had no significant precipitation for over two months, during which time temperatures have been above normal, and in view of the fact that the long-range forecast is for the continuation of dry
and hot weather, and also in view of the fact that these conditions have led to shortages of water, extremely poor crop germination and no pasturage for grazing animals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the federal government move immediately to assist to help co-ordinate, through the use of such federal agencies as the PFRA, the activities of the various levels of government that are now under way in the western provinces which are designed to make maximum use of whatever water, feed and pastures that are still available.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter which truly is of urgent and pressing necessity, not only for Canada but for the world as a whole.
In view of the emergency recommendations in the just published report of the Brandt Commission on International Development Issues, entitled "North-South, a Programme for Survival", and considering the fast approach of the United Nations special assembly on this subject, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House give the highest priority to convening, at the earliest opportunity, a special debate on the Brandt report proposals, so that the Canadian people can be made more aware of the problems addressed so eloquently by the report, and so that the Canadian government can make a strong and enlightened response to the report's emergency program within the councils of the world.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 20, 1980


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, requesting the unanimous support of this House.
Having received a communication from the 1980 graduating class of Penticton secondary school, in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia, over the signatures of 570 students expressing their deep concern about Canada's future as a nation of united people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House join unanimously in the words that these young people have composed with great feeling and patriotic emotion, and that the House of Commons pledge with them to commit itself, with the help of our fellow Canadians, to working toward making Canada a nation of united people.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That the Government of Canada establish as quickly as possible social security agreements with other countries in order to ensure the portability of pensions and other benefits and in order to ensure that all Canadians, of whatever origin, may travel to and from their country of origin without suffering further financial penalty.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to request the unanimous consent of the House to the following resolution.
In view of the plans of the Minister of the Environment to conclude a bilateral agreement on the acid rain problem, and because of the double threat posed to Canadian waters by increased tanker traffic on the west coast and the possibility of LNG tankers plying Canadian waters in the Arctic, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House instruct the Minister of the Environment to include in the bilateral agreement he plans to conclude with the U.S. on acid rain, a compulsory bonding system covering vessels entering our waters so that injured parties will have ready access to compensation commensurate with the damage which could occur from oil spills and LNG accidents.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. I hope my proposed motion will receive the unanimous support of the House.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That this House strongly urge the Soviet government to fulfil its undertakings in regard to the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, specifically those calling for the reunification of families, and to allow the Jewish refusenik. Lev Ovsishcher, to emigrate to Israel.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. It there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 20, 1980

Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, Madam Speaker, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the government grant approval to the proposal of the Department of National Health and Welfare to set up a captioning centre for Canadian television programs under the National Film Board so that the centre could be in operation by 1981, in time for the International Year of the Disabled People.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POSSIBLE TWINNING OF EASTERN AND WESTERN MEMBERS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 1 rise to move a motion.
In view of the fact that it appears to be official government policy to speak of double-tracking, double-talking, doublecrossing and, now, twinning eastern members of Parliament with Alberta MPs, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That this House form a special select committee to study all aspects of pairing, twinning, cloning, bundling, mating and wooing, and that the committee be named the Grit government retreads in training.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move that: whereas Chrysler in the United States has provided purchase rebates for consumers, and whereas Chrysler in Canada is not providing the same benefit for Canadians, and they are currently using secret warranties in this country and have one of
Oral Questions
the poorest records of consumer service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the conditions of agreeing to the loan to Chrysler must provide the same conditions of warranty, recall and repair as they provide to U.S. consumers.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General, who we thought would be in the House. In his absence, perhaps I could put it to the Minister of Labour, who I gather is a party in the conversations.
Now that the conciliation board report is public and CUPW has indicated that it regards that report as a basis for avoiding a strike, can the minister and the government assure the House that we can expect no mail disruption this spring?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his question. 1 wish, indeed, that it were possible in the case of unresolved labour disputes to always give an absolute assurance that there would be no disruption. Unfortunately, that cannot be done until negotiations are completed and an agreement achieved.
I can say that the Postmaster General has indicated that he is optimistic about the possibility of a settlement, and that he is hoping to meet, along with certain officials, representatives of the union this afternoon for discussions arising out of the conciliation board report. It is expected that the Postmaster General will be in the House tomorrow and in a position to answer queries in relation to today's meeting to the extent that it is possible to comment without endangering the ongoing negotiations.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, arising out of that answer, since the minister was present at the conversations yesterday, perhaps he could advise what position the government is taking in today's meeting, specifically since there has been at least a publicly reported suggestion that the Minister of Labour is contemplating back-to-work legislation. Can the minister advise whether the government has decided to accept the conciliation board report or to fight it?


Gerald Augustine Regan: In relation to the supplementary question. Madam Speaker, I think that, consistent with the best prac-

May 20, 1980
Oral Questions
tices in labour relations, the answer I would want to give to the hon. gentleman, through you, would be that the position taken by the government is constructive, hopeful and responsible.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, perhaps it would be out of order to comment at the time whether that is a new position for the government.
My final supplementary question relates to the previous postmaster general's commitment to bring in a bill to turn the Post Office into a Crown corporation this spring, a commitment which everybody believes will go a long way toward resolving underlying labour problems in this area. Can the minister assure the House that we can expect to see such a bill this spring, and is that part of the conversation at today's meeting?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Again 1 thank the hon. member. 1 cannot say whether the question of the establishment of a Crown corporation is part of the negotiations that are going on this afternoon: only the Postmaster General would be able to report after the fact on what is being considered at that moment in time. But I can assure the hon. member that preparations for legislation in relation to establishing the Post Office as a Crown corporation are going forward and that, indeed, negotiations are under way with various groups to soften the impact of the dislocation involved in such a change, including the union groups, in totally separate committee negotiations that are going on and involving my department as well as that of the Postmaster General at present.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On the weekend, the director of environmental affairs for Petro-Canada confirmed the criticism of the Arctic Waters Advisory Committee that the federal government has failed to develop adequate plans or technology to prevent and cope with an oil spill in the Beaufort Sea. This is a matter I raised last week with the Prime Minister.
Considering that this person from Petro-Canada, and also a spokesperson for the advisory committee who helped draft the report confirmed its accuracy on the weekend, I should like to ask the minister if he could tell us why his government has given approval for drilling to proceed at this time in the light of such information?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I would advise the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, first, that the report of the advisory committee was considered by cabinet. The report the hon. member is referring to now, and was
referred to when 1 was in the eastern Arctic last week, is a report of one member who was party to the committee.
Somehow that report was, 1 guess, leaked; I do not know, and I really do not particularly care, other than to assure the hon. member that the report of the advisory committee itself was thoroughly reviewed by the officials of my department, the interdepartmental committee that judges these matters and by myself. It was taken to cabinet by myself for review. I might say that all the reviews taken with respect to the report of the advisory committee were such as to assure me, and I am thoroughly satisfied that no undue risks are being taken with respect to the program we announced for this ensuing season.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, all members of Parliament received today in the mail an expensive, 44-page brochure called "Under the Beaufort". There are a number of errors in it, two of them very serious in their implications. At one point, the brochure indicates the following:
-there is a complex contingency plan ready to meet the danger and to clean up any oil spill.
That is what the brochure which has been put out by the government indicates; but the report of the advisory committee to which the minister has just referred indicates just the opposite, that there is no such contingency plan. That is one contradiction I should like the minister to clear up. Another one is that in the brochure it is indicated that there were only two fuel spills last year during the drilling. The report of the advisory committee, which the minister has said he looked at with care, indicates that there were no fewer than 22 spills.
Considering that these alleged facts contradict each other- and 1, for one, am inclined to accept the report of the advisory committee that there have been more spills than we are now being told, and that there is no contingency plan-would the minister please explain to the House this very serious contradiction?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I would also advise the hon. member that I raised this question. 1 think the number of spills referred to by the hon. member and those referred to in the report are exaggerated. I am told and advised that there were no serious spills which caused any great damage or concern in the previous season.
The technology has advanced considerably since that time. There are safeguards now with respect to relief-well drilling for this season-technology of the kind that has improved over last year, so that if there was some risk taken last year with respect to the policy, there is even less risk this year as a result of that improved technology. Also, as I understand it, some assurance was given that I would be before the standing committee later this week-I think it is Thursday night-and I would be prepared to go into the matter more fully at that time.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I listened with care to the minister's answer, and at no point did he say that the government has ready a contingency plan that would cope with a
May 20, 1980

spill. This is an extremely serious matter, given the precarious nature of the environment of the north.
I would like to ask the minister, considering that there is no contingency plan, whether he will now take steps to postpone the drilling until such a plan is developed, and withdraw from circulation this extremely misleading brochure.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I do not think there would be much point in withdrawing the brochure, because it has been so widely disseminated already. May 1 just tell the hon. member I have been assured that the risks are so minimal, as a result of the safeguards built in for this year, and even so minimal based on what was the technology in previous years, that I feel it is safe to proceed. 1 do not feel 1 would be warranted in withdrawing the order, in terms of what is required to be done.


GOVERNMENT PLANS TO MEET COST OF IMPORTED OIL
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and it deals with the cost of imported oil. The cost of imported oil landed at Montreal has been averaging $35 a barrel in recent weeks. This cost is now going up $2 a barrel as Saudi Arabia is raising its price $2 a barrel. At the time of the budget of December 11, the cost was $25.75 a barrel. The minister told us some weeks ago that the oil import compensation subsidy was going to go to $3.1 billion.
Will the minister tell the House how he plans to meet the payments on this increased cost of the subsidy? Is he going to face the problem, or is he just going to allow the deficit to increase beyond the $14 billion mark? If he intends to do this by increased borrowing, will he assure the House that he is not going to have problems, in view of the tremendous rate of redemption of Canada Savings Bonds to the extent of $1.1 billion since April 1? How is he going to deal with this increased compensation problem?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in connection with the borrowing that may be required by the Government of Canada, it is my information that the borrowing that will be needed can be handled. Certainly, it is not my intention-as I indicated on April 21-to allow the deficit to run out of control, and when a budget is brought in-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It is out of control now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When a budget is brought in, the hon. member will have in detail the over-all picture, including expenditure and possible tax measures.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the hon. minister is surely the modern-day Sam Slick, because he has told us nothing. He did say, "when the budget was to be brought in".


An hon. Member:: Give us a date.


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister has told the newspapers, and those are the only people he tells anything to, that:
"A budget could collapse and be highly embarrassing if no agreement was in place", MacEachen said-
Excuse me using your name, hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The news item goes on to say:
-predicting there would be no new budget until the fall.
Is it now the minister's plan to have a new budget only this fall, and will the minister have a new budget at all if there is no oil pricing agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is my intention to have a budget. I hope it will be possible to bring it in before the fall, but the fall is certainly a possibility, as the hon. member knows.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is the first firm piece of news the minister has given this House since we opened, that there will be a fall this fall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We had a fall last fall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: In last fall's fall budget there was a special energy tax on the oil and gas industry, the proceeds of which were to be devoted exclusively to energy projects. Will the minister tell us, if there is a special tax on the oil and gas industry this year, in his new budget in the fall, or whenever the fall falls on, will the proceeds of that special tax be devoted exclusively to energy projects and to nothing else?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for giving me his assistance in the preparation of the budget, which will be arduous and which, I trust, will not result in the ignominious fate that surrounded his budget. Nevertheless, 1 thank the hon. member for his suggestion and ask him to restrain himself and be patient until the budget is brought forth. Then all these matters will be revealed and the universe will unfold as it should.


An hon. Member:: That is an ominous prospect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 20, 1980
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


STATUS OF ENERGY AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND MEXICO
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In arrangements that had been made both by the previous Liberal government and by the Conservative government concerning Mexican President Portillo's visit to Canada next week, the highlight of that visit was to have been the signing of an energy agreement between Canada and Mexico to provide for the importation of up to 100,000 barrels of oil a day into Canada.
We now find that this agreement has been cast into doubt. Would the minister tell the House what has transpired over the last few weeks to threaten the successful conclusion of this very important treaty?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I would not say that there is any threat to the treaty. Over the last several weeks the Mexican government has been evolving its policy with respect to a number of countries-including Japan, Canada and the European countries-with respect to petroleum agreements. They have asked for some changes in the prospective agreement. We are discussing those changes with them this week. At the moment, it does not appear to be a matter of substance but, rather, a matter of wording. We want to discuss those changes with the Mexican authorities before we make any further comment.


Miss MacDonald:: Madam Speaker, if these changes are not a matter of substance, will the minister then give his clear assurance that the agreement will be signed when President Portillo visits Canada next week to ensure that up to 100,000 barrels of oil will be available to Canada beginning later this year? Will the minister give us that assurance, that that is the agreement which will be signed?
Will he at the same time give the further assurance, perhaps, to President Portillo that no untoward events will happen to him following his visit to Canada, since Secretary Vance went home to resign after visiting, the minister, and since Prime Minister Ohira went home to defeat after his visit with the minister? 1 ask the minister not to make it three disasters in a row.


Mr. Chenier:: You were the first.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I believe that we will have an agreement with Mexico. As to the substance of the agreement and whether or not an actual signing will take place during the president's visit next week, I am not in a position to say at the moment.


SHIPPING
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not in that agreement or, in fact, in any of the negotiations with Japan, the Government of Canada put forward the position that some of this energy resource should be carried by Canadian ships crewed by Canadians?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the matter of transportation is not one which is covered by the agreement. I am not aware of any discussions on that subject which have been held with the Mexican authorities.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture on a matter of importance to all people of Canada. Is the minister aware that there have been two increases in the price of bread since the beginning of the year, without a corresponding increase in the price of wheat? The third increase is planned when the government adjusts the price of wheat.
Since this third increase is already being planned at a much higher rate than the amount of wheat in a loaf of bread would justify, would the minister undertake to investigate the increases in bread prices in 1980, and roll back those that prove to be unjustified?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member knows that a new price reporting system for food prices is being implemented. The index is what the producer actually receives and what the consumer pays for that commodity. We will investigate this matter further. I would just point out that the food price index shows a very moderate increase in the price of food for the last month.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, given that the price of a standard loaf of bread has increased from a minimum of 38 cents per loaf to a minimum of 52 cents per loaf in 18 months-which is somewhat more than a modest increase- will the government give the consumers of this nation an undertaking that bread prices will be stabilized by intense government effort to prevent price gouging by the processors in any future increase in the price of wheat to farmers?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, what I meant by a moderate or modest increase is that, for example, last month the increase was .3 per cent and for the previous month it was .9 per cent, which is not quite 1 per cent. The increase was one of the lowest which we have had. The report which I have on my desk
May 20, 1980

at the moment shows that the main cause for an increase in the cost of a loaf of bread is due to transportation costs, energy costs and those types of costs, not due to the basic product called wheat.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In early February of this year, Agustin Barrios Gomez, the Mexican ambassador to Canada, stated that Mexico will begin shipping 50,000 barrels of crude oil a day to Canada in October, and that the deliveries will be increased to 100,000 barrels a day in 1981.
Would the minister tell the House if that commitment still stands, and will it be part of the agreement which is to be signed with the President of Mexico?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as far as I know that is still the commitment of Mexico, but that was never intended to be part of the agreement as such. 1 do not believe that those words will be written into the agreement. They were not in the previous agreement which was signed, and I do not think it is proposed that they should be in this agreement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, if the minister will take the time to read the interim agreement, he will see that there was a firm commitment with respect to a minimum delivery from Mexico to Canada for this year, and that subsequently it was to be increased to 100,000 barrels a day in 1981. Nothing could be simpler.
Would the minister tell the House whether that will be part of the agreement, whether there will be a deviation or whether anything has occurred within the last few weeks to change that firm commitment contained in the interim agreement?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we are not proposing any changes in the agreement at all, but there is no schedule of deliveries in the agreement as such. There has been talk of goals, but there has been no promise that there will be so much oil delivered on a particular date. We are not proposing that there should be any changes made in the agreement.


FINANCE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Most financial analysts are of the opinion that interest rates would have dropped last week but for the intervention of the Bank of Canada which felt
Oral Questions
it necessary to prop up the wobbly Canadian dollar since the minister's micro-budget, which he was able to smuggle into the House, had only a microscopic effect on the Canadian dollar.
When can we expect some meaningful action from the government which would provide strength to the Canadian dollar and allow the interest rate to come down, which would benefit the home owner, the farmer, the businessman and the unemployed, rather than allowing the Bank of Canada to do the unpleasant work for the government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member know, interest rates have been coming down relatively rapidly. Indeed, the bank rate came down further last Thursday. However, as the governor of the Bank of Canada stated, they had acted to restrain and moderate that change for a number of reasons, but particularly because of the possibility that these further lower rates may not be sustainable in the long run.


Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, is it the government's policy to maintain high interest rates, and does the support of the Canadian dollar take precedence over a lower interest rate policy which is necessary for an improved economic condition in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member also knows, the governor of the Bank of Canada has managed monetary policy in a way that there has been a significant drop in interest rates and relative stability in the Canadian dollar. I believe the governor deserves a good deal of credit for that combined result.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister under renewed pressure from a major boat builder to have the Minister of Finance provide duty remission on sail-boats over 25 feet coming into Canada? If so, what is he prepared to do in this regard?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I have received representations on this matter and I am discussing them with the Minister of Finance.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, is the minister making representations to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the 11 small and medium-sized sail-boat builders who say that if duty remission is granted by this government, it will destroy the sail boat industry in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 am particularly sensitive to the concerns of small and medium-sized business in Canada. 1

May 20, 1980
Oral Questions
will be discussing the matter with the Minister of Finance in this context.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that uranium miners in Elliot Lake and elsewhere are not given adequate protection under either part 4 of the Canada Labour Code or the new draft federal health and safety legislation-an opinion apparently shared by the Minister of State for Mines-and considering that the legislation now being drafted is admittedly based on Ontario's bill C-70, and that the Ontario legislation was largely based upon input from and concerns relating to uranium miners specifically at Elliot Lake-the very group now excluded from protection along with other miners in the uranium industry-will the minister of Labour now give a commitment to the House that he will either turn the jurisdiction of this area over to the provinces, or guarantee that his new federal legislation will offer at least equal protection to uranium miners as that provided by bill C-70 in Ontario with respect to the right to refuse unsafe work, submission to monthly inspections, worker appeal procedures and union escorts for inspectors?
In addition, just when can we expect to see this vital legislation introduced?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I thank the hon. member for the question, Madam Speaker. May 1 say to the hon. member that we have set a time period in which to achieve regulations that would incorporate all the provisions of the Ontario bill C-70, and if that does not work out to be satisfactory, then at that moment in time we will take other action.
At the present time, and under the present laws, people working under federal jurisdiction can refuse work because of unsafe conditions; but the present situation in relation to the uranium miners, as the hon. member mentioned, is that they are covered by the referencing by the federal government of the previous Ontario act. The new Ontario act that was passed last fall could have been referenced at that moment in time, but it was the request of the trade union that it work with the department to attempt to draft specific federal regulations that would give exactly the same provisions.
There has been some controversy between some union officials and the department as to whether the intervention of the Department of Justice will give the exact result that they want. We are attempting to resolve that matter. But I certainly give the hon. member assurance that we will see to it that the provisions for the safety of uranium miners in Ontario under federal jurisdiction are as high as they would be under provincial jurisdiction, or as high as they are anywhere else in the country under federal jurisdiction.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the minister for his reply. 1 am wondering, though, whether he can give us a more firm commitment as to the timespan in which we can expect this legislation to be introduced. I understand that there have been some disagreements as to who was responsible for the so-called dragging of feet. 1 think that matter has been clarified, at least in the press, and I believe that the minister will now agree with the position of the union on that, that its representatives have not really been responsible for the time lag that has occurred.
I also want to be assured that the minister appreciates that when it comes to the matter of workers-


An hon. Member:: Speech.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Perth.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism who, in addition to his awesome responsibilities, is in charge of government advertising. My question relates to his press release of May 9.
1 compliment the minister for his announcement of the continuation of a centralized purchasing agency for government advertising, an initiative of the previous government. The previous government estimated the savings, through the centralization of purchase, to be anywhere from 20 per cent to 40 per cent of the previous budget. Would the minister indicate to the House his target for savings under the centralized purchasing of advertising space and time?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good words about our plans for advertising in the Government of Canada. I cannot give a hard figure. I suppose the easiest answer would be that we are going to save every dollar we can. But I estimate between $2 million and $4 million. Our officials are more optimistic than that.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, 1 do not want to be too platitudinous, but the previous government estimated savings of something like $15 million and I would encourage the minister to seek that target as a minimum.
Because the minister's press release indicated a fair geographic and linguistic distribution, because the minister is well aware that Toronto and Montreal agencies have had virtually 100 per cent of the advertising pie, and because there is no commitment in this press release, may I ask the minister: what is this government's policy toward the distribution of advertising space and time among those agencies that are not happily
May 20, 1980

located in either Toronto or Montreal but, indeed, in many other Canadian communities from coast to coast?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, some agencies must be of a size and competence to deal with national advertising. But we have already begun to do our best to give opportunities to agencies across Canada for them to have access to Government of Canada advertising.


An hon. Member:: You have been in the business; you should know.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it government policy that a commodity group can, by a proper election, vote to create a marketing board?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, if 1 understood the hon. member's question correctly, the answer is yes.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That being so, Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also to the Minister of Agriculture. Can those same commodity groups vote to withdraw from those same marketing boards?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I believe there is provision in most agreements. I believe if they give one year's notice, they can withdraw.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the fact that investigators for the Canadian Human Rights Commission have found that 3,000 jobs filled mainly by women are almost identical in value to those filled by men in the general services group of the PSAC, and that these people are receiving as much as $1.80 per hour less, is the minister now willing to take the principle of equal pay for work of equal value seriously by acting on the investigators' report, and guarantee that women public servants receive equal pay for work of equal value, and ensure that public employees do not have to drag the federal government before the Human Rights Commission again and again in order to achieve these goals?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, we are aware of approximately six complaints of this kind. 1 believe one has been settled. The specific case to which the hon. member makes reference is now the subject of discussion between the Treasury Board
Oral Questions
secretariat and the Human Rights commissioners. We will be discussing what options are available for a proper and satisfactory settlement of the complaint in question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the minister admit that he is aware of some of the problems within his own federal civil service, but what I am concerned about is that the government is not taking leadership in this matter.
Will the minister admit that the oldest and surest indicator of equality is remuneration for work, and thus will the government begin its campaign for equality by offering leadership? One of the ways of doing this is by making sure that the lowest paid groups in the public service, the clerical component, receive a more equalizing increase than the 5 per cent that has been offered at the present time, an offer which is insulting in that it does not meet the cost of living and does nothing but increase the wage differential between men and women in this country.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is now on another subject. I would point out that section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act establishing that principle in legislation was an initiative of this government in the past, so 1 do not know what he means by not taking a lead. I would say the government has very much taken the lead.
In so far as the other matter is concerned-that is, the clerical and regulatory group-as the hon. member knows from an answer I gave in this House last week, we hope to bring that particular dispute to a fair and equitable settlement in the relatively near future.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Previously, I asked in a motion under Standing Order 43 what the government's position was relative to the trucking of grain from Manitoba to Thunder Bay. What is the government's position as to the trucking of grain, and will it be continued after June 1?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has informed me that they are monitoring this movement, but at the moment they do not consider the movement to be of sufficient volume to warrant a change in their policy on delivery quotas.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, do I, then, have the assurance from the minister that there will be no change on June 1, 1980?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my knowledge, Madam Speaker, but I will look into it further to make absolutely sure.

May 20, 1980
Oral Questions SPORTS


GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES-FUNDING OF NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -may I pre-empt my question by thanking everyone in the chamber who was so kind in sending so many wonderful letters while I was incapacitated in the hospital. I have lost my gall bladder, but 1 have not lost my gall.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would like to direct my question to the minister in charge of sport. The Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union-CIAU-received grants totalling $456,000 for its 1978-79 athletic year. These grants were provided to assist the universities in the Atlantic Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the Canada West Universities Athletic Association, and the Great Plains Athletic Conference, with their intercollegiate sport travel costs.
With the great amount of moneys incremental to the minister's budget through the lottery income, and in view of the fact that universities are planning scholarships and internship programs to keep our athletes in Canada, can the universities expect the $456,000 plus in the coming year?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, 1 want to say that my first reaction must be of gratitude for the work that he did in the department prior to the time that I had the responsibility to carry on. I think he did a splendid job in the time that he was minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I regret that his illness has prevented me from paying that tribute to him in the House prior to now. In relation to the question that he asked, I must say to him that we are concerned about the funding as a result of the unwise decision of the previous government to divest the federal government of the lotteries, but I certainly think that the purpose of support of the universities, the CIAU, is a laudable cause. I expect to speak at their annual meeting in June, in Halifax. I will endeavour to have an answer for the hon. gentleman in relation to the continuation of that support prior to that date.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In the past several years, Fitness and Amateur Sport has contributed significant sums toward the development of sport and recreation leadership among native peoples. Approximately 35 native organizations throughout Canada receive funding-approximately $1.2 million per annum-designed to enhance sport and recreational opportunity. In view of the fact that the minister will now be receiving, again I say, moneys from lotteries, will the Indian Brotherhood be able to receive the $ 1.2 million per annum.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, in relation to the question of support for native sports, I met with the Indian Brotherhood representatives during their recent visit to Ottawa to discuss the manner in which the support of their athletic and recreational undertakings can be continued or improved. I have further meetings scheduled in that regard. When the level of the support is definitively determined, I will be very happy to report that to the hon. member. May I merely say at this time that 1 am certainly supportive of that particular objective.


William Herbert Jarvis: Especially if they have their conference in Halifax; that will help.


DISASTERS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, who I believe is responsible for Emergency Planning Canada. Last week, the minister's colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming, presented a motion under Standing Order 43 which was similar to one presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Erie, on the matter of the availability of funds for disaster areas.
I wish to ask the minister whether he is sympathetic with the problems related to funding in disaster areas, and whether he would consider convening a meeting of his counterparts to take a second look at the present federal-provincial agreement on this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there is a formula in existence at present by which the federal government makes available assistance to provinces which are unable to bear the burden of a disaster. In light of the hon. member's representations, I will be pleased to take a look at the matter.


Bruce Halliday: I appreciate the minister's sympathetic approach to this. May I ask a supplementary? Does the minister condone the raising of revenues by the federal tax on building materials at the expense of those who have suffered immeasurable loss and grief as a result of natural disasters?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am sure that in certain cases the application of the tax system may have unfortunate effects such as the one he described, but there is not to my knowledge within that system at present a way by which these particular difficulties could be overcome.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for Perth
May 20, 1980

and directed to the Minister of State (Multicuituralism) responsible for communications.
Like the hon. member, 1 compliment the government on this central agency. One of my concerns is that, given the bigness, there may be a tendency to forget the number of weekly newspapers and the ethnic press. We want some direction from government to that agency that the weekly press and the ethnic press will, in fact, be used better than they have been used in the past. Sometimes they have been ignored.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member's question. He can be sure that because of the other hat I wear, the ethnic press will not suffer because of my responsibilities for communications. I also hope that, without in any way doing a disservice to many worth-while press operations, we can improve the system from its operation in the past.
1 should add, on the question of weekly newspapers and advertising, I am very concerned, from the information that has come to my attention, that they have not been used sufficiently by the federal government in the past, and I plan to change that.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General why it is that members of the security service, at least here in Ontario, are not permitted to carry hand guns in the ordinary course of their duties? May I ask him how he is reacting to complaints from members in the security service and elsewhere that they are being discriminated against because of their activities in connection with the association of 17 divisions, something that I think his colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace asked him some weeks ago?
Is the minister aware that some members of the force are complaining to their commanding officers that such actions may be in violation of section 382 of the Criminal Code, and also the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the complaint that members of the security service are said to have made. 1 will look into it. As to the carrying of weapons, I will look into that as well. My understanding is that the main function of the security service is intelligence-gathering. Carrying weapons would not be part of intelligence-gathering activities.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I will send the minister copies of official correspondence in both these matters, since he has not seen them. I suggest to him that it is very strange, since ordinary, junior members and other sections of the RCMP carry weapons in the course of their duties, and the security service-which operates on a much more senior level
Privilege-Mr. Murphy
and provides protection when special events take place such as VIP visits, and so on-are not allowed, except under special circumstances, to carry weapons. I hope the minister will look into this.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the question of carrying weapons is not related to the seniority of the officer, but to the function he is carrying out at the time.


PRIVILEGE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, on Friday last in this House 1 directed questions to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) with regard to Canadian consumers not receiving a rebate of the same amount as the $200 to $1,000 enjoyed by American consumers of Chrysler products. In my supplementary question, as recorded at page 1152 of Hansard, I asked:
Will the minister get in touch immediately with Chrysler Canada to make sure that we, as Canadian consumers, get just as good a deal from Chrysler, especially since it is getting such a good deal from us?
The minister, in his reply, said this:
Madam Speaker, I am very glad my hon. friend in the NDP has officially recognized that we have obtained a good deal from Chrysler for Canadian workers and the Canadian people generally. I would like to make sure that is on the record.
Later, as reported on the same page, the minister said:
As I have said to my hon. friend, I will be very happy to go into the matter he has raised. I must say I was not aware of the details he has provided on this rebate program but it is important that it be confirmed by the NDP that we have obtained a good deal from Chrysler for Canadian workers and the Canadian people.
Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to raise the subject matter again. However, it is my intention to ensure that the minister and all members of this House understand that in no way did I suggest that the Canadian workers and the Canadian people received a good deal. For the record, my remarks indicated the opposite-that it was Chrysler which was getting a very good deal from the people of Canada, and that it had failed to offer the people of Canada the same rebate program as United States consumers are getting. It is Chrysler which is getting the good deal. In no way did I suggest to the House that the people of Canada and the workers of Chrysler are getting a good deal.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am glad the hon. member has raised the point, Madam Speaker, because the workers at Chrysler, at their dealers and their supplying firms will be dismayed to hear what he has just said.


Madam Speaker:: I gather that the explanation which has just been furnished by the minister will satisfy the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I must tell him, though,

May 20, 1980
Order Paper Questions
that this is a matter of the hon. member not being satisfied with an answer he has received from a minister and that a question of privilege does not, therefore, arise.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1978, tabled Tuesday, February 20, 1979 (Sessional Paper No. 304-1/301) and the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1979, tabled Tuesday, April 22, 1980 (Sessional Paper No. 321-1 /301);
That nine members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members on the part of this House on the Special Joint Committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee be empowered to retain professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required;
That a quorum of the committee be four members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when three members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that that House do unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable,.. . members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 45, 176, 256, 326, 374, 376, 624, 709 and 71 1.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: In the past six years, did the government loan funds to Cuba and. if so (a) what was the total amount (b) how many loans were involved (c) what was the interest charged in each case (d) were interest payments received on time and. if not, did the government take any action (e) what amount of the principal of any loan was repaid?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: In the
past six years, both the Export Development Corporation (EDC) and the Canadian International Development Agency (C1DA) have made loans to Cuba.
Cuba has signed eight loans with EDC for a total of Canadian S69.3 million. The interest rate varies on each loan but in all cases meets or exceeds EDC's minimum lending rate at the time of signing. All interest has been received on time and a total of Canadian $14,867 million had been repaid by December 31, 1979.
Cuba has also received one aid loan from Cl DA. This loan was for $10 million with terms of 3 per cent interest, seven years grace, and 30 years maturity. All interest payments have not been received on time and Cuba is currently two semiannual payments in arrears. Cuba has indicated that these payments will be made shortly. No principal is yet due on this CIDA loan.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What percentage of funds expended by each branch of the National Museums Corporation goes toward the conservation of their collections?
2.	Does the National Museums Corporation have plans to acquire vehicles and drivers to move items to and from various localities to the Canadian Conservation Institute in Ottawa for restoration and, if so (a) how many (b) are suitable vehicles available or do they have to be custom made (c) what is the estimated cost of each vehicle (d) are they available in Canada (e) how soon docs the Corporation expect to have the vehicles "on the road"?
3.	(a) What is the estimated number of trips budgeted for in the first year of operation by region (b) what is the estimated cost of the average trip to and from each region (c) how much of the transport costs will be passed on to the museum/gallery requesting the service?
4.	(a) What is the cost of (i) a museum-mobile unit (ii) an average display in such a unit (b) what were the operating expenses for the year 1977?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: 1.	National Gallery
National Museum of Man National Museum of Natural Sciences National Museum of Science and Technology
Percentage 5.3 per cent 3 per cent
2 per cent
9.5 per cent
2.	No. The National Museums of Canada operates a fleet of vehicles to transport exhibitions across the country. It is proposed that artifacts accepted for treatment at Canadian Conservation Institute headquarters be trans-
May 20. 1980

ported to Ottawa using the existing fleet. Treated objects would be returned by the same means.
3.	(a) A regular schedule of six trips annually across the country is proposed to pick up and return works of art and artifacts.
(b)	The operational cost per round trip for the vehicles and drivers is as follows: Pacific Region-$4,500; Prairie Region-$2,500; Ontario-$500; Quebec-$600; Atlantic Region-$1,200.
In many instances it will be possible to combine a pick up for Canadian Conservation Institute for restoration with the delivery of an exhibition for one of the National Museums, in which case the cost would not be borne entirely by Canadian Conservation Institute for restoration. It is therefore estimated that Canadian Conservation Institute for restoration's total annual transportation costs will be approximately $25,000.
(c)	No part of this cost will be passed on to the museum or gallery requesting the service.
Amount
4.	(a) Rolling stock Museumobile
unit	$351,700
Exhibit design, fabrication
and installation	$415,000
(b) Operating expenses for FY 77/78:
(1)	Operating and Maintenance	$231,065(2)	Salaries	$212,493
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many beds are occupied by veterans who are accepted as the responsibility of the government?
3.	What is the per diem cost per patient?
4.	Are any beds occupied by patients who are considered the responsibility of the provincial government and, if so, how many are there and what is the per diem contribution of the provincial government towards the cost of care?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Colonel Belcher Hospital was transferred to another jurisdiction on April 1, 1980. Prior to the transfer, there were 323 beds in the hospital.
2.	On April 17, 1980, there were 12.
3.	Approximately $140.00.
4.	Yes-about 250-$142.00 per diem active care, $65.00 per diem chronic care and $48.75 per diem domiciliary care.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many (a) permanent (b) term (c) casual employees are presently working at the Edmonton Veterans Home?
2.	Have these numbers changed since March 31, 1979?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: As at December 31, 1979;
1.	(a) 100; (b) Nil; (c) Nil. The Edmonton Veterans Home was transferred to the province of Alberta on December 31, 1979.
2.	At March 31, 1979, there were (a) 93; (b) 7; (c) 4.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Since its inception in 1977, what has been the estimated difference between the amount paid by the provinces as federal sales tax on purchases and the amount paid by the government as sales tax on the goods it buys from some provinces?
2.	(a) Which provinces do not participate in the plan (b) what is the estimated amount of the federal sales tax on the purchases made by these provinces which they would have paid if they had participated in the agreement?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
Data not available. 2(a) Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, (b) Data not available.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) other employees were on the payroll of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and its subsidiaries as at March 31, 1979?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a) 1,602 (b) 41.


Mr. Herbert: 1. What is the present number of beds in the Colonel Belcher Hospital in Calgary?


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of Finance?


Pierre Bussières: Nine employees.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the accompanying notes 1 and 2(a) of the financial statement of the Great Lakes Pilotage authority Limited detailed at page 117, volume III of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada, now that the authority has eight years experience, on what date does it expect to be able to operate on a self-sustaining basis?
2.	With reference to the contributed capital, what plans are there for the authority to reimburse the government?
3.	With reference to the deficit of the authority financed by the government, are there any plans to have the deficit refinanced by the authority when it becomes self-sufficient and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority has returned to the government its entire vote for both years 1978/79 and 1979/80. The authority has no vote for 1980/81 and plans to operate on a self-sustaining basis. 2. None. 3. None.

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities ATLANTIC PILOTAGE AUTHORITY


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the accompanying notes of the financial statement of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority detailed at pages 10-11, volume III of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada, now that the authority has eight years experience, can it give an estimate as to when it expects to be able to operate on a self-sustaining basis?
2.	With reference to the contributed capital, what plans are there for the authority to re-imburse the government when it is on a self-sustaining basis?
3.	With reference to the deficit of the authority financed by the government, are there any plans to have the deficit refinanced by the authority when it becomes self-sufficient and, if so, what are they?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. The authority expects to operate on a self-sustaining basis in 1980 and in future years. 2. None. 3. None.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. McGrath:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, before you call orders of the day, in the light of the events which are taking place today and which might have an impact on House business tomorrow, might 1 ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council whether it is the intention of the government to proceed tomorrow with the measure dealing with guaranteed income supplements to old age pensioners?


David Michael Collenette: We would certainly be prepared to bring Bill C-16 before the House. I understand there have been discussions which suggest we could expedite the matter tomorrow afternoon. If that is the case we would be prepared to do that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works) moved: that Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, be read the second time and referred
to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Mr. Nowlan:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, 1 thought that in view of the nature of this bill the minister would be making a few introductory remarks on second reading. 1 was waiting until he spoke. I appreciate the fact that this bill has been around for some time and that it involves a good many municipalities across the country, but in view of the widespread interest in it I certainly thought the minister would tell us, for example, whether this bill, C-4, is identical with the bill brought in by the former minister of finance in the last government as Bill C-3. If so, our discussion might certainly be expedited; a good deal of time could be saved and we could move the bill along and into committee.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I waited because I thought the hon. gentleman was about to rise to speak on this measure. The short answer to the question he has just raised is that the bill is significantly the same as the one to which he referred. Perhaps I should now comment on the bill before us.
1 am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill C-4, which is intended to provide the federal government with new legislation to govern the program of grants to municipalities in lieu of property taxes. The general intent of the bill is to update and expand the federal system of grants in lieu of taxes. This will be good news to many municipalities across Canada, as the hon. member has pointed out. Many members are aware that the bill is in substantially the same form as the measure which was before Parliament on two occasions, initially under the Liberal administration and then under the Conservative administration in the Thirty-first Parliament. I should like to refer to Hansard of December 3, 1979, which records the exhaustive comments of members of Parliament on the introduction of this bill on the last occasion.
Throughout my ten years as an elected official in local government in metropolitan Toronto, I was convinced that local governments were in need of increased revenues to respond to their mandate as a responsible level of government. It is therefore particularly gratifying to me to have a role in introducing this bill, albeit a third time, with its modest help for approximately 2,000 Canadian municipalities across Canada.
I know that some members will argue that the bill does not go far enough, and I know there are a number of points of which members have spoken before, but I would urge that the bill, which is in substantial form the same as two bills previously before Parliament, should receive speedy consideration by Parliament because it would indeed give modest financial help to affected and qualifying local governments.
The riding of York-Scarborough which I represent and which will receive some benefits from this bill is the most populous in Canada. In the next few years, the existing 108,000 eligible voters will be joined by many thousands of new residents because most of the land left for residential
May 20, 1980

development in metropolitan Toronto is in the riding which 1 represent. The residents of the riding are people from many provinces and many countries who, in my opinion, face a significant challenge in building what has been described as their instant city into more than just a city but also an attractive community in which to live, work, play and indeed to call home.
Geographically, the riding is comprised of approximately the northern half of the borough of Scarborough, which 1 represented as mayor, together with a portion of the city of North York, which I represented as metropolitan Toronto councillor. Both of these municipalities have been rapid growth areas in municipal Toronto, each averaging approximately 5,000 residential starts over the past 20 years. In many cases this development has been called an instant city with all the challenges of settling that many people, with both hard and soft services and the challenge to make this part of Canada a good place in which people can live, work and play.
Bill C-4, I realize, is not a panacea to the financial challenges of my riding or indeed of the some 2,000 other municipalities which will benefit from the provisions of the bill. For my part, however, the bill is a recognition of the role played by local government in the total delivery of government services to the public. It is my hope in the upcoming months, when a re-analysis of the respective roles of government is undertaken, that the role and responsibility of local government will find a voice in the restructuring process. It is my view that this government and the provincial governments can only benefit from the combined input of local government, and hence all Canadians can benefit from the input of local government in that process. But topics such as trilevel discussions, revenue sharing, etc., will be for another day.
Bill C-4 now before the House is intended to provide the federal government with new legislation to govern the program of grants to municipalities in lieu of property taxes. I do not propose to make a long statement in support of this bill because, as I have indicated, other ministers on two previous occasions have talked to the bill at length. It would be desirable, however, to summarize the provisions of the bill and comment on the background.
The general purpose is to update and expand the federal system of grants in lieu of taxes. The bill achieves this by enlarging the definitions of real property and real property taxes in respect of which grants are to paid and by establishing how set grants are to be determined, making it clear that they are to constitute a full tax equivalent in almost all cases. The bill also provides for a set of guidelines which are to be observed by Crown corporations in making grants in lieu of taxes on their own properties.
The definition of property subject to grant is being made very broad. It encompasses virtually all lands and buildings that are owned by the Government of Canada. Let me list some examples, which include the Parliament buildings, office buildings, postal terminals, defence bases, armouries, national parks, historic sites, research laboratories, airports, marine properties, warehouses of all kinds including those associated
Grants to Municipalities
with harbour facilities, communications stations, experimental farms, fish hatcheries, penitentiaries, police detachments, residential properties, hospitals, schools, libraries, and it goes on.
The definition of taxes in respect of which grants will be paid includes the real property tax, local improvements taxes, and almost any other kind of tax levied on owners of real property.
The grants to be paid in respect of the foregoing taxes and in respect of the properties described will be determined on the basis of full tax equivalency in almost all cases. In some cases they will represent more than full tax equivalency because some types of property which will be included are properties of a kind that are often not taxed when owned by someone other than the federal government.
In order to achieve the position which I have described, the bill makes a large number of changes in the legislation which has governed the program since 1957. In fact, the changes are so numerous that new legislation was necessary. I do not intend to itemize the changes, but I could describe three changes. First, as I have indicated, national parks, defence bases in rural areas, the Parliament buildings, etc., will be brought into the grant system. Second, and this is new, most deductions from grants will be eliminated. Third, the establishment of guidelines to govern grants by Crown corporations will be authorized. This will have a significant impact on the amount of moneys actually transferred to local authorities. These changes will mainly become effective for the 1980 taxation year of municipalities. Some provisions are subject to a four year phasing and the guidelines for Crown corporations will apply with a one year lag.
Now I have a few comments to make about the antecedents of Bill C-4. The present Municipal Grants Act is a 1951 statute which was amended in 1955 and 1957, but not since then A sizeable number of representations were made about the act during the decade of the 1970s, and the credit for responding to these and coming forward with a bill must go to my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), who, in his former capacity as minister of finance, introduced Bill C-46 in the Thirtieth Parliament. We know that that bill did not proceed when Parliament was terminated. In the thirty-first Parliament an almost identical bill was introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), and that bill similarly did not proceed past the second reading stage. But on December 3, 1979, which was the date of the second reading last given to the bill, although the debate was not completed I am told there were at least two hours of full discussion and eight hon. members spoke to the item. There was a full statement to Parliament to open the debate and this statement is set out in full in Hansard. I encourage members to review that statement.
Bill C-4 incorporates a few changes from the previous two bills. These changes do not alter in any way the amount of grants to be paid. Their general purpose is simply to clarify some of the provisions. However, I would like to refer to one of the changes since it affects me personally. This is the change in the definition of minister in the provision of the act which

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
now assigns responsibility for administration of the act to the Minister of Public Works rather than the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). The change in the definition of minister in the act was made because responsibility for administration of the grants program was transferred from the Department of Finance to the Department of Public Works on April 14 of this year. It was done just two days before the bill was introduced into the House. The change of administration was preceded by extensive discussions between the two ministries concerned, and it was approved by the Prime minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the basis of the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and myself.
The program of grants in lieu of taxes began in 1950. It was housed in the Department of Finance at that time. It was assigned to that department because the original program had limited coverage and numerous discretionary aspects. However, over the years the program has been significantly enlarged. The discretionary aspects have been curtailed, and from a managerial aspect the program is similar to the tax payment function of a privately owned corporation. In our opinion, this function is best carried out by those who are concerned with real property management, as is the general case in the private sector. In this way the tax or grantpaying function can best be integrated with all other aspects of property management. The foregoing considerations led the Minister of Finance and myself to the conclusion that the grant in lieu program should be transferred to the Department of Public Works, as 1 have indicated.
1 should like to conclude with two final comments. First, this bill will bring benefits to a large number of municipalities across Canada. As a former mayor of Scarborough, I am very pleased to have the privilege of bringing this legislation before Parliament and of assuming the continuing responsibilities for the administration of the program. Second, there is good reason to believe, because of the history of this bill which 1 have outlined, that it will receive good support from this House. As I have indicated, there has been extensive public and parliamentary discussion of the issues raised in the bill. 1 dare say that some of the questions which members opposite may have concerning the bill will have been touched on and have been touched on in the past. 1 would encourage their support of the bill inasmuch as municipalities have been waiting in anticipation for the passage of this legislation for some time. Therefore 1 indicate that I am sure there is an appreciative audience for speedy treatment of this bill before the House.
In summary, I feel that I cannot improve upon the comments made by the former minister of finance on December 3, 1979 in his concluding remarks at this point in the previous bill. He was speaking about the bill when he said the following:
It will tidy up and modernize a statute where changes are long overdue; it is now 22 years since it was changed. It will bring substantial benefits to local governments in all parts of Canada and will strengthen the principle that the Government of Canada is paying its way for the services it receives from municipal government.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to participate in the debate on Bill C-4. I congratulate the minister for giving this bill priority over other government legislation, as was the case with the last government, and for showing the interest of the government in this bill, the subject matter of which has been around for quite a while, as the minister said.
I frankly do not know when a minister of the Crown perhaps has had such a relatively easy bill to bring in during troubled times. During other debates in this House I gather there has been a disposition for approval in principle mainly because there is a recognition of the fact that municipalities, which contribute so much to the ongoing government of this land, require and deserve much more financial assistance. There has been this anomaly which really stems right from the BNA Act. I find that somewhat ironic in view of the events which are taking place today. Of course, the BNA Act indicates that federal and provincial property shall not be subject to, in effect, property taxation, thereby starting the problem some 113 years ago. Perhaps it did not seem to be much of a problem then, but as the country, the government and the municipalities grew, the need for a proper grant system in lieu of property taxes became quite apparent.
I think the minister has a relatively easy job in his department in piloting this piece of legislation. He is getting his baptism of fire, so to speak, by bringing this bill in. One reason the minister may get off a little easy today is that he has a bill with which we are all sort of generally in agreement. Also, he is dispensing money, which is an easy thing for a minister to do. But this is also my first baptism of fire in that 1 have the honour of following a minister in sort of a critique role. Being the type of person I am-and the party to which 1 belong is always constructive-naturally I will try to make my comments not too critical but certainly constructive in nature.
The historic speech of the minister of finance in the last House was not quite as historic as the vote which occurred ten days later. It was on December 3 when Bill C-3 was debated. For members interested, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), as reported at page 1957 of Hansard for December 3, set out in almost extreme detail all the pitfalls and definition problems in this bill.
As the minister said, this bill has had a long gestation period. I suppose my friends to the left who have never really been in a position to be a putative father to any bill might question the joint paternity of this bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) looks at me with his quizzical eye. 1 say that in the best parliamentary sense.


Mr. Knowles:: We have been fathering good legislation around here for decades.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Certainly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a father of many things in terms of legislation. Obviously he has an interest in this bill which will bring heln to over 2,000 municipalities across the land.
I have really one critical comment. I am somewhat sorry in the first sortie of the minister on a bill involving municipal
May 20, 1980

governments that on all days the minister perhaps did not exercise a little more rhetoric in praise of municipalities and the contribution they make to the whole Government of Canada. We know today is a rather historic day. Whether more aid to municipalities will solve some fundamental problems across this land obviously is not a fundamental solution.
1 know the minister was very active in municipal government. When 1 was on the west coast, 1 was involved in the municipal government for school boards. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) was a reeve for an historic number of years, some 26 years. It is interesting that a lot of members of the House have cut their eye teeth on municipal governments or with municipal governments, be they municipal governments or school boards.
When 1 first heard this bill being kicked around several years ago, I was surprised that the matter did not move off dead centre and did not really move. Some of the questionable gestation, it is reported, allegedly was an enticement originally in Bill C-46 back in the Thirtieth Parliament when the then minister of finance, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), issued a press release on February 19, 1979. It was suggested then-and this is what I meant by questionable paternity-that there was an enticement for the then mayor of Ottawa to throw his hat into the ring. I think Ottawa will benefit from the bill more as a single entity than any other part of the country because there is so much government property here. This was supposed to entice the then mayor of Ottawa into the federal ring.
We now have on my side of the House the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). When he was president of the privy council in the former government and even before, he showed as did other hon. members from the Ottawa-Carleton area, a real interest in trying to reduce some of the financial burdens municipalities have found themselves under, especially compounded by the fact that so much federal government property was not taxed or providing the benefits of grants in lieu of taxes because the definition was rather strict and narrow.
That is why 1 compliment the minister for bringing this bill forward. In just a slight digression, let me say that the sooner we move this bill off dead centre in terms of the floor of this House and into the committee, the more respect we will show in a concrete way for the job the municipalities of this country are doing in all their phases. We have in this federal system two major levels of government, federal and provincial, but obviously the municipalities, creatures of the provincial system, are really the ones in day to day contact and in many ways have more influence and are seen more often by the taxpayer than those of us who are tucked away here in Ottawa so many months of the year.
For that reason I hope that there will be relatively speedy action to get this bill into committee so that we can deal with some of the fine points to which the minister alluded and into which perhaps the former minister of finance, the hon.
Grants to Municipalities
member for St. John's West, went perhaps in a little too much detail. I hope some of those matters can be discussed a little more in the committee.
The very grant program which the minister said started many years ago involves an expenditure to the departments of over $148 million. Grants to Crown corporations I am informed add another $110 million. This bill would add some $25 million to this grant system by widening the definition of the property to get the grant and also changing some of the rates for calculation.
The minister spoke about his constituency. My province of Nova Scotia has several Canadian forces bases, let alone historic parks. We have a very direct interest. I do not want to declare any conflict of interest, but CFB Greenwood, which is really the heart and soul of the NATO air element of the Canadian forces, just happens to be in the heart of my riding. I am glad to see that under the new definition CFB Greenwood, like CFB Shearwater, CFB Chatham and many other bases across this country, is now going to be included in the grant structure. That will be all to the good as far as we Nova Scotians are concerned and as far as members from various municipalities across the country are concerned.
The minister mentioned that Parliament Hill, the National Library and Public Archives, the National Arts Centre, the National Gallery and the National Museum, all in Ottawa, will be included. I am sure the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton will be speaking further about this, about the problems created by this bill and the good the bill will do in the Ottawa area.
Because the bill seems to be positive, hon. members may wonder why it has been around for as long as it has. It has been without substantive amendment for 22 years. I go back to the debate in this House on December 3. The bill is going to accomplish some very positive things, but obviously-and this is one of the reasons 1 think we should get it into the committee fairly soon-there are problems involving taxation in view of municipal rates and formulae which perhaps can be illuminated and examined in committee, and perhaps the floor of the House is not the place to do it.
In a brief from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities tendered to the government way back in 1977, which was the basic brief on the then bill-and this bill has not been fundamentally changed-I think there were five areas of concern which the federation set out with regard to that bill, Bill C-46. As we know, the provisions of that bill were included in Bill C-3 and now in Bill C-4. Those five areas of concern were the difference between the assessed value versus the accepted value; second, the problem of properties which currently have a tax exempt status; third, the exemption from commercial or business tax; fourth, service deductions which the government made for services it received from the municipalities; fifth- which the minister touched upon-the fact that Crown corporations were rather ad hoc and inconsistent as to how they paid-if they paid at all-grants in lieu of taxes.
As I understand the bill, the first problem, the difference between an assessed value and an accepted value, is still going
80086 - 5

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
to be left basically up to the minister, and it will be the minister's prerogative to set the value. I think that is in clause 2 of the bill.
As I read clause 2(1), we still have a problem between assessed value of property of a municipality and its accepted value. According to this legislation, the minister will determine the "effective rate". This will in effect be left to the opinion of the minister. Perhaps in committee we will need a little further amplification as to what the terms of reference or definition of "effective rate" is going to be, because in some ways if an effective rate does not relate to the assessed value, that might destroy some of the intent of the legislation, and that is to broaden the very basis for the grant in lieu of taxes. That is one area on which we need further explanation, and hopefully that can be done in the committee.
As 1 understand it, the second matter has been largely cured by this bill. With respect to properties which had a tax-exempt status, under the terms of this bill there will be an expansion and a very wide definition of the properties to be covered. Such properties as parks, historic sites, museums, art galleries and the like and defence bases are going to be included, so in large measure I think both this government and the previous government went a long way toward removing the complaint of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that too many federal buildings were not even involved in the grant program.
As the minister stated today, and as I mentioned, the expansion of the grants in large measure has been clarified, and certainly if the clarification is not wide enough, perhaps by the time we come to the committee other municipalities which feel that it is still a little loose as to whether some property in their areas will be covered by the expanded grant may let us know. This is an unusual bill. Perhaps there will be many bills which will have this joint paternity, but the problem of the exempt properties has been largely rectified in the provisions of this bill.
1 think the problem which is left up in the air the most, for perhaps very justifiable reasons, is the third problem which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities brought to the attention of the government in 1977. It has been passing resolutions on it since 1977 at its annual meetings. I refer to the question of the business tax or the commercial tax or the occupancy tax-call it what you will. Under the bill even as it is presently before the House, there is still not going to be, as I understand it- again there is a place, perhaps committee, for further clarification of this-any allowance for a business tax that the municipality imposes.
As we know, municipalities have a very limited source of revenue, be it from real property taxes, business taxes or commercial taxes. 1 appreciate the reasoning of the federal government that a business or commercial tax is such a variable thing, depending upon the municipality and/or the province, that there could not be a standard set across the country on the basis of which the federal government could give a consistent grant in lieu of taxes. I appreciate there are many variables in this equation. The lack of uniformity in respect of commercial taxes extends all the way through from
different assessments, criteria and stock in trade to rental value, sometimes on the basis of square footage, and other times on the basis of storage capacity or assessed value of real property. Often it is done on the basis of a flat rate. Because of these variables in these municipal taxes across the country, the federal government felt there was no way it could pay a fair grant in lieu of taxes.
One of the reasons we have not made progress in respect of this bill is that it has been difficult enough in the past for municipalities to obtain a grant in lieu of property taxes. This bill, in effect, bites the bullet in respect of property taxes. It has, in effect, provided for grants and opens up areas in relation to property that are more difficult to assess in terms of property tax; for example, historic parks and defence bases. The government is apparently prepared to move in that direction, with all the difficulties involved.
The only other real source of income for a municipality is taxes on businesses or commercial endeavours. As 1 understand this bill, there will be no recognition of grants in lieu of income from business tax.
1 do not run a business at my constituency office, but in my municipality I am confronted with a business tax. I objected to paying it, but I found out I was going to have my furniture hauled away if I did not pay it. The tax is assessed on the basis of the fact that I am located on the front, main street of my home town.
In similar fashion, I understand the federal government feels that, because it is not in a business, it should not pay any business tax or give any grant in lieu of such a tax. If that is the case, perhaps the minister will be able to expand upon that situation when the bill reaches study in committee.
Part of the dilemma in that argument is that departments do not carry on businesses, but some Crown corporations and agencies of government do, in effect, carry on businesses, often in direct competition with others in the private sector. Perhaps when we get to the committee stage the minister will be able to distinguish between a department which does not carry on a business and a Crown corporation or an agency of government that does. I can understand the government's argument in respect of departmental activities, but what is the situation in respect of a Crown corporation which carries on a business within a municipality? There is no problem that I see as to why the government has not moved to recognize a grant in lieu of some business or commercial tax in respect of departmental activity; but that reasoning does not apply to Crown corporations or other government agencies carrying on businesses, as I say, often in competition with others in the private sector.
With that situation, should there not be a recognition of some flat rate?
An hon. Member; $100 million.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister mentions from his seat "$100 million". I think Crown corporations are giving grants in lieu
May 20, 1980

of taxes to the extent of $110 million. Is that the $100 million the minister refers to? 1 know the minister has a problem speaking again in view of the rules of the House, but perhaps when we reach committee he can elucidate for me what 1 think is a slight contradiction in not recognizing departments in relation to grants in lieu of business taxes because they do not carry on business, and Crown corporations that do carry on business on a competitive basis. 1 should like the minister to comment further in that regard in committee.
The fourth matter, as 1 understand it, that the municipalities were concerned about has been corrected by this bill, particularly by clause 8. That concern relates to the fact that there was a deduction for the services a municipality provided to the federal government. The federation made the point in its brief back in 1977, and 1 quote:
Two types of service deductions from the main grant are made to reflect:
(1)	the cost of those services provided directly by the federal government; and
(2)	the cost of those services provided by the municipality which are not used
by the federal government.
The federation I think finally received some favourable recognition in this regard. The federation went on to state in its brief:
The federation believes that there is no basis for these deductions, which assume that one only pays taxes for services received. It seems safe to say that no property tax system could operate on that basis.
The federation recommended that these service deductions be discontinued. As 1 understood the minister's remarks on the bill today, and as I understand the bill itself, in large measure, with very few exceptions, these service deductions will be removed, and that part of the increase in the grants will represent a contribution for those services, other than in some special situations involving educational contracts with municipalities under which special educational services are provided; for example, to defence bases.
The fifth matter which was raised by the federation involved Crown corporations. The minister said earlier that where Crown corporations were very hit or miss, inconsistent, in conferring grants in lieu of taxes, there will now be a more consistent direction, or more consistent directives to Crown corporations to provide municipalities with these grants in lieu of taxes. I think that is a very positive thing. Perhaps again when we reach committee study we will be given some further direction as to how wide these directives will be.
We all know that the increase in the activities of Crown corporations has represented a large part of the growth in government. I am glad to see that grants in this regard are to be brought into some order or under some umbrella so that municipalities will not always be wondering about these grants. In this way there will be some uniformity of grants to municipalities in lieu of business taxes in relation to Crown corporations.
Those are the five matters that caused the Federation of Canadian Municipalities some concern. Whether representatives of the federation or of any other organization will want to appear before the committee during its study of this bill, 1 do not know at this stage, but I feel this is a step forward. This
Qrants to Municipalities
matter was fully canvassed on December 3, 1979. The principle has favour with members on all sides of this House. Perhaps again, in view of the events of the day, if this place is to become a little more relevant, with recognition for the work that all governments do, especially municipal governments, the best thing we can do is move this bill from dead centre of the floor of the House of Commons, past second reading stage and into committee where some of the more complicated formulae set out in the bill can be explained by the minister. We on this side are in favour of the bill in principle and we want it to move forward.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, we in this party also support this bill and I would like to begin my remarks by outlining some of our reasons for doing so.
In the first instance, of course, there is to be an additional $25 million provided to municipalities by way of grants in lieu of property taxes. That $25 million is a significant amount. This bill, in addition, increases the number and kinds of federal properties which fall within the scope of this legislation. That removes a bugbear that has existed in the legislation.
In addition, the bill provides some direction to Crown corporations regarding grants in lieu of taxes. This improvement perhaps results from submissions and briefs that have been presented to the government in the past. As I understand it, the bill also makes some provision for Crown corporations which are generally independent of the federal treasury, being expected to pay grants in lieu of business occupancy tax. As well, for the first time the bill will provide for the payment of grants in lieu of taxes as it affects defence bases in rural areas, national parks, historic sites, museums, libraries, art galleries, concert halls, etc. There are many improvements in this bill and it, therefore, deserves support.
However, there are also some serious shortcomings which we should not allow to go by without saying something in that regard. Fundamentally, a weakness in the legislation is that it continues to be a grants system-rather than a taxation system. In other words, the authority as to how much tax will be paid still lies with the federal government-rather than with the local taxation authorities. This was certainly the main criticism brought forward by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities when they referred to the difference between the assessed value, which is the value assessed by the local authorities, and the accepted value, which is determined by the federal government.
In principle, the bill is weak. If there is to be an increased respect in this House for local councils and cities, then this bill would be a good start if we were to change the basic principle underlying this legislation.
The other major area of weakness in this bill is the continued exemption of the federal government from paying commercial taxes. Commercial taxes are an important source of revenue for local government, and as long as the federal

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
government gets off the hook by not having to pay, then the local taxpayer must pick up the tab. 1 am referring to the local property taxpayer and, as we all know, local property taxes are the most regressive taxes and a tax which is really hurting people today.
It is also important to note with regard to the government's continued exemption from commercial taxation that Prince Edward Island has found a way around this situation by combining what was once their commercial tax with their property tax. So, in effect, the federal government is paying a commercial tax in Prince Edward Island. This is a very inequitable situation so far as the other provinces are concerned; the principle should be applied across the country, not just in one province.
If the body involved, such as a corporation or any private profit-making corporation, were in this situation, we would not allow them to get away without paying the tax levied by the local government. There is no reason why the federal government, simply because it is the most senior level of government in this country, should be able to use its authority to get away from paying local taxes.
Another reason that this commercial tax should be paid by the federal government is that if it were not in the building that it occupies, then clearly some other activity would be carried on in that building. This has the effect of creating a lost opportunity for the community, which means loss of revenue. If a private citizen refused to pay a tax levied by a local authority, that person would be dealt with very expeditiously by the local tax authorities; but not the federal government, which is exempt from paying this commercial tax. I see no reason why the federal government should be able to get away with not paying a tax when a private citizen would be made to pay the bill. In fact, since the government does not pay this commercial tax, the local citizen is forced to pay a higher property tax.
Finally, with regard to the continued commercial tax exemption of the federal government, it is at least interesting, if not completely entertaining to me, to read the comments on this bill by the Liberal party when they were in opposition. At that time they seemed to indicate through one of their members that they were in complete accord with the objections or concerns expressed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I can think of two specific objections expressed by that organization. The first objection is the reference to the difference between the assessed value and the accepted value; and the second objection, of course, is the commercial tax exemption.
When this bill came into the House, the Liberals while in opposition raised the question as to why there should be a continued exemption from commercial taxes. Now that the Liberals are in office, they have done nothing about the matter. 1 also noticed that when the Conservatives were in government they were supportive of this legislation. Now that they are in opposition, they refer to the objections raised by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The Conservatives
while in office did nothing with regard to at least a couple of those objections.
There are other shortcomings in this bill, and I will mention a couple more. One refers to the clause whereby regulations must be published before they are implemented. It seems to me that the clause says that the regulations must be published only once. After that one publication, the government could change the regulation and implement it without making the public aware of the changes. The government should publish these regulations until they are in a form in which they can be implemented. This would show a greater commitment to open government than the simple requirement that the regulations be published only once, which of course leaves the government with the option of changing the regulations after that publication.
Another shortcoming is with regard to the phasing in of the grants over four years. That is, in the first period the government will pay 25 per cent, in the second year 50 per cent and on upwards. The bill acknowledges that the government owes a tax bill to the local authorities, but if one owes a tax bill, one cannot get away with paying 25 per cent in the first year, 50 per cent in the second year and so on. Certainly no individual taxpayer could get away with such a proposition. If one owes on a bill, then one should pay that bill in full.
By and large, this is a good bill and it deserves support. Yet much more would have been possible had the government taken the initiative, and much more is necessary. Once again, 1 hope that, perhaps in the committee stage, the minister and members of the opposition will be willing to push a little further to clear up the concern about, "assessed value" and "accepted value" and about doing away with the commercial tax exemption.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise in support of Bill C-4, to establish the Municipal Grants Act, 1980. The hon. minister has indicated that it has been three decades since there has been any major revision in this area. There was an indication that $258 million was paid out in 1979-80, $148 million by the federal government and $110 million by the Crown corporations and external affairs. The hon. member from Annapolis Valley-Hants has indicated some concern over this matter. I assume that his concerns will be cleared up in committee.
There are five major areas which I am pleased to support. Previously the federal government defence bases were not required to pay their fair share of taxes if they provided certain facilities, specifically elementary and secondary schools, police protection, fire protection, garbage pick-up and sewage. Now the government will be required to pay their fair share if the municipality is unwilling or unable to provide those facilities. Previously the government had a preferred rate, and this will no longer exist unless the ordinary taxpayer has a comparable preferred rate.
The minister has referred to the new definition of property, which is important and means an additional $25 million. There will also now be payments direct to Indian bands, and water
May 20, 1980

taxes, particularly in the province of Quebec, will now be included. The bill is fairly straightforward, but there is a great deal of discretion left to the minister. If the discretion is exercised fairly, 1 cannot foresee any problem. For instance, under clause 3(1), the minister may grant funds out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Under clause 13 no right or grant is conferred by this act. Under clause 6(ii) the minister may deduct an amount for services that, in his opinion, the authority is unable or unwilling to provide. I am sure that if it is exercised fairly there will be little problem with the act.
To ascertain what this meant in terms of dollars, over the weekend in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, 1 contacted the mayor, the city administrator and the treasurer who indicated $461,000 was paid out. That represents a population of 83,000, so it gives us some idea of how the money is allocated. There was a suggestion made by the treasurer that for better administration of the bill the federal government pay its bills on time as it expects others to do. For instance, the municipal fiscal year is from January 1, to December 31. The federal government, under this act, is within the same fiscal year as far as payment is concerned, yet the federal government does not pay its bill until the latter part of the year.
As hon. members are all aware, the municipal base of revenue is very narrow. It comes from normal taxation, normal licence fees, grants and subsidies from the senior levels of government and earnings from municipal undertakings. The licence fees and municipal undertakings just barely pay their own way. As far as subsidies are concerned, I do not know of the studies, but the municipal rule of thumb, at least in Ontario, is to try to run the municipality as follows: one third municipal, one third provincial and one third federal.
With regard to local improvement charges, people are paying less under local improvements than what it actually costs municipalities; for instance, for sidewalks. These services are directly attributable to the value of the house. That leaves, as the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) indicated, a regressive municipal tax for most services. I suggest that that is an unfair method of taxation that was right 50 years ago but is no longer in today's modern society. It is unfair because the pensioner pays more than his fair share and the low-income people pay more than their fair share. It is unfair because the renters do not pay their fair share for police, fire and school costs. Yet this system persists.
It would be much fairer-and we are into this with the referendum in Quebec-if the municipalities were under the similar type of system that the federal income system is based upon.
I would like to discuss my city primarily because I am familiar with it. But I think there are other examples in northern Saskatchewan, northeastern New Brunswick or in many parts of this country where there is a medium-sized municipality. Ours is a medium-sized municipality with a population of 83,000 and a stable economy. We have a pulp and paper mill, a steel corporation and a lumber company.
Grants to Municipalities
Between 1961 and 1975 the area experienced high income and a rapidly expanding population. Algoma Steel, within that period, invested $800 million and with 10,000 employees the population increased. With amalgamation there was a further jump in population. It increased from 43,000 to 70,000. Because the economy boomed during this period, our town boomed. But the federal government came into the area and started a senior citizens program which put a demand on the building trades and a geared-to-income housing program.
Then there were large expenditures for insect pathology and urban renewal. Along came the provincial government and did the same thing in partnership with the federal government for senior citizens, geared-to-income housing and urban renewal. Then came the CAT colleges with regard to higher education and conservation projects. At the same time the high schools jumped on the bandwagon and the city built a new city hall. Also at the same time private development went on the upswing. All in all, the municipal debt doubled from $13 million to $31 million between 1965 and 1978. This example is probably appropriate to most municipalities of this size and nature in Canada.
Today the major industry, Algoma Steel, says that it is going to invest $475 million. This investment has already started. Great Lakes Power is going to invest another $85 million to build a 52 megawatt power generator plant. The spin-off is 5,000 additional jobs and a population increase of 25 per cent to 30 per cent.
A report was prepared and submitted to the province, and which will come to the federal government, showing what this means to a municipality which must provide basic services, such as sanitary services, on this archaic system. It means that municipalities such as ours, which will be receiving half a million dollars under this act, will require $26,590,000 to put in sanitary services that are necessary for this type of expansion, for which we are responsible.
DREE has said-and we are within one of the areas covered by DREE-that it does not have enough money, yet it has done a good job in the past in Cornwall, Dryden, Thunder Bay, Nakina and so on along these lines. We have to watch what DREE is doing with its limited funds.
1 think Bill C-4 is excellent legislation and is heading in the right direction. However, I think the time has come, as one hon. member has suggested, when we should go back to the municipalities, as we did perhaps a decade ago, to these tri-level conferences which did an excellent job. We have to realize we are all serving the same taxpayer. There are only two criteria: that we collect the money judicially, and that we spend it wisely.
In conclusion, I support Bill C-4 with these additional thoughts that 1 think will enhance the development of our tax base at the three levels of government.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been following the debate on bill C-4, the proposed municipal grants act, with interest. 1 listened carefully to what the minister, and the spokesman for my caucus had

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
to say, to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr, Nowlan) and also to what the member from the New Democratic Party had to say, the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper).
First of all, I would like to say to the member from Winnipeg that the remarks I am making today are essentially those that I had intended to make last December when this bill was brought forward by the government of which 1 was a part. I was not totally satisfied with the bill at that time. While the member from Winnipeg might say that we were supporting the bill then, and now are quoting the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 1 want him to know that although we were supporting the bill, it does not mean that we had total unanimity on all the minor points in that bill. Surely we are large enough in this House to be able to give generous support to legislation without necessarily agreeing on all of the fine points.
1 support what the member from Annapolis Valley-Hants had to say in quoting what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said in its 1977 resolution. The minister says that some members are saying that this bill does not go far enough. When one of his own members points out that the bill is simply a revision of a bill that is approximately now 30 years old, perhaps what we need is more than fine tuning. Maybe we ought to look at some of the principles underlying the matter of grants in lieu of taxes, and maybe broaden them so that they promote equity in the distribution of these grants throughout Canada.
It seems to me that one of the problems of this bill is that it tends to perpetuate inequalities in the distribution of grants. I think that is an inherent problem with the bill. 1 remember when the spokesman for the Conservative party was speaking that the minister shook his head vigorously when he, suggested that Ottawa would benefit more, and maybe it had to do with something regarding the political scene. The minister denied that. Well, he was not reading the Ottawa newspapers at that time because there was quite an upheaval in that Ottawa's tax base was diminishing owing to the wholesale move to new installations across the river.
The fact is that when you look at the proscriptions within the bill, cities that have federal installations, principally office buildings, are going to benefit more than other cities that have other kinds of federal installations. If we are going to look at the principles of the legislation, we have to look at the total package of federal installations and provide for greater equity than what the bill provides at the present time.
Let me just give a "for instance". 1 refer to page 4, subclause (2)(f). 1 quote:
-but does not include
(f) any structure or work that is not a buildfing designed primarily for the shelter of people, living things, plant or movable property and, for greater certainty, "federal property" does not include any structure, work, machinery or equipment included in schedule II.
That already narrows it down considerably when you think, for example, of all the government corporations that are operating in some municipalities. The proscription in that paragraph narrows down the possibility of grants to municipalities that are providing a home base for some of those corporations.
Schedule II is referred to in that paragraph. The minister mentioned federal ports are included, and that is true, but he did not tell all the truth because it does not mention all of the installations within those federal ports and it is only certain kinds of federal ports. 1 want to point out that one of the pieces of discrimination in the legislation has to do with the fact that the National Harbours Board have to pay grants in lieu of taxes but harbour commissions do not. I know that is not part of the responsibility of this particular minister, but if the government is going to take a global look at grants in lieu of taxes and wants to erase some of the inequities that are going on, it ought to look at the fact that commission ports are not paying either taxes or grants in lieu of taxes.
1 understand now, on some very good authority from a member of the government party, that the government is quietly shelving the ports act. The ports act would have revised the whole system so that all of the ports would have had to pay grants in lieu of taxes. If the government is considering shelving that piece of legislation, it is again perpetuating the inequity between National Harbours Board facilities and commission port facilities. 1 hope that when the minister appears before the committee, he will allow some kind of latitude in discussing this legislation so that he can revise some of the aspects and schedules that are listed in the back of the bill.
The minister mentioned ports, but schedule II excludes docks, wharves, piers, piles, dolphins, floats, breakwaters, retaining walls and jetties. I may not be much of a seaman, but my house overlooks the Pacific Ocean and 1 do know a little bit about ports from that vantage point. I had always assumed that wharves had something to do with ports.
If the minister wants to create equity-and one of the purposes of bringing the legislation forward is to create some equity in this provision-maybe he ought to revise schedule II so that when he is talking about federal ports he is in fact talking about federal ports, not only minuscule portions of those federal ports.
As some of the other speakers have pointed out, the legislation discriminates between federal business installations and private business installations. 1 recall some months ago trying to press the point regarding a federal harbour commission, like the Fraser River Harbour Commission, in my constituency. In his introductory commercial, his chamber of commerce commercial, the minister mentioned that Scarborough is the largest constituency. That is undoubtedly true. It so happens that mine is the next largest. It is certainly the largest west of his constituency. The municipality that I represent in part has as many electors as he has in his. I am sure the problems in my constituency are the same as in his.
Municipalities continually try to increase their industrial tax base in order to take some of the burden off the home owner.
May 20, 1980

When you have a port authority like the Fraser River Harbour Commission being exempted from taxes and grants in lieu of taxes and it is not on the schedule, you increase the burden of taxes on the home owner. In fact, the home owner is subsidizing the Fraser River Harbour Commission.
When 1 was speaking to this point some months ago, the officials of the department were quick to defend the commission ports by referring to all the residual benefits that flow out of those commission ports and all of the social benefits that accrue to the community because the port happens to be there; they told us to think of all the jobs it provides and all the income taxes its employees provide.
I ask these people, what is going on here? 1 am sure the steel fabricating firm up the river from this port is paying taxes on the total installation. I am sure they are providing some benefits to the community. The plastics plant which is just a few miles away has to pay taxes on the total installation. 1 am sure they would say they are providing some benefits to the total community. How can the officials of the department have the gall to say that they should not have to pay the same kinds of taxes as private industry because they are providing all of these extra benefits to the community? What extra benefits? Surely by paying full taxes on the property and the business involved in that property, private industry is also contributing to the community.
If the minister feels that this bill really needs to be updated and revised, let us do it root and branch. Let us look at the principles now incorporated in the bill and make sure that they apply fairly to all municipalities, and apply fairly between the government and private industry.
It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that if you apply the same rules to the Fraser River Harbour Commission in my community that apply to industry, the municipality would stand to gain something like $250,000 a year in taxes. If you apply it narrowly the way the departmental officials want to, those tax revenues are reduced to about $60,000. That is about a $200,000 difference a year. The home owners of that community are supporting the federal government.
I say to the minister that if he is really serious about taking a root and branch look at this legislation so that grants in lieu of taxes are applied fairly, the grants should apply fairly to all municipalities and they should be applied fairly and on an equitable base between federal installations and the private industrial installations, so that the private home owner or the private industrial companies are not subsidizing the federal installations.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Oitawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long; I just want to make a few comments on this bill.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, it is not a filibuster. 1 just want to make some comments on the differences between the present bill and the bill tabled by the previous government, the former Bill C-46.
Grants to Municipalities
Generally speaking, this move has been awaited for a long time by municipalities, especially those I represent, Ottawa and Vanier. As the previous speaker mentioned, no one could have lived in Ottawa very long without having lived through situations such as where our mayors, for example, even threatened to interrupt services if the federal government did not pay the full amount of assessment that they believed it should pay.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to one substantial difference between this bill and the last because of our experience in Ottawa with federal land acquisitions for federal purposes. 1 just want to relate one example, and that is the habit of the federal government through its agencies to acquire land or buildings, for purposes which are justified. I think of the large amount of space that was purchased in Ottawa by the federal government through DPW, the NCC or CMHC, which we thought was to be used for urban development and for a number of years was turned into parks. I think in particular of LeBreton flats, where several dozens of acres now lie fallow, undeveloped and unproductive as far as the municipality of Ottawa is concerned. 1 am thinking of the Fournier Park in Hull; a long-term housing development was planned for that area and, as yet, we have seen nothing.
Another example which comes to mind is Woodroffe Park, land owned by the federal government, which comes under paragraph (g)-any real property developed and used as a park and situated within an area defined as "urban" by Statistics Canada. It appears to me the federal government has to come to grips with the problem caused by acquiring properties, leaving them undeveloped and depriving municipalities of the assessments they might have got out of them.
1 would refer, also, to clause 12 of the bill. That clause, 1 notice, follows word for word the former Bill C-3 brought in by the previous government in that the minister, who would have had some discrection, has no more that discretion. I refer to new acquisitions by the federal government. Under Bill C-46, if the federal government were to acquire a piece of property, a building of some kind, for federal purposes, a certain discretion was vested in the minister. I would like to read a few words from that bill.
The minisler of the Crown who is to have the management, charge or direction of such property may out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purchase of that acquisition make a grant to the taxing authority in lieu of real property tax . . . in respect to such property for the portion of the taxation year remaining after its acquisition.
Unless we amend the bill before us, the minister will have no discretion to do this. I notice he did not have such authority under Bill C-3 either, and 1 question the wisdom of the change. It might well be that a municipality would suffer a loss through the acquisition by the federal government of a property, say, in January or February of the year; ten months of that year would then elapse without the local authority receiving any money in respect of property which, prior to appropriation, was a source of revenue. I find this proposition hard to accept and I hope the minister will ask his advisers to prepare the answers for us in committee, because I am sure

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
members will be anxious to know why this particular provision was removed from Bill C-4.
1 think the questions raised by hon. members today were quite interesting. The point which was made with regard to the commercial occupancy tax was sufficient to suggest that we ought not to become involved in that kind of dossier this afternoon, because it is my understanding there are ten provinces with ten different systems in this regard, systems which are not comparable either from province to province or from industry to industry. It would be very difficult for the federal government to come in with one umbrella saying: Yes, we will pay the proportionate taxes which would go with the commeri-cal assessment. I understand, for example, that Prince Edward Island has abolished the commercial tax completely and has imposed one tax for real estate properties and another for all other property, including industrial and commercial. Ontario came close to doing the same thing last year or the year before, but failed to carry it through because of the political consequences this would have had for the Toronto tax base.
I support the minister in his statement that commercial assessment taxes would be most difficult for the federal government to set up, mainly because of the variations which exist between provinces. 1 guess we will have time to go into many of these points with the minister later; 1 thank him for the celerity with which he has acted. I thank him for seven years of constant pressure and consultation with everybody in finance. 1 guess the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) is more efficacious than ministers of finance. He has succeeded in a month and a half in bringing forth a bill which I believe will mean an improvement as far as my city is concerned and which will result in increased grants.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my few remarks will be directed to two or three of the subjects which have already been raised. I say to the last speaker that I share his concern about that provision in the bill which is not quite in accordance with the historical intent. 1 support the observations he has made, with one further comment. I refer to clause 12 of the bill, which states:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, where Her Majesty in right of Canada acquires taxable property, no grant shall be made under this act in respect of such property for any part of the taxation year during which it was acquired.
This is quite acceptable, I believe, to provinces and municipalities where lands expropriated are properties held in right of the Crown by the province or municipality. The difficulty, as has just been pointed out, arises when the federal authority acquiring land chooses to do so on January 1, exempting itself under this legislation from any obligation, moral or otherwise, to make grants or payments in lieu of taxes to the appropriate provincial authority and thus to the municipality directly concerned.
This is where 1 find the clause to be deficient. It leaves an individual who has been deprived, or may have been deprived, of the right of enjoyment or of entitlement to property on January 1 liable for municipal taxes and other forms of taxes when, in fact, he no longer enjoys right of enjoyment of that piece of property for whatever purpose.
So I would briefly join with others in indicating to the minister that I am sure this is one area members will want to re-examine. It seems to me that the prorated adventure in this area by most provincial jurisdictions is equitable. There is no need for the federal government to be seen to be taking a slight advantage under a bill like this. The dollars and cents we are talking about are insignificant alongside the potential danger we incur if we follow the intent of clause 4 of the general section of this act.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of minor inequities in the bill. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) has touched on the inequity of exclusions under schedule 11, dealing with ports, particularly the commission ports, but, as well, all of those structures, many of which are fund or money-generating facilities owned by the federal government, which fall within Ports Canada.
As the minister will probably be fully aware, Ports Canada does a significantly greater volume of business in this country of ours than do the ports of significance. In other words, the 20 major ports in Canada handle a relatively small part of the total volume of business that is transacted in and out of ports in Canada. 1 am sure the minister is aware of that. I simply alert the minister to the fact that in committee this will be an area which will be examined, particularly where there is very clear evidence that the Government of Canada in fact profits from the operation of a facility. In this case I am referring to ports under the Ports Canada authorities we have.
My final comment, because all the others have been touched upon, is that all of this is very good. It is like mother love and it has been around for a long time. I do not particularly commend the minister for bringing it on early. Perhaps I could share the sentiment that in other responsibilities he did take some leadership in bringing about change to the old bill.
While I commend the minister for having done so in another context, I remind him that he is no longer a mayor from the Toronto area. He is now a minister of the Crown sitting here in Ottawa, and he has a responsibility to everybody. The sooner he remembers, in a sense, that he has one responsibility and obligation here-that is, to the people of Canada in his portfolio with respect to public works-perhaps the better off we will be.
The final point I want to make is that, notwithstanding all this mother love and everything else, what is probably as important to municipalities and provinces is that the federal government pay its bills on time. There is nothing more costly or aggravating to municipalities, cities or provinces than to budget for funds and then have to go out and borrow those funds while waiting for the federal government to complete its transfer arrangements with respect to these matters. Nothing is more aggravating, and I see nothing in this bill that will change that.
Indeed, I am afraid that the phasing in of the new system in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983 before there is a 100 per cent transfer is going to cause enormous problems for cities, munic-
May 20, 1980

ipalities and provinces. The distinguished people in the gallery are very competent.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Explain.


J. Michael Forrestall: There are too many of them for it to be otherwise. They are very competent, and so is the system, and so is the structure; but history tells us that if something can go wrong, it will. I know what we are trying to do and what we are trying to get at. It would be my strongest suggestion that this system not be phased in over four years but, rather, that it be phased in after one year in order to reduce the complications which will arise when the province of British Columbia does a property evaluation and reassessment one year and Nova Scotia another year falling within these four years. I think there are two or three massive re-evaluations to be made, and this is going to cause problems with the computer. All these things are going to lead to problems. When we are dealing with something as technical and complex as this, it seems to me that the cleaner and quicker we do it, the less chance there is for confusion down the road.
If we accept that grants in lieu of taxes are absolutely necessary if municipalities are to get on with their work, then surely part of that or one matter, one understanding or one point without question is that we facilitate the municipalities and the provinces in the utilization of that money with respect to budgeting and so forth.
It is important that we pay our bills on time. In my judgment, the phasing in of this system will tend to complicate that, and if history follows in this case as it does in everything else-I think it was Mr. Murphy's law or someone else's that if something can go wrong, it will-it will in fact confront those in the minister's department who now have to administer this program as well as the recipient bodies, the municipalities and the provinces.
With those two or three points I have mentioned to the minister, and while everybody on all sides of the House welcomes these measures, they are not without fault. There are minor things which I hope the committee system and some detailed examination will help to strengthen, so that what emerges at the report stage in the House and subsequently at third reading stage and passage will be the best that we can do under today's circumstances for the provinces and municipalities, and that it may stand, as did the previous act.
It always augurs well for a bill if it lasts 15 or 20 years. The worst form of pollution is a good idea discarded before it has been fully used. It would be our intention to bring these matters to the minister's attention so that, in the final analysis, the bill is the best we can produce under the circumstances.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be able to address myself to Bill C-4 which is before us this afternoon relating to grants to municipalities. I have listened with a great deal of interest to all of the speakers, and 1 concur with the points of view raised. I feel it would not be appropriate for me simply to repeat what has already been said in the spirit of moving hastily to ensure the speedy
Grants to Municipalities
passage of this bill and getting it into committee where it will be examined in detail. I have confidence that the minister will receive our comments well and see that the suggested improvements to the bill in fact take place.
There are two items, however, which I would like to mention specifically to emphasize the fact that the bill does not recognize seriously the differences in municipalities across the country. Certain municipalities will receive benefits far in excess of benefits received elsewhere simply because of the nature of the taxation base in these various municipalities.
I must also stress the need for some consideration of payment a bit earlier than what has traditionally been the case.
As a member of a city council for a number of years I can say that it was always a disappointment when we had to wait so long to receive the moneys we expected from the federal government. This caused a great deal of uncertainty and concern about the ability of the municipality to pay its bills and meet its obligations in terms of providing services to its taxpayers.
The city I represented as a city council member certainly recognized that there are many, many problems facing municipalities today, not the least of which are financial problems. We found ourselves in a situation where we had to go out and borrow money. At that time we were borrowing from foreign sources, and very shortly thereafter, because of the rapid devaluation of the Canadian dollar, we found ourselves in a situation where we had to be paying off huge foreign debts in terms of Swiss francs, German marks or American dollars. This simply added to the financial problems of the municipality.
This bill is certainly a step in the right direction but, as the minister responsible indicated, it does not go far enough. There are many problems this bill does not address. In this form, of course, it cannot address them. It is not a panacea for all the problems that face municipalities today but a step in the right direction. 1 suggest it is a small step in the right direction, especially when one considers the major jump backwards that was taken in 1978 when the Liberal government at the time did away with the department of urban affairs, a move which was, in a sense, supported by the Conservative party in their brief time in office.
I suggest that more than ever before there is a need for more active leadership to be shown by the federal government in terms of urban development and municipal affairs. When confederation came into being more than 100 years ago, the composition of our population was significantly different from what it is today. At that time 80 per cent of the population was rural and only 20 per cent was urban. Today we find the situation completely reversed; 80 per cent of Canadians live in urban areas and 20 per cent live in rural areas. Perhaps we could even make a strong case for saying that those living in the so-called rural areas, small villages and towns, are in fact urban dwellers as well and face many of the problems, stresses and challenges of the urban dwellers. One can make a case
1214

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
that 90 per cent of Canada's population today is experiencing urban difficulties and problems. Maybe this bill is the beginning of that process and maybe this is the time for the federal government to demonstrate serious leadership in terms of urban and municipal affairs, to provide the initiative which is presently lacking in many parts of the country.
Many of our provincial governments bear the responsibility for some of the shortcomings. I must say that I feel the federal government, relative to some of the provincial governments, has done an admirable job. However, a great deal of work is yet to be done, a great deal of creativity and innovation is before us, and that opportunity is certainly knocking at a time when scarce public funds require optimum and efficient use, where cost effective measures have never been as needed as they are today. It is a time for the federal government to provide creative, energetic initiative and leadership in Canada when it comes to dealing with urban challenges.
We see a country-and we are reminded of it especially today-of extreme diversity. Yet when you look at the nature of the cities, towns and villages across this diverse country, you recognize that similar problems exist there. The fact that a municipality may be 3,000 miles away does not necessarily mean that it shares different problems in terms of the servicing of expensive suburbs or in terms of experiencing crises in rental accommodation or perhaps vacancy rates in the neighbourhood of 1 per cent, or in some cases down to 0.1 per cent or 0.2 per cent, where housing construction, particularly social housing, is a major challenge facing both large and mediumsized municipalities, providing for expensive urban infrastructure of all sorts, sewage systems, road systems, parks, and so on.
In the whole matter of urban transportation, be it public transportation, rapid transportation, on the kinds of problems that face municipalities from one end of this country to another, the municipalities are left on their own. Either because they have to resort to the private sector or make use of various consulting firms, or essentially have to reinvent the wheel, they are not taking advantage of the experience of sister municipalities in other parts of the country. They are not taking advantage of the experience which other municipalities have had in providing services and recognizing the difficulties which others have already experienced.
It seems that here is an opportunity for us as the federal government to play a role in providing a type of clearing house, in providing a kind of co-operative energy to bring to bear the existing knowledge, expertise and information that many municipalities and many urban centres would enjoy and from which they would benefit. It would save them the expense of finding what they think are unique solutions when, in fact, a few miles away there might be old solutions.
1 feel that the challenge of energy cost to municipalities is something which the federal government must address in terms of providing leadership. The municipality which 1 had the privilege of serving in the past used to expend, a handful of years ago, $50,000 on their hydro charges to pump water to the various parts of the city. In a handful of years, that
amount of money has changed from $50,000 to nearly one-third of a million dollars. The responsibility for that was borne, by and large, at the local level in terms of meeting those servicing costs.
With regard to cultural opportunities, we are seeing a great deal of initiative taken now in various communities across the country, initiative which we must nurture, encourage and support, where communities are coming together and building small community centres, theatres, art galleries, facilities to welcome and provide a home for the visual and performing arts, something which, if we are to weld this fine country together in a spirit which every member in the House would like to see, we should encourage.
Again this is another apportunity for the federal government to provide leadership and to show the way, through funding and, perhaps as important, through providing the co-operative energy of bringing together people and ideas to find a solution to these problems. However, we have seen in the past a cutting back in that leadership, a reduction in the leadership where the federal government, in an attempt perhaps to be more cost efficient through the consolidation of various federal programs and the transference of those consolidated programs into the provincial sphere, has given the provinces more responsibility in distributing federal funds.
One has to reflect on whether or not that has always resulted in a better service and a better opportunity for people dwelling in municipalities. For example, the urban transportation assistance program provided the initiative for programs such as railroad relocation to be transferred from the sphere of the federal government to that of the provincial government. Sums of money were made available to assist in urban transportation, which caught a number of municipalities part way along their own planning of expenditures to relocate outmoded and problematic rail transportation yards from the central part of the city to the outskirts. Once the provinces had the ability to decide how those funds might be expended, based perhaps in some cases on their own political motivation, and they chose not to continue a number of those programs, much to the disappointment of those municipalities which had already expended significant sums of money, the municipalities were left holding the bag.
When one considers that leadership in terms of our urban centres is required as it never was before, where a clearing house for information and ideas could be provided by the federal government, one recognizes the importance of our request to the minister that he reconsider, in his time in office, the decision to abandon the department of urban affairs and rethink the role that it could play in a country which is, by and large, urban. This is one of the most urban countries in the entire world.
In closing, let me comment, Mr. Speaker, on another matter which I feel must be addressed. This is the problem which faces virtually all municipalities, both large and small, across our country. It is the whole matter of the preservation of the quality of our environment.
May 20, 1980

We in Canada are fortunate to be one of those countries which by and large has a clean environment that must be preserved. Yet this clean environment, particularly as it affects our waterways, is being placed in jeopardy almost on a daily basis as municipalities attempt to deal with their sewage disposal problems more often than not in not very creative ways, limited by the amount of funding that is available to them, and as a consequence placing many of our streams, rivers and coastal areas in jeopardy.
1 should like to take this opportunity to use as an example the city of Kamloops which is in my riding. It is a city with a population of about 65,000 people. It has traditionally used a sewage lagoon method to treat sewage and then drain the essentially treated effluent into the river system. As the population has increased so rapidly over the past few years with growth rates in excess of 10 per cent, the present system reached its capacity in 1976. With major heavy industrial developments being proposed over the next year or two, we can see a greater and greater strain being placed on our river system, especially the ecology of that very sensitive system.
It is clear that to continue this way would be tantamount to catastrophe in terms of the delicate ecological base of our river system. The cost for an improvement of that system ranges somewhere in the neighbourhood of between $20 million and $90 million for a municipality of 65,000 votes. 1 suggest that that is placing an unrealistic responsibility on that municipality. I simply use it as an example because the same could be applied to municipalities, large and small, across the country. The $20 million cost would be the cheapest solution, and that is a continuation of the status quo; $90 million would provide an efficient and effective long-term solution which would take the effluent from that city and deposit it, using a land disposal method.
Of course, one of the major problems is not so much the polluting of the river system per se, but the fact that the Thompson River, a tributary of the Fraser River in British Columbia, perhaps is one of the most productive salmon fishery rivers in Canada. Not only is it a system that is part of the salmon migratory route, but it also has very crucial and important salmon spawning grounds. Therefore, it is crucial not only to the salmon industry of the Thompson and Fraser Rivers, but the Gulf of Georgia and indeed the Pacific Ocean itself. We are looking here at a renewable resource in excess of $300 million for the salmon fishery alone. I feel it is something that we must recognize. It is an area where the federal government, through its funding agencies, could play a very significant leadership role in providing the much needed relief.
In closing, may 1 say that I am very encouraged by the remarks of the previous speakers this afternoon. 1 am very pleased to see that so much work has gone into a bill in terms of identifying many of its shortcomings. I am optimistic, with proposals like those regarding the reinstatement of tri-level conferences, that perhaps this is a small step, a beginning, toward the leadership role so dearly required at this time.
Grants to Municipalities


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, second reading was devised to deal with the principle of a bill. I plan to deal with the principle of this bill in so far as it affects penitentiaries, Indian reservations and national parks, at least one of each being in my constituency.
In connection with the penitentiary, there is no difficulty in regard to the assessment because it is in a municipality. However, when the Drumheller penitentiary was built, the city council was so anxious to have the penitentiary situated there that it gave the federal government a special deal in regard to water rates. As a result, the people of the city of Drumheller subsidized the federal government for a number of years. That situation has been corrected partially, but I hope this bill will enable the minister to ensure that the federal government pays its own way in regard to the penitentiary and that it not be subsidized by the citizens of Drumheller.
In connection with Indian reservations, 1 am a little more concerned because of the fact that there is no assessment and possibly no appraised value in the general sense of the word. I hope this bill will not be a means of passing money from one department to another department or out of one pocket into another pocket. I hope the bill will benefit the actual people on the reserves because our Indian band councils and the Indian people on the reserves certainly need some help if they are to help themselves.
In connection with national parks, we have no municipalities in many of our national parks. I would like the assurance from the minister that the money will not be passed from one department to another department, but that it will actually benefit the people who live in the town sites in our national parks.
The fairness and equity of the bill will be shown, in so far as it affects the people of an area, in equalizing taxation and bringing about fairness through taxation. I hope in the case of the Drumheller penitentiary that some provision will be made to help compensate for the large amount of money the people of Drumheller subsidized the penitentiary by in the early years of that institution. They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I think the proof of this bill will be in the regulations and the administration of it. I hope the objective will be to provide fairness to the people who have been paying the bill so far.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words at this time on this bill. It is a very important bill as far as the municipalities are concerned. In view of the comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), I want to bring to the attention of the House that where government establishments are placed in rural communities, that is in counties or in rural municipalities, we find the rural area is subsidizing that establishment to the differential which will exist between the assessed taxes on the land around it and the taxes being paid by the federal government.

May 20, 1980
Federal Court Act
The hon. member for Bow River mentioned that the citizens of Drumheller were subsidizing the penitentiary there. No doubt the citizens of Drumheller will derive certain benefits as a result of the placement of that penitentiary within its boundary. But what about the establishment that is placed in the central area within a county or a rural municipality, such as the Bowden penitentiary, where the county itself will not derive any benefit whatsoever? Certainly the towns within that vicinity, where people will live and buy their necessities of life, will derive that benefit. But there is no recurring benefit to the rural municipality. Therefore, I think it behoves the government to ensure that the tax paid by the government establishment coincides with the tax any other business would pay.
May 1 call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Energy-Alleged inadequate responses of minister; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan)-Regional Economic Expansion-Relocation of DVA site in Charlottetown; the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)-Transport-Crowsnest Pass freight rates-Government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved: that Bill C-202, to amend the Federal Court Act (disclosure of documents), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a few comments with regard to my bill, which seeks to amend the Federal
Court Act by deleting subsection (2) of section 41 of the said act.
Over the last few months, as you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of the House know, we have been very much preoccupied with the debate which would lead us to greater freedom of information in this country. Indeed, the former government had a bill before the House which was initiated and sponsored mainly by our former colleague, the former hon. member for Peace River.
The term "freedom of information" is to be defined as meaning information held by government and kept secret; in other words, information that is not available to private citizens.
All of us agree that excessive government secrecy is in no way consistent with the most basic rights and fundamental principles of a society such as we espouse ours to be. The private individual does not like his or her government to keep information about him or her which could later on affect him or her in his or her career, relationships with government or, indeed, relationship with friends and neighbours. I will have something to say a little later by way of giving some practical examples of how excessive secrecy can affect individuals in our society.
Information selectively released by a government can, and I am sure has in the past-perhaps not deliberately-frustrate the orderly process of elections, and it certainly has from time to time influenced the judgment of voters when a government has had certain information that was not available to all the electors and has chosen to release that information selectively.
My bill, C-202, speaks of a different kind of secrecy or executive privilege, namely, information which is held by the government and may be withheld from the courts, or from the judiciary, under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act.
I am a layman, not a lawyer, and at times I consider myself fortunate in not having had any legal training. In the words of a very renowned law professor, that might have sharpened my mind to the point where it would be so narrow I would not be able to comprehend what goes on in the rest of the world around me. Why should I as a layman raise this matter when over half of our friends and colleagues in the House of Commons are lawyers? I have pondered this question from time to time. Nevertheless, I am taking the initiative in raising this matter in the form of a private member's bill and I will give my reasons.
I have been startled as I progressed with my research by the fact that so little attention was paid to this bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons. Government members dealt with it rather flippantly, and I must say that my learned friends on this side of the House in the opposition as well paid very little attention to it. The debate was very short and very reserved. In fact, when the bill got to committee there was no great outcry from members of the legal profession that section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act could in some way seriously restrict the rights and freedoms of individuals in our society.
May 20, 1980

The Federal Court Act received Royal Assent on December 3, 1970 and came into force on June 1, 1971. Generally section 41(1) provides that if a minister certifies to a court that a document should not be released on grounds of public interest, the court may still examine the document and order its release. Subsection (2), however, gives the minister absolute right to refuse disclosure of documents which he certifies would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, federal-provincial relations, or confidences of the Privy Council, without any examination by the court.
This is a provision in our Federal Court Act which is unique in the western world. There is not another country in the western world that has built this kind of a privilege into a federal court act. Let me quote section 41 with its two subsections. It is short and this will not take too much time. It states:
41. (1) Subject to the provisions of any other act and to subsection (2), when a minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that a document belongs to a class or contains information which on grounds of a public interest specified in the affidavit should be withheld from production and discovery, the court may examine the document and order its production and discovery to the parties, subject to such restrictions or conditions as it deems appropriate, if it concludes in the circumstances of the case that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the public interest specified in the affidavit.
In other words, sir, if a minister or the cabinet decides that a certain document which has been subpoenaed by the court may be injurious to those things, the minister may sign an affidavit, give it to the judge, explain his reasons, and the judge could, and most often does, concur and keep the document secret.
Incidentally, the debate in 1970 centred on this business of federal-provincial relations. Why should the federal government have any secrets about its relationships with the provinces? That was the only thing that seemed to offend our learned friends who participated in the debate at that time. In any case, because of the very unique position the Federal Court has in a democracy, or in a system such as ours, it can make that decision, and the only other person who would know about the contents of that document would, of course, be the judge.
Subsection (2), which was inserted in 1970 and which became law in 1972, states:
(2) When a minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations, or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of the document by the court.
Subsection (2) clearly introduces an entirely new dimension to the relationship between the judiciary and the government, and the judiciary and Parliament. 1 suggest that this new dimension is extremely and exceedingly dangerous, particularly since it is so open to abuse. It raises suspicion. Too much secrecy always raises suspicion and gives an indication that someone has something to hide. Indeed, I would like to think that we are coming to the end of the era in which the order of the day was secrecy and in which there was a paranoia
Federal Court Act
throughout the land about subversive elements threatening the orderly enforcement of law and the integrity of our system from within.
There is no doubt that much of the feeling of alienation from the truth is now finding expression in terms of separatism and dissent and that events around us in the last few days and which will culminate today in fact are very much attributable to the stubborn, aloof and secretive attitude of the Trudeau government since 1968. In the last few days we have been reaping the harvest of the seeds of suspicion which were sown in the era of the 1970s.
Even though members of the law profession did not speak out when this bill was first introduced and when changes were made and subsection (2) was added to the Federal Court Act, others have. 1 am drawing on a reference made by one Justice Deschenes who, as hon. members know, heard the case of the two young ladies who were wrongfully dismissed from the Olympic committee during the 1976 Olympics in Quebec. Judge Deschenes had this to say:
Indeed, it is one of the strange contradictions of the Federal Court Act that an act which generally gives the courts greater authority over the excutivc branch of government, should at the time show a lack of faith in the integrity of the courts to responsibly adjudicate in all cases on claims of Crown privilege and protect the genuine security interests of the state.
Justice McDonald, who is chief commissioner of the McDonald commission, had similar reservations about section 41(2). He questioned how he could discharge his responsibility if ministers of the Crown forbade him access to important documents which were obviously required by the commission before it could make a judgment with respect to the relationship between the individual, our society and the law.
Let me give a couple of examples of how individuals can be affected by this particular section of the Federal Court Act. 1 would like to refer briefly to the case of one Walter Rudnicki. This is not the first time that I have mentioned Mr. Rudnicki in the House or the problems he experienced in connection with his dealings with cabinet and which ended up in court. Again it was a case of wrongful dismissal. Mr. Rudnicki eventually won the court action, but the reasons for his dismissal were never made public. I suppose only Mr. Rudnicki, a couple of my colleagues and a number of ministers of the Crown and 1 know why Mr. Rudnicki was actually fired from the public service. Mr. Rudnicki's name was included on a list of names which was termed "extra-parliamentary opposition". It was a list of people who were considered subversive to our system and who were plotting to replace our represent political system with radical alternatives.
Anyone who knows Mr. Rudnicki or any of the other 21 names mentioned on that list would know that it was just so much nonsense. In fact, Mr. Rudnicki may have been in extra-parliamentary opposition to the then Liberal government, but he was certainly a visible supporter of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. In no way was Mr. Rudnicki planning to replace this system of government with any radical alternatives. Nevertheless, his name was included in this list which a

May 20, 1980
Federal Court Act
former solicitor general chose to circulate to senior public servants and his colleagues as a means of warning them about Mr. Rudnicki and his tendencies.
As a result Mr. Rudnicki was fired. How was he to clear his name? I have attempted in this House to clear his name and to help him with his plight. I would like to read a short reference to what happened in the House on May 24, 1977. I said:
-during the question period, the term "extra-parliamentary opposition" was first introduced into the records of the House. The then minister of state for urban affairs was questioned about the existence of a blacklist connected with this term. He asserted that the blacklist charge was very serious. Fortunately though, he added, it was without foundation.
On January 24, 1977, I questioned the Prime Minister... about the list. He responded by saying, "I have not the slightest idea what the hon. member is talking about". The very next day the Minister of Transport. .. said he had never heard or seen such a list. The President of the Privy Council... also pleaded total ignorance. On January 26 the Solicitor General . .. said no such thing existed, nor did it ever exist.
The reason I had asked all these people in succession was because the bottom of the list had indicated that they were the people who were receiving the list when it was first circulated. So all these people knew and, of course, the House knows as well, that the list did exist, that is was not only circulated to those ministers and the Prime Minister and discussed in the cabinet committee on security and intelligence, but that there were literally dozens of lists like it which were not only circulated within the cabinet but within certain departments among senior public servants and which were also given to foreign countries to add to their records on subversives.
How was Rudnicki ever to clear his name? First he would need the money for a lawyer who would then be required to subpoena certain documents and ministers of the Crown to appear in court to show indeed that there was such a list, that his name was on it and that that was the reason for which he was dismissed from the public service.
Of course, there are literally hundreds of such cases to which one could make direct reference. Another such case is that of one Ursula Najder. She fell victim to another secret practice which relates to security clearance of persons who apply for positions in the public service and in some cases in the private sector as well. 1 would like to quote from a page of a secret document which deals with the practice of security clearance:
Authorities concerned should be aware of the fact that there are certain categories of persons which arc not normally clearable, at least beyond the level of CONFIDENTIAL, not because of doubts as to loyalty or reliability but because of circumstances such as:
1.1	close relatives living within the borders of such foreign nations as may
cause him to be subjected to intolerable pressures; or
1.2	recent residence (within the past ten years) in foreign countries where
no check of activities is possible.
In the case of Ursula Najder, she is a Canadian by birth, but her parents came to Canada from Poland. Ursula Najder still had an aunt in Poland which she had met, I believe, twice in her life. Because she had an aunt in a country in which Canada cannot carry out normal security checks, Ursula Najder, and probably 25 per cent of all Canadians who came from parts of the world where security checks cannot be made,
was denied a job with the public service, to which she was entitled.
It goes further because one can be with a firm that has a contract with the federal government having to do with procurement of armaments or whatever. In other words, where a certian degree of secrecy and confidentiality is required. Ursula Najder could not get a job at that private company because the same kind of security clearance applied. How is she to fight for her rights if an effort that she might make before a court could be frustrated simply by the fact that a minister's statement says that a document which she might need to state her case is not available to the court because it is injurious to cabinet secrecy, federal-provincial relations or whatever?
At the outset 1 said that there appears to be a general inclination to move toward greater freedom of information. It is clear to me that it is essential and necessary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased indeed to have the opportunity of speaking on Bill C-202, to amend the Federal Court Act. I think the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has brought forth a very timely bill before this House of Commons, one whose substance has been talked about for a considerable period of time. I am disappointed that he could suggest, maybe inadvertently or otherwise, that there are too many lawyers in the House of Commons and none saw fit to bring this bill forward. However, I might point out to him that many lawyers have been working on this problem for a considerable length of time, and as the hon. member knows, because he has looked at the statutes and the cases, there is a great deal of case law on it at the present time which supports something that goes a great deal further than what he has mentioned here in the House today.
This bill proposes to amend section 41 of the Federal Court Act so as to leave with the courts exclusive authority to decide whether documents ought or ought not to be disclosed in the course of litigation when objection is taken to their production on grounds of protecting the interests of the state.
The present provisions of section 41 formed part of the original Federal Court Act enacted in 1970 and were intended to reflect the results of judicial decisions up to that time on so-called Crown privilege. Those decisions made it clear that the judiciary were to be the final arbiters of the public interests involved: that is to say, the courts were able to look at the documents objected to and determine whether the public interest favouring the proper administration of justice on behalf of the litigants was or was not outweighed by the public interest in favour of the interest of the state. This formulation of principle was translated into section 41(1) of the Federal Court Act, as the hon. member knows.
May 20, 1980

However, those cases also indicated that this general principle perhaps had no application to extremely important state documents dealing with such matters as international relations, matters of defence, cabinet matters and communications between ministers and senior civil servants. The absolute exclusion of documents falling into any of these classes of highly sensitive state information was provided for by section 42(2) of the Federal Court Act, which was read into the record by the hon. member.
In the past few years, subsection (2) in particular has received a good deal of criticism, and rightfully so. One criticism is that the courts are well equipped to balance the public interests at stake and have a traditional role in doing so. The mere fact that the Crown may, on occasion, consider that some documents are more sensitive does not mean that this role should be removed entirely from the judiciary. Adding substance to this criticism is the fact that under these provisions a minister of the Crown is able to deny the courts any authority to look at the documents in issue.
These criticisms have been given additional weight by virtue of recent decisions of the highest courts of the land in Great Britain, the United States and Australia, to name only three countries, which have confirmed that the courts in all cases- and 1 am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will be glad to hear this-have the power to examine the documents objected to and to balance the public interests at stake.
At the same time, a good deal of thought and attention was being paid to proposals for freedom of information legislation. While the importance of disclosure is far more important in the case of Crown privilege, access to government documents by members of the public is essential to both. It is not surprising to find that the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, of which I was a member along with the hon. member for Saskatoon West, agreed unanimously in its report in June, 1978, that:
Your committee finds that section 41(2) (of the Federal Court Act) is inconsistent with the principles to be established in a freedom of information statute and therefore recommends that it be repealed.
This more comprehensive approach to dealing with section 41 of the Federal Court Act seems to me to be the wiser course to take and is the one that the government has proposed. In the Speech from the Throne it is stated:
Members of Parliament, whatever their party, agree on the need to guarantee to Canadians greater access to information of concern to them. Freedom of information legislation will be introduced to provide wide access to government documents. The right accorded to ministers to withold government documents from courts of law under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act will be repealed.
I note that in the statement in the Speech from the Throne it may be considered an inconsistency that it refers only to documents, whereas the present section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act refers to documents or a document or its contents. This may be semantics to some extent, but on the other hand it could be rather important.
I note once again that the member from Saskatoon West referred to a question on section 41 in the House of Commons
Federal Court Act
recently. I do not know whether he was referring to that specific aspect of it, but it could be important. Also when one takes a look at section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, which refers to discovery and production, there is quite a difference between discovery and production in the context of a document or its contents. I merely point that out for hon. members.
As for the substance of the bill now before the House, I believe there are a number of matters which bear comment. First of all, the bill confines itself to disclosure of documents. However, Crown privilege extends to all forms of evidence and, consequently, the bill would retain a limitation already present in section 41. It is for that reason that the proposals in the freedom of information bill of the last Parliament, of which the hon. member who presented this bill was a member, replaced the word "document" with the more general term "information". I think this may be considered very important, particularly since, as I mentioned before, section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act refers to a document or its contents, and now we are talking about a document or information. So this too is an important aspect to be considered.
Secondly, the bill applies only to court actions. The production and discovery of information is, of course, not confined to courts, and in fact there are decisions on the basis of the word "tribunal", which is the term in the French version of section 41, which have held that this provision applies to administrative bodies acting quasi-judicially in the exercise of their power to compel the production of documents. It is because of the doubts and confusion that surround the reference to "court" alone in section 41 that the proposals in the freedom of information bill would use wider language encompassing not only courts but as well all bodies having the power to compel the production of the sort of government information that may require protection from disclosure on the ground of state interest.
Thirdly, the bill would retain the classes of documents listed in section 41(2), which the hon. member and I have read into the record. These have raised so many objections in the past that they must be addressed at this time. It is true that the bill would permit a court to examine the documents in question, but by distinguishing between these special classes of documents and any other public interest of the state, the bill may well be perceived as attempting to make a basic qualitative distinction between the two and unnecessarily favouring documents in the list of classes. It certainly might be suggested that such a distinction would create non-confidence in the courts to recognize the special importance of certain kinds of government information. If the courts of other common law jurisdictions have been able to handle these classes of information without the benefit of special legislation in their favour, it may be asked whether this aspect of the bill is really necessary.
Fourthly, some very real procedural difficulties are ignored in the bill. If, as the case law on section 41 now holds, "court" includes tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers, it may be asked whether the members of such bodies should have the

May 20, 1980
Federal Court Act
same powers as the courts to examine such potentially sensitive and injurious information. The same question may be asked about the courts themselves; should a justice of the peace or provincial court judge or magistrate be entrusted with the same powers here as, for example, a superior court judge?
We do not have time to go into all the details and ramifications of that, but it is a serious and important question to be asked, whether in a very simple case before a minor court official such as a justice of the peace or junior magistrate, one should be bringing forth a matter so important that in the past it was considered a matter to be addressed to a supreme court judge.
Whatever the answers to these questions may be, there is also the problem of what procedure ought to be followed if, for example, the trial court or the tribunal orders production. Should not the Crown have the right to pursue the matter on appeal before the document has been disclosed to the parties and to the public thereby nullifying the practical effects of an appeal and, more important, making public some possibly very sensitive information? The bill says nothing about this critical procedural issue.
I would suggest to the hon. member that he might look at this when he is doing further research.
Fifthly, clause 41(1) of the bill appears to be an attempt to codify the rules of disclosure and discovery of documents. It has no equivalent in the present provisions of the act, and for good reason. Such a provision is usually to be found in rules of court where it is subject to a variety of exceptions and to the flexibility that matters of procedure like this must retain. In statutory form and subject only to the exception in subclause (2), this discovery and production provision may well be far more absolute than anyone, including the sponsor of the bill, would wish. For example, is subclause (1) subject to solicitor-client privilege? This is a very important matter.
When we talk about privilege, I note that the province of Newfoundland recognizes the right of religious advisers as well as the question of solicitor-client privilege between a solicitor and client. Quebec gives more extensive protection. Indeed, the code of civil procedure of Quebec grants privilege to clergymen, lawyers, notaries, physicians and dentists. I do not know how far we go in this, but so far Quebec is the only province to go quite that far. Is it subject to other privileges and exceptions in this area? Is it subject to the non-disclosure provisions in other statutes?
It seems to me that this subclause is both dangerous and unwarranted. It adds little or nothing to what the bill seeks to achieve. And it is therefore understandable why no such provision was included either in the present section 41 or in the redrafted version proposed in the freedom of information bill, Bill C-15, in the last Parliament.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, first, that there are specific aspects of the bill that require a good deal of thought, and, second, that the very limited objectives of the bill have been overtaken by events that require section 41 to be examined in the context of access to government information
in general. It was no doubt in recognition of this that the previous government proposed the changes to section 41 which were contained in their freedom of information bill introduced during the last session which certainly went further than the changes proposed in this bill.
On page 31 of Bill C-15 presented by the last government, an act to extend the present laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada and to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Federal Court Act and the Statutory Instruments Act, clause 70 reads:
Section 41 of the Federal Court Act is repealed.
I note the hon. member does not go that far. This indicates to me he intends to retain section 41(1) and only remove subsection (2) of section 41 of the Federal Court Act. When we look at it from that point of view, it seems that he is not following the present law as enunciated by most of the courts of jurisdiction in the number of countries that I mentioned, and others as well. It certainly does not follow the suggestions made in the Speech from the Throne that I mentioned previously. 1 am sure it does not comply with the suggestions made by the hon. member's own party.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to say a few words on this bill. At first glance this is a bill which is designed to increase the access of citizens to government information. It is a freedom of information bill, one of a long and honourable series of attempts in this House to open the doors to government files, to shed some light on the information at the government's disposal.
Seen simply as a freedom of information bill, I must say that 1 and my party are sympathetic to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and his intentions. If he is joining the long fight to create a right of access for the citizens who pay for government information in the first place, then I congratulate him for joining a most worthy cause, and l welcome him to make further efforts in this direction.
I am happy to point out that the first freedom of information legislation to be introduced to this House was also a private member's bill, brought forward by the New Democratic Party member Barry Mather from New Westminster, in 1965. The torch was thrown to the former hon. member for Peace River, Mr. Baldwin, who kept the issue alive through many years, culminating finally in the introduction of a government bill last year, Bill C-15.
I wish to remind this House that the NDP supported Bill C-15 last November 29, and agreed to a speedy second reading so that the bill could quickly go to committee for further study. We had many reservations about the details of the bill. The exemptions were drafted too broadly, for example, and needed to be tightened up. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), said that you could drive a truck through some of the loopholes in Bill C-15 and that this must be rectified. But we supported the principle nevertheless, and that is why I congratulate the hon. member for his sentiments in introducing a bill along the same general lines.
May 20, 1980

1 well remember that night in the House of Commons during the first session of Parliament that I had the privilege to attend. For me it was one of the highlights of that session. It was an exciting moment when the then hon. member for Peace River demonstrated to me and a lot of other new members the force of a member who has an idea and the willingness and perseverance to follow it through. On that occasion he spoke eloquently about his fight in this matter and stated that that probably was the last piece of legislation with which he would be involved. That, historically, proved correct as the House came down within a matter of days.
We believe that any move which will foster the exposure of the truth in society is beneficial. Whether we are are defending a free press, free speech, or free access to government information, we are defending the cause of truth. In this particular area, my experience living and working in many other countries makes me realize that this is one of the key issues involving the whole question of a person's rights. Truth, simply put, makes people free, if it is truth total and whole. However, when legislation, whatever kind it may be, is used in such a way to hold back total and complete truth, instead of making people free what happens is that they become slaves, and the power that is given over the those in charge takes away the freedom of individuals. 1 have seen that happen.
The legislation proposed in Bill C-202 before the House this afternoon is not exactly what we had in mind for freedom of information legislation for this country. The bill attempts to do through the back door what Bill C-15 would have done through the front door. It is half a step toward freedom of information. Actually it is less than half a step. And for that reason 1 have my doubts about the bill. We believe that the issues should be faced squarely in a separate freedom of information act, not in an amendment to the Federal Court Act. We expect the new government to honour its commitment given in the throne speech to introduce a freedom of information bill in this session. 1 am surprised that it has not been introduced already. I do expect it soon. At that time we can get down to the serious business of working out the precise wording of the new law. I am sure that all parties welcome the chance to pick up where we left off last fall.
[DOT] <1740)
Part of the new legislation will have to deal with section 41 of the Federal Court Act. There is no doubt that section 41 needs to be changed. At present it is an unwarranted hindrance to the rights of litigators. It is an affront to our belief that citizens should have access to government information with only the narrowest of exceptions. But to amend section 41 right now in the absence of a comprehensive freedom of information act makes no sense. It is not just litigators who should have a right to access but all citizens regardless of the purpose for which they would use the information sought. An amendment such as the one proposed in the bill before us is more likely to hinder full freedom of information than to help it, and for that reason I doubt the wisdom of introducing it at this time.
Federal Court Act
Bill C-15 of last year simply repealed section 41 of the Federal Court Act. No section was to be substituted, it was just scratched. I like this approach. Once the rights of all citizens are decided in a freedom of information act, then the rights of litigators before the Federal Court fall into place. This is fair and just, and I support the approach taken by Bill C-15 in this regard.


William Kenneth Robinson: Would the hon. member accept a question? He states quite categorically that in Bill C-15 which was being presented by the former government, section 41 of the Federal Court Act would be repealed. But has he looked at the rest of the bill to determine whether some aspects of that section creep back into the bill through the back door?


Robert Joseph Ogle: I believe that is possible and that the section will creep back in. But I think a serious study of the bill in committee by all parties with an open mind would ensure proper handling of that kind of thing. The hon. member's former colleague from Peace River, Mr. Baldwin, proposed a slightly different approach to section 41. But he, too, would have made a freedom of information act paramount.
The hon. member's proposal would put the courts in a difficult spot. In every case they would become embroiled in substantive questions of freedom of information law and procedure. This would slow down the court process and confuse the issues. We say that the question of what government documents a citizen should get is a prior question which should be decided by an over-all freedom of information act, not on an individual basis in the course of each trial.
In some other respects, I disagree with the approach taken by the bill before the House. For example, in subclause (2)(b) the words "national security" appear. What is meant by national security? I could speak at length about that particular phraseology as it is understood in some other countries where everything that happens finally comes under some form of national security, and human rights of all kinds disappear as this notion of national security is interpreted by those in charge of law making and the courts. I am sure these words will be used as a pretext by government and the courts for withholding all sorts of information which should rightly be in the public domain.
The danger of using words such as "national security" has been clearly set out by Professor Murray Rankin in a paper entitled "Freedom of Information in Canada; Will The Doors Stay Shut?" I agree that the words "national security" should not be used; a tighter definition must be presented which will safeguard the public's right to know. That is what I and my party stand for-a complete freedom of information act which will guarantee truth for all at all times.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be brief. I listened with interest to participation by the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), and to the response of the parliamentary secretary which, frankly, raised some

May 20, 1980
Federal Court Act
question in my mind with respect to the government's intention with regard to its commitments made in the Speech from the Throne.
I commend the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), that great centre of all good, truth and justice, for his comments and his support for the principle of freedom of information. The hon. member referred to the fact that he had lived in a number of countries around the world where information of any sort is hard to come by. He has experienced at first hand some political regimes in which there is denial of the right of individual citizens to obtain information from government. I am sure it was by inadvertance that the hon. member omitted to tell us that he now resides in the province of Saskatchewan. We know the position which has been taken by the provincial government of that province when requested to bring in freedom of information legislation. They unanimously refused to follow that course of action. So I am sure he and I will work together in Saskatoon to prevail upon the provincial government, the NDP government there, to bring in freedom of information legislation, because they are among the last hold-outs in terms of such legislation in Canada. The policy of the government there is against the concept of freedom of information. So 1 look forward to joining arms with the hon. member and facing the challenge of bringing truth, justice and right thinking to the government of Saskatchewan in this area. 1 know I will have his unqualified support.
My reason for entering this debate, though, is the response given by the parliamentary secretary with respect to the particular initiative upon which I commend my hon. friend. The fact is, he has been vigilant and insistent in his support of the principle of freedom of information. He has been trying to bring about amendments to the Federal Court Act, to section 41 and to section 41(2) in particular.
When we recall the wording of the Speech from the Throne we are reminded there was a paragraph in part four about strengthening national institutions. I want to quote from that particular section of the speech in which the government, through the Governor General, stated that "the right accorded to ministers to withhold government documents from courts of law under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act will be removed." As I understand it, that was an unqualified commitment on the part of the government. However, 1 got the impression from the parliamentary secretary that a different approach might now be taken and that perhaps a reversal of that position might be expected-that rather than removing this right from ministers the government is considering amending the provisions of section 41(2) because of considerations which have occurred to them subsequent to the preparation of the Speech from the Throne and that the intent of the commitment might not be followed through.
I hope that that is not going to be the case, and I am very interested in finding out whether we now have a departure, so soon after April 14, 1980, by this government, having regard to the fact that in the House of Commons in the course of
question periods the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and, in fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself at other times, have indicated that freedom of information is the prime commitment of this government and that the operation of government is going to proceed, until that legislation is brought forward, on the basis that the principles of freedom of information will be observed. I take it impliedly that the commitment with respect to the right of ministers to withhold documents from courts will also be observed by this government.
I have raised in the House of Commons the case in which, shortly after the new government was sworn in, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) invoked the provisions of this particular section to withhold documents from an inquiry in the Federal Court before Mr. Justice Gibson with respect to the policies and practices of the Canadian Dairy Commission.
What concerns me about this-and 1 take no issue with the idea that freedom of information and the provisions of the Federal Court Act are necessarily associated-and what I would like to find out today, is whether or not the government is in fact retreating from the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne because, if that is the case, we are going to have a battle royal in this House on the basis of one of the greatest reversals in policy on a matter of fundamental importance, that we have seen for many years in the House of Commons. I think it is unacceptable for the government now to try to change its position.
I simply make these comments, and if we want to have an indication now by the government that in fact-


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has gone on at great length about the government's changing its position. Let me assure the hon. member that the government has not changed its position one iota from that stated in the Speech from the Throne.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 would entertain a point of order, but that is mostly an argument or point of debate with the hon. gentleman.


William Kenneth Robinson: 1 thought he was asking me a question and wanted a reply.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak any longer on this because I trust that the parliamentary secretary is in fact stating the position here, but the legalistic explanation he gave with respect to the position of the government relating to this issue struck me as very much an explanation of a change of position and a weaseling out of a commitment which was quite unequivocal in the Speech from the Throne.
1 want this matter to come to a vote so that we can find out where people stand with respect to the provisions of the Federal Court Act. I am going to conclude my remarks now, but 1 simply put the government on notice that if there is any intention of fiddling around or fooling around with respect to
May 20, 1980

the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne, the government will have to justify that on the floor of the House, and it is in for a very substantial opposition from this party.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for-is it Saskatchewan East or Saskatchewan West? 1 am not certain. It used to be Saskatchewan-Biggar, 1 believe. Saskatoon,
1 am sorry.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I do not normally do so. I am not sensitive to the situation, but just on a question of geography, Saskatchewan is the province and Saskatoon is a city in the province. The hon. member is quite right, but it is Saskatoon West and Saskatoon East.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his lesson in geography and for having situated me in the right city which he obviously shares with the hon. member for Saskatchewan East.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Saskatoon East. I have done it again!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is too bad you fellows do not know about western Canada.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is an able parliamentarian who has attempted in the last ten minutes to create a subterfuge and a nest from which he hopes to be able to launch an application now. He hopes to launch outside this House, and perhaps from within this House, an application in terms of trying to set up all kinds of fear and trepidation with respect to what it is the government may or may not want to do.
The intention of the government is quite clear to anyone who chooses to read the throne speech to which the hon. member for Saskatoon West refers. It states quite clearly and categorically that section 41(2) in fact is to be repealed.
What the hon. member now is attempting to create by referring to anything the parliamentary secretary has said beforehand, 1 suggest without trying to cast any aspersions on the hon. member's motives, is a complete subterfuge and a complete embroiling of the facts to the point where he is going to have the opportunity now to suggest that there is some basis for putting the position he tried to put in the last ten minutes.
The government has said quite clearly, quite unequivocally, and without any retraction whatsoever this afternoon by the parliamentary secretary or any other government member, in question periods or otherwise, that in fact the government intends to proceed with the freedom of information bill. I, like the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), look forward to the introduction of that bill at an early date. It is my information that in fact that will take place and that in fact the government intends to repeal-I think that is the correct word-and not remove section 41(2) without any suggestion that we are going to carry on with some other type or form of
Federal Court Act
section 41(2). That, quite frankly, was the difficulty 1 was having with Bill C-202 this afternoon.
With a clear indication on the record through the throne speech that we are moving to repeal section 41(2), through a private members' bill we now appear to be moving not toward a repeal absolutely but, rather, a repeal with a replacement. I, as well as the hon. member for Saskatoon West, have practised before the courts, and they have the habit-indeed, the chore-after this place has created a point of legislation, to spend the next few years trying to determine what we as legislators really meant and to create what will be the law for all practical purposes once we have passed it.
I would not want-


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) if he would permit a very short question.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Certainly.


Frank Oberle: 1 would just like to ask the hon. member what he sees the difference to be between my Bill C-202 and the statement in the throne speech that the right accorded to ministers to withhold government documents from courts of law under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act will be removed. If it is the intention to repeal, as the hon. member chooses to describe it, section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, why does the hon. member not sit down and let us get it over with?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member anticipates me. If he would just sit in his place for a moment or two, I would be very glad to show what I anticipate and what 1 see as the distinction between what he is doing and what the government might or might not propose to do as the matter comes forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is only one minute left.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Question.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe, as does the hon. member for Saskatoon East, that the intent of any freedom of information legislation is something which all hon. members in this House have already indicated, either by themselves or through their colleagues, as something we all wish and desire.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock p.m., the motion for second reading of Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, was under consideration and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) had the floor.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that all members of the House will agree with me when 1 say that today is probably one of the major historic evenings in the history of Canada. 1 think 1 am fairly safe in saying now that the No vote will win, which will mean that there will be future talks relating to confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: One of the things about which we must be very cautious-and I have to caution the government on this-is that the government must be much more sensitive in the future than it has in the past because many of the problems that Canada and Canadians have had over the past several years have come as a result of an insensitive administration. You cannot ride roughshod over a people or a region, and 1 hope that in any talks that will be held in the future, consideration will be given to the manner in which our government will be operated on the three levels of administration.
Today the debate has to do primarily with the municipal level or the third level of administration. We must realize that this level of government is much closer to the people than either of the other two levels, and therefore I feel that consideration must be given to that body of people which operates within that sphere. 1 do not think the federal government has been particularly careful so far as the municipal level is concerned and so far as taxation is concerned. 1 recognize that the bill has to do with government institutions and, as 1 mentioned earlier, so far as jails are concerned those institutions take away a great deal of the tax base on which rural municipalities rely.
As I said earlier, prior to the private members' hour, taking that base away from the municipal bodies means that they have less money on which to function when the federal government does not pay its share. I also feel at this time that we should give some consideration to Crown corporations, and I would like to take a few moments to deal with one of those Crown corporations, namely, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 1 have a notice of motion before the House. I do not know whether or not there will be an opportunity to debate it, but I would like to bring it to the attention of the House at this time. It reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of increasing the grants made to municipalities in lieu of property taxes for the use of property by Crown corporations and agencies so that these grants equal the sums paid by private organizations.
We have a case in my constituency where the CBC is in competition with two other private bodies. The private bodies have to pay the assessed rate of tax and, at the same time, in paying their taxes, they subsidize their competitor, which in this case is the CBC. Also, the CBC does not have to pay its fair share of the taxes, or an equal portion of the taxes that these other private companies have to pay. In this case, according to the assessment, the CBC should be paying $4,480.53. What are they paying? They are paying $617.92. To me, that is not justice. I took this case up with the CBC, and on November 2 of last year 1 sent a memo to the corporation. This is the question 1 asked:
Has the CBC legislated authority to establish its corporate policy, or is it obliged to abide by rates of other radio stations in the same locality?
This is the answer I got:
In response to your memorandum of November 2, I am pleased to forward to you, the following information.
The CBC, a Crown corporation, is exempt from municipal property taxation. In 1951, the federal government decided to compensate municipalities, by way of grants in lieu of taxes, for the fact that federal government properties were exempt from taxation, but the resulting Municipal Grants Act (1951) excluded the CBC.
In 1957, the board of directors of the CBC adopted a resolution to pay grants in lieu of taxes in a manner similar to the terms of the Municipal Grants Act.
There is legislated authority to exempt the CBC from paying anything in lieu of taxes, but CBC policy does permit a grant on the assessed value of land, buildings and heating plant only. In accordance with the terms of the act, movable property such as the tower and equipment would be excluded from the assessment.
There does not seem to be much that can be done in this situation, but I am enclosing a number of newspaper clippings from the Library of Parliament to give you some background on how similar problems have been confronted in other areas.
This communication was signed by Kay Marshall.
In these clippings from the Library of Parliament I find that this problem goes back to 1974. After six years of debate, confrontation and requests, surely the government should be able to deal with this situation and come to grips with it. I say the government must be sensitive in this particular area. I believe this is one of the main ones, primarily because of the fact that rural municipalities are deprived of the taxation base that is theirs and should be theirs, one which I think they are justified in expecting to receive, and are not. In whatever talks, debates or discussions take place in the future, I would hope that consideration is given to this so that these municipalities can have their fair share.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 20, 1980


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose all of us are debating this bill on an evening when the attention of the Canadian public is directed elsewhere to momentous events which are occurring in one of our provinces. I think all of us who watched the results coming in on television were gratified with the results thus far in the referendum in the province of Quebec.
There seems to be a large commitment on behalf of the people of Quebec, at least at this stage of the proceedings, to the idea of federalism. Perhaps it is important that there be that kind of commitment. I suppose it would not be found out of favour with Mr. Speaker if I said, at this point in time, that this large commitment by the province of Quebec to federalism has its counter engagement with respect to a great commitment that is expected of the rest of Canada regarding renewed federalism. I suspect when the results come in, if the present trend holds, that the people of Quebec will be looking to the rest of Canada to ask them about what is their commitment to renewed federalism. They will be looking to the premiers who have spoken so importantly about renewed federalism. They will be looking to the members of this House of Commons who have spoken in the course of debate and talked about the importance of renewed federalism.
We must make no mistake; the results tonight are important to this country. While they are important to the country, there is a much greater period of time ahead of us in terms of perhaps constitutional change and certainly of renewed federalism that will be of far more significance in the long run to the future of Canada, and that is the relationship among the governments of this country in the years to come.
When I rise to speak for the first time this session in debate on a major bill in the House of Commons, though 1 have been on my feet from time to time, 1 must take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate Madam Speaker on her ascension to the chair. I have enjoyed working with her in the course of my duties as House leader. Also I have enjoyed working with you, Mr. Speaker. We share neighbouring ridings; we share many of the same problems. I hope Mr. Speaker will forgive me if, in the course of the debate, 1 quote some of your words to the government with respect to the issue before us and perhaps one other issue with which we might be dealing later on in the evening.
I am very pleased to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) in the House tonight. It is a refreshing change to have a minister of the Crown staying in the House while his or her bill is being debated. It may be because the minister got his early training in municipal politics, which is a very demanding field. 1 do not agree very often with the things the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does, but I think it is important that the Minister of Public Works has some municipal background.
While this bill certainly affects municipalities all across the country, it has a profound effect upon one municipality directly in this area. It is a municipality which 1 do not represent. In part it is represented by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), in part by the hon. member for Ottawa West
Grants to Municipalities
(Mr. Francis), and in part by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), but it has a spin-off effect on the municipalities which I represent. So, it is important in that area.
I think it is rather appropriate that a former municipal politician who came to his senses and came into the relatively easy field of federal politics is piloting this bill through the House of Commons. I say that in the best of faith. I have never served in the municipal field. There are some members in this House who will say, "Thank God for that". But I served in another way when I had the privilege of practising law in this area. I acted for a large number of municipalities locally. I saw the pressures to which municipal politicians are subject, very direct pressures with respect to a minimum amount of financial clout in terms of the ability to raise the money themselves, a great dependence on the provinces, tremendous problems which have to be solved, and a very difficult job of priorizing.
This bill which will provide additional moneys to 2,000 municipalities in this country will be extremely helpful. As I say, I think this bill is important, and I think it is quite fitting that this bill should be introduced by a politician who came into public life via the municipal field.
1 do not want to be partisan, because people know I am not partisan by nature. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is sitting across the way. He knows me not to be a partisan person. But I must remind the House of some of the history of this legislation. When the present Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) was minister of finance back in the Thirtieth Parliament, a similar bill to this one was numbered C-46. That is a long way down the pecking order. It is getting close to the numbering system we use for private bills in this House. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the hon. member for Ottawa West, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, as he then was, or the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, as he now is, together asked question after question in the House as to when they would bring forward this legislation. Nothing happened, except that the bill was introduced. I do not believe it was even debated in the Thirtieth Parliament.
Then came the Clark government. The Clark government had as its minister of finance a man of extreme kindness, understanding and concern, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He was prevailed upon with respect to the importance of this kind of legislation for local government, the kind of government which I described as having a great part of the burden to bear in terms of the difficult job of priorizing- priorizing the use of funds in an area of diminishing returns. As a result of the priority he put on it, lo and behold, in the Thirty-first Parliament with the Clark government that bill ascended in the pecking order and became Bill C-3.
I want to thank the hon. member for St. John's West for giving it that priority, because he gave some leadership in respect of the problem of the financing of municipalities. He gave some leadership to the extent that this reincarnated

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
government we have before us in this Thirty-second Parliament has numbered this bill C-4. That is a great improvement. It is an improvement of ten times, from C-46 to C-4. We are now debatin^This bill and hopefully we will see it through the second reading stage in a relatively short period so that it can be studied by the committee and eventually passed.
This is the kind of legislation which recognizes the importance of local government, and recognizes its financial inadequacies from time to time having regard to the mandate it has. Unfortunately this delay from the Thirtieth Parliament to today has caused Canadian municipalities to iose the benefit of this legislation, from the time it was first mooted as important and accepted as a commitment by the Liberal government which preceded this one. I say this to you in historical terms. It is an important piece of legislation and we are happy to see it here.
1 do not have to stress to the Minister of Public Works the tremendous costs involved in providing services to government buildings, and providing services generally in communities, especially a community like the one I represent, and there are others across the country in equal shape.
When you look at the scope of the bill you see that it updates the Municipal Grants Act under which the government now pays, I think, $148 million each year in grants on federal properties located in about 2,000 municipalities. These grants will be increased by $25.5 million during a four-year phase period starting this year. The coverage is extensive. It covers such things, as far as we are concerned, as Parliament Hill, as the National Library and Archives, the National Arts Centre, the National Gallery, and the National Museum, all of which are in Ottawa. It covers a whole host of defence and other installations all across this country, from Greenwood and Shearwater on the one end and Victoria on the other end of Canada. This is truly a good piece of legislation.
1 am a little bit worried about the exclusions in the bill. 1 say to the minister, with respect, that I am concerned about the exclusions, and the arguments put forward for excluding such things as parklands, Indian reserves, and what he described as structures, and concerned to the extent that they are excluded from this bill on the basis set forth by that magnificent and generous former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West.
The grounds were, of course, that they were excluded because of the nature of the items, and because the local cost of providing services is minimal. However, to the extent that services are provided by local municipalities to these kind of installations, even those that may be described as minimal, there is a withdrawal of the ability of the federal government to contribute to the cost of local government.
1 feel that while we can regard this bill as the second word, the first word having occurred some 22 years ago when the first bill came forward, I do not think we can say we have reached the end of the road in terms of the generosity of the federal government. We should regard this bill as the second word in respect of municipal grants legislation, but we anticipate as we go ahead that we will hear the third word, which
will involve greater coverage of these structures; jetties, canal locks, aircraft runways, and a number of other things which do impact upon the finances that a municipality has to carry out its mandate.
There are some who say the national capital is a very fortunate area, and 1 think it is really quite a fortunate part of Canada. Those of us who live in it are grateful, quite frankly, for the fact that it is such a fortunate part of Canada. This is a unique city. The city of Ottawa, the national capital area generally, is unique because it is the national capital. As a national capital it has to exhibit some of the nation. The nation is not all government; there is industrial and business development that ought to be encouraged in the national capital area.
It is a fact, and I think you know this, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will go a long way to ameliorate the differential in municipal tax rates which has been in place for some period of time. There has been some difficulty in attracting to Ottawa some of the diversification potential that must occur if this city is not only to be a microcosm of Canada, as Mr. Danson once described it, or what it should be on the one hand, and an area that provides a variety of employment for young people, on the other hand.
As a result of this differential that has existed, there has been a great tendency to rely on the federal government as the sole employer. I know there is high technology industry developing here. This bill will make it attractive to other people to come here because the tax differential will be right and we can do some work on direct air connection to Chicago, New York and Boston, and a few other things such as that which would not cost the federal government any money. We can perhaps consider at some stage upgrading the Ottawa International Airport. The Minister of Public Works might consider that as being helpful in enhancing this place as the national capital.
By and large this bill in terms of its area of potential is important for local government. Some people in local government say it is not enough. I would be inclined to agree that anyone who represents an area that is getting the benefit would say it is not enough, but it is a good beginning. I think the minister should be commended for bringing it forward once again and for giving it such high priority. It is something that the commercial and industrial corporations in the Ottawa area, the Board of Trade, the Nepean Chamber of Commerce, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and others have been seeking for some considerable time.
There is a hang-up about this legislation, and that is the term "business tax". Members have spoken about it, and I think we are hung up on the language. If it were called anything else but business tax this government and the experts of the Department of Finance, some of whom are here tonight, might be able to take a different view of it. I would hope they could, and I am looking to them and entreating them to take a different view.
There are services that are provided by a municipality which are not covered by the general tax rate levied against the property. There are, in fact, even departments of government
May 20, 1980

which, under some examination, might be deemed to be carrying on a business. Certainly Crown corporations do, and there is a differential in regard to businesses being carried on by the government through Crown corporations and those in the private sector, as some hon. members have shown.
If the federal government is going to carry its full load, then we have to look at the operations of departments. If there is a hang-up in government in considering a contribution toward what would otherwise be called "business tax", in order that it is carrying its full load in all municipalities, not just this one, then let us take a look at some other semantic. Let us not be hung up on that phrase "business tax", so that we will be considering increasing the contribution to the municipal good will as a result of the service which must be supplied to government and which government should pay for just like everyone else.
I hope that at the committee stage of this bill the municipal leaders and organizations in Canada will be called by the committee to come and review the bill. I do not think that consideration should be long, but 1 do think that Parliament should have the best advice it can get from the people who deal with the municipal problems, to see whether any of the matters which were discussed and which were important at an earlier stage have changed and whether there are not new considerations involved of a different nature. In this way the government will know the general feeling with respect to this bill, and when it contemplates further legislation, that further legislation will be as up to date as the public purse will allow, and the municipalities will have the benefit of the government carrying the freight.
I would like to talk for a moment about the good fortune which 1 feel and which every person who lives in this area feels because of the presence of the federal government in the area. Not only is it a place for employment, but the federal government, through the auspices and good will of the people of Canada, has contributed a great deal to the development of this city and the area.
1 have never met a group which has come to visit Ottawa and the Parliament Buildings to which 1 have not expressed my thanks as a resident of the area. These are the people who foot the bill to a great extent for what we as residents have here and what members of Parliament who come to this city enjoy. It is a city of amenities, the likes of which are provided nowhere else. On either side of the Ottawa River these amenities can be found. There is the tremendous parkway system on the Ontario side and the magnificent Gatineau Park on the Quebec side. These developments did not come out of the federal government alone. They were contributed to by the taxpayers from across this country.
The Minister of Public Works has a tremendous responsibility, as the minister who answers in this House of Commons for the National Capital Commission, to continue the work which was begun with the planning of Mr. Greber. Prime ministers have also shown an interest in the national capital area. The
Grants to Municipalities
prime minister who took perhaps the greatest interest at the outset was Mackenzie King. That interest has been taken up by successive prime ministers who were interested in the development of a national capital. The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker during his government in 1958 brought in the National Capital Commission Act. This is a fact which none of us should forget. It declared the area on both sides of the Ottawa River to be the national capital region.
The British North America Act was not changed, the area was simply declared as the national capital region. As a result of this declaration the government was in a position to make tremendous contributions to the development of a system of amenities on this and the other side of the river which all of us enjoy. I hope the Minister of Public Works will consider, in his capacity as chairman of the National Capital Commission, that while there seems to be fairly good co-operation between the local government and the federal government agencies at the staff level, somehow or other at the policy level the consultative atmosphere is not as good as it should be. I do not know where to assess the blame, nor do I think that it is the job of any of us to assess the blame, but it is a fact which exists.
It would be in the best interests of the federal government, of the local government, and in the best interests of planning, development, and the future of the national capital, if the minister gave earnest consideration to a proposal which was first put forward by a member from our side, Mrs. Jean Pigott, when she was the member for Ottawa-Carleton, with regard to membership on the National Capital Commission of the chairmen of the two regional municipalities on either side of the river. Whether we are talking about the development of a tax policy, a sharing policy, or whatever it is, those people from across this country who are commissioners would have the advice of those local people. I hope that this idea will be considered.
There is a tremendous regulatory process in this piece of legislation, as there is in every piece of legislation that seems to be brought forward by successive governments. I hope, as regulations are made, as new regulations are promulgated to replace those that are made, and as the process goes on, that before regulations take effect they will be published in The Canada Gazette in advance for the benefit of those groups, associations, municipal governments and others which will be affected.
However, well meaning public servants may be, however well meaning ministries or ministers may be, slips can happen and misjudgments can be made. It serves the process well if, before a regulation takes effect, the government will publish it well in advance. This would be very helpful in the development of the process. There are tremendous areas of land to be developed. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier mentioned LeBreton Flats with regard to the development and what might be done with the funding that would be available to the local municipality. 1 have some views, as I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, on LeBreton Flats with regard to the use of that land. There will be differences of opinion, both locally and federally.

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier also mentioned the development of Fournier Park in Hull and the Woodroffe demonstration project in our own area. There have been great negotiations between the federal government and the local government on this project. The federal government was represented by CMHC. The matter now seems to be in trouble. There is even some talk that the land will go to a private developer. I hope that that is the last thing that will happen to that property. I hope that that property stays within the public domain. To repeat it so that the minister understands my view, I hope that that property stays within the public domain, unless there is no alternative to that development. There are residents living close to that development who are counting on the land use remaining the same in terms of the future. It is a very important piece of property.
Later on we will be considering the relocation legislation. The federal government should take a look at that piece of property at the corner of Woodroffe and Baseline in terms of a federal development on that land. 1 suggest to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), who was in the House a moment ago, that I have always felt that that property would be a good spot for a new taxation data centre. Everyone knows that the present facility for Revenue Canada at Confederation Heights is overutilized. I knew that when I was minister, and we were considering a place to put that data centre. That property is one good place which ought to be considered. Such a commitment to that valuable piece of property would be in keeping with the whole development of that area, the western parkway, and a whole host of other areas. Incidentally, it would improve the assessment base in the local municipality.
There is no job more difficult than satisfying the conflicting demands of various organizations which are put upon the Minister of Public Works, particularly in an area which is perhaps over governed in terms of levels of government. 1 sympathize with the minister completely. The minister has taken some of the burden off the local government sector through this piece of legislation. I wish that this legislation could have been introduced earlier, but now that it is here in the House I think that it should be supported and that it should go very quickly to committee where it can be dealt with in detail.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity that 1 have had to participate in the deliberations of this House. 1 would like to preface my remarks by first congratulating Madam Speaker on her election as Speaker, and yourself and your other colleagues on your appointments.
Second, I would like to inform hon. gentlemen opposite who are displaying anxiety symptoms about post-referendum Canada that the administration and party with the courage and conviction to fight and win the referendum will display the intellect and sensitivity necessary for successful constitutional reform.
I am pleased at this time to rise in support of Bill C-4 because 1 endorse the principles which have shaped it, namely, the expansion of the numbers and types of federal properties which will generate grant revenue for municipalities, the redefinition of the granting formula to approximate more closely the revenues which would have been generated by taxes on those properties, the creation of guidelines for Crown corporations to make them more sensitive to the demands of their respective municipal environments, the transfer of authority for these aforementioned responsibilities to the Ministry of Public Works, the speedy implementation by the federal government of the majority of the proposed reforms withirbthe year and all of the reforms within four years, and most important, the funnelling of more money, approximately $25 million, to a level of government whose services to all its constituents, governmental, business and residential, are as important as they are costly.
My support is not unequivocal. There are reservations. The definition of grant revenue properties may have to be expanded further. Grant rates might have to be increased and the retention of the arbitration authority by the federal government should be reinvestigated, for I believe a party to a dispute should not be permitted ultimately to settle a dispute.
These are matters of substance or content which will be properly and thoroughly reviewed by the appropriate standing committee, and should not deter any member from supporting this bill this afternoon and evening.
In conclusion, this bill has been before the House on three separate occasions within a short span of one and one-half years. Anything that can be said about it has been said. Let us not delay any longer. It deserves the speedy and unanimous support of this House.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be brief. First, 1 want to deal with the principle very quickly and, second, I want to deal with a couple of details contained within the bill.
I do not know why it is that we perpetuate a system that places the Crown in a different position from the public. I do not know why we have not adopted recommendations made years ago to allow for tax to be levied against buildings owned by the Crown, whether owned federally or provincially, and the tax therefore to be paid in the same way as all other taxes are paid. Also, a problem tends to arise in municipalities with regard to accurate assessment of Crown-owned buildings. There is also the power that is used by the government in this bill of setting out the exemptions on which it will not pay tax.
It is interesting that the government decides that, for whatever reason, it just simply will not pay a grant for certain kinds of structures. That, of course, makes me wonder what would happen if some private individual were to build a similar structure. The individual would be taxed and would have to pay the tax. I do not quite understand why the Crown takes a different position.
I can remember when Chief Justice McRuer studied the property tax system in the province of Ontario and made many
May 20, 1980

recommendations, many of which dealt with the right of the municipality to expect to derive revenues from all of the buildings and structures within its bounds, whether they be owned privately or publicly. 1 ask the minister to respond if he would agree. By doing so, the minister will save me from going through a long series of questions in the committee if he could respond or even hear what 1 am saying with regard to one clause of the bill which befuddles me. I do not understand why it says in clause 2(2)(&):
except where otherwise prescribed, any real property leased to or occupied by a person or a body, whether incorporated or not, that is not a department
is exempt. 1 do not see how it fits and I do not know how it could be interpreted because it is open to such wide interpretation. If the minister could take a moment and look at that clause, perhaps in his closing remarks, if he intends to make any, he might address himself to what exactly that means. That gives considerable power, to the minister and to the Crown, power to rule out many of the things that may well have been included in some of the preceding sections.
As other members have said, and it is a point 1 meant to make on rising that I did not make, there is a tendency on the part of everyone-I share it as much as anyone else-to feel somewhat elated at the train of events and the obvious victory of the No forces in the province of Quebec this evening. However, I do want to offer a caution. The caution is this: there were a very large number of people in the province of Quebec tonight who voted Yes. We must, therefore, make an extra special effort to find out what it is about the federal system which has made those people feel that it would be appropriate for Quebec to have a degree of sovereignty, if not total sovereignty. 1 applaud the No side, and 1 supported it all the way through, but 1 am going to suggest that we must be very cautious. When 40 per cent of any group are so dissatisfied as to opt for the Yes side of the question, that is Yes to separation, then there is something dramatically wrong.


An hon. Member:: Separation?


Ian Deans: Yes, separation, and we have to take a serious look at why some people opted for that side.
That aside, I say to the minister-and I have been listening and taking part in the debate-


Mr. Crosby:: That is probably why they voted that way.


Ian Deans: No, 1 suspect not. 1 think they probably voted that way because of the record of the Conservative and Liberal administrations over the years.
In any event, I want to ask the minister whether he could address himself to the question as to why it is that we feel it necessary to impose a grant structure when, in fact, direct taxation would be much more sensible and much less cumbersome. The Crown would then have to go through the same procedures as everyone else in dealing with any disputes. It would be required to go through with due process in determining whether or not the taxes being levied were fair, and it would not sit both in judgment and as a taxpayer at the same
Grants to Municipalities
time. That is a point the minister might consider in some future legislation.
Also, perhaps he could consider the areas in the bill where there are to be exemptions. Some of the exemptions make no sense. If someone else were to build storage tanks on a piece of real property, the individual would pay tax. If someone else were to put in a swimming pool on a piece of real property, that individual would pay tax. Similarly, if a person were to build a snow shed on a piece of real property, that person would pay tax. I suggest to the minister that he take another look at some of the exemptions. I think the exemptions in fact probably speak to a large number of real property questions and areas, where there are buildings used for the purpose that this bill is intended to encompass and incorporate, that will be exempted.
I also want to say to the minister that he should bear in mind that such things as conveyor belts and conveyance systems should be given careful consideration. As he well knows, they are used extensively in the mining industry. It is entirely possible that they are the only valuable part of the development that takes place. To exempt them under a piece of legislation such as this really does not make a lot of sense for some northern communities in which they might be situated. If the minister could give some thought to these few comments, 1 could feel better about the bill in general.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we all realize that the eyes of the nation are not upon us this evening, but 1 am sure we all rejoice in the results that we are watching over television; 60 per cent for the No and 40 per cent for the Yes. I think the caution mentioned by the member from the NDP who just resumed his seat about the 40 per cent who are discontented has to be borne in mind. There can be no further delay in coming to grips with the problems of this country.
It is appropriate, nonetheless, that we should be discussing this bill tonight. It is one of those bills that ought to have been dealt with many, many moons ago. I understand this is the third time it has been before this House. Had it been dealt with earlier and been given a higher priority, it is quite possible that that 40 per cent would have been even lower, because we are dealing with something that is very close to the people who have to pay municipal taxes and those who run the municipalities, the mayors and the councillors. Therefore, while we may not be the main focus of attention this evening, we are dealing with a matter which is fundamental to the issue that is being determined now in the province of Quebec.
I stand this evening because in the riding that I represent there are a number of federal establishments. They are worth mentioning. Some of them are known right across this land and some are of a more local nature. HMCS Esquimalt is one. The western naval base is the one that is perhaps best known. There is also an oceanograhic institute of much more recent establishment on Patricia Bay. I suppose the national observatory is one of the oldest establishments on the Saanich penin-

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
sula. The forest products laboratory is also a federal institution, as is the airport, the experimental farm, and the Work Point barracks.
All of these occupy lands in one or the other of the five municipalities which comprise the riding of Esquimalt-Saanich. Therefore, the municipal authorities in my area are very, very much reliant upon the grants in lieu taxes that are paid into the municipal treasuries for the financing of municipal works.
Royal Roads used to be in my riding, a magnificent park, now the Western College, a military college for all services, which held its graduating ceremonies only last week end. That is an unorganized territory.
There are one or two matters related to this bill that I feel I ought to bring to the minister's attention. One of them has been the delays that have occurred in the payments of the grants in lieu of taxes. On more than one occasion I have had to make representations to one department or another because the municipality has been in touch with me, frantically indicating that it was notified nine months ago that the grants were due and there had been no sign whatsoever of those grants showing up. The bills still keep rolling into the municipalities inevitably. Therefore, while this is a more generous extension of grants in lieu of taxes, I hope that this other matter, not just the generosity but the timeliness of the payments, will be taken into account by the minister. 1 hope 1 can get that assurance from him when he stands up to conclude debate on this bill.
The grants in lieu of taxes, of course, have their historic origins, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, with the Crown at one time being exempt from taxes. Gradually the municipalities are catching up on the Crown and this is the next stage in that catch-up, so to speak. Perhaps the time will come one day when municipal establishments will be paid the same assessment for the property that is occupied as any ordinary institution would pay.
It is sometimes difficult to make a comparison except perhaps on the basis of square feet, square yards, square hectares, square metres, or whatever will be used, between an airport and a business establishment such as a warehouse. There just is no comparison. However, 1 think a formula can be worked out so that the municipalities feel they are getting a fair deal.
This brings me to the question of assessments. An extraordinary situation was brought to my attention within the last two or three weeks which 1 would like to mention to the minister. 1 have written to one of his colleagues. It might be useful if 1 would send a copy of my letter to the minister, because there is an unusual relationship being built up by municipal assessors or regional district assessors. In this particular case, a private property is claiming a farm rate of assessment. The assessor is seeking a waiver to his income tax returns so that the regional district may have access to those returns in order to assure themselves that the statements in so far as the individual being assessed is concerned make him eligible for the farm rate of taxation.
I am sure the minister would not want this practice to go very far. I hope he would not. As far as I am concerned, and I hope as far as he is concerned, the income tax returns of the citizens of this country are a matter of confidentiality between those who submit the returns and the Department of National Revenue. However, as I get the story, the regional district assessor is doing his utmost to secure this waiver from the person being assessed. I do not know under what authority he can do that. I hope he will be appropriately reprimanded by the authorities who sent him out in the first place.
To my way of thinking, that person should be able to submit an affidavit to say that his income from the farm that he claims to be running is X number of dollars. That should be enough to guarantee his eligibility for a farm assessment rather than a residential assessment. If the assessor is not satisfied with the affidavit, then he should question it in the courts. The individual being assessed would then be able to prove by extracting a certain section from his income tax documents, if necessary, but not to open up his whole income tax return to any municipal authority.
I hope the minister agrees with me on the basis of stories I have given to him that that is a very improper practice for any authority to engage in and that, when he gets the information which I should be able to send him within the next day or so, he will be in a position to assure me that this is a practice which is certainly not acceptable to the government. So my first comment concerns the delay, and the desirability of an assurance from the minister that greater promptness will be forthcoming. I believe we should provide for an automatic triggering mechanism at a certain period of the year which municipalities can count on to ensure receipt of their grants in lieu of taxes without fail, year after year. I should like to see such a provision written into the bill, even through 1 am not sure whether that would be possible. We might examine in committee, whether there is a means of introducing into the bill an amendment establishing a date on which grants in lieu of taxes would be paid out to the municipalities. That is the first point.
The other point I underlined had to do with the abuse by a regional district authority in requiring a person being assessed to release his income tax returns to the regional district so that the officials concerned could reassure themselves because they were not prepared to take an individual's word that he was entitled to a farm rating rather than to a residential rating.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to go into all the details of the legislation before us, for it has been adequately and well discussed during the debate we have had this afternoon and this evening.
A good deal has been said, naturally, about Ottawa, since it is the municipality which is most affected by the presence of the federal government. Accordingly, I feel I should not let this opportunity pass-and if I see a smile on your face, Mr. Speaker, it perhaps indicates that you know what is coming-
May 20, 1980

without asking the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) to come to the defence of the Peace Tower. I regard it as a disgrace the way this commanding tower which has meant so much to the City of Ottawa has been blocked out in so many directions by the construction of high rise buildings.
1 realize I am referring again to the length of time which has elapsed since I came here but certainly, when 1 did come to this city, the Peace Tower was in every respect a commanding part of the skyline. As a matter of fact, long before I came here as a member of Parliament I came as a high school boy to visit the city and, back in 1924 before the Peace Tower had been completed, I took snapshots of it which 1 am sometimes pleased to show to people to help them realize that this building was built within the memory of some of us who are still here. In other words, the Peace Tower is something in which 1 have been interested for a long time.
A good deal of the battle has been lost by the way in which the city has permitted the construction of high rise buildings, but one still gets a very good view of Parliament Hill and the Peace Tower coming in from the western parkway; there are spots around the city, around the Experimental Farm or out by the Union Station from which one can still see the Peace Tower, and I am happy to say 1 can still see it from my bedroom window out in Parkwood Hills. As I have said before, woe betide the developer who gets in the way of that view! If 1 get up some morning and find buildings going up between my bedroom window and this tower there will be a question of privilege, a motion under Standing Order 26, and several other procedures on the floor of the House that day.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I believe this craze for high rise buildings, for constructing a jungle for a city, is something which will not always be in vogue, and 1 would hope that when the Minister of Public Works is holding discussions with the city of Ottawa about its problems, about its need for money, what might be done, and so on, he will express the view often expressed in Parliament that it is a disgrace to block out this tremendous view.
1 rose to say just one thing. That is it, and I would ask the Minister of Public Works to remind the city of Ottawa that this city belongs to the whole nation, and that one of the things which is prominent here is the Peace Tower surmounting this building. It should be kept in view for all who live here or come to this city.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the Chair recognizes the Minister of Public Works at this point, he will close the debate.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, as 1 rise to close the debate on Bill C-4, 1 should like to begin by saying to the hon. member who has just spoken that, although I am a new member in this parliamentary precinct, he can rest assured that the prominence of the tower, the history of the tower, and the role which it occupies on the parliamentary scene and in the history of this country, are something very special to me as well. So, in my capacity as the Minister of Public Works, also reporting for the National
Grants to Municipalities
Capital Commission, another area which though not necessarily germane to the bill under discussion probably gets tagged along because it has to do with local municipality planning and the like, I should like to assure the hon. member that 1 share his sentiments, and one of the responsibilities I hope to be able to discharge is protection for the concern he has expressed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: To the hon. member opposite and to the House leader of the official opposition, I quickly express my thanks for the speedy attention they have given to the bill I introduced earlier this afternoon on second reading.
A number of hon. members have invited me to respond to individual points. 1 decline to do that this evening because 1 perceive that this bill, first introduced almost two years ago, has been around this place too long and I do not want to give the impression that I am holding it up longer than is necessary.
I have, though, noted point by point, with staff also present, the various issues which were raised by all members on both sides of the House, and to show my good faith I shall attempt to respond to those points in writing even before the measure gets to committee so that when they go to the committee they may know the position of the government and of the minister on those points. With regard to some of them, 1 think I could give explanations, but I do not wish to take the time of the House by doing so this evening. However, as 1 say, 1 do not want to take the time of the House to do that this evening.


Mr. Nielsen:: You have lots of time tonight.


Paul James Cosgrove: This is a special evening, and the hon. member opposite puts his finger on this being a special evening. A number of hon. members who have spoken about this bill after eight o'clock tonight have talked about the referendum results coming in. I can tell the House that of 79 per cent of the votes cast in the referendum at this time, 58.8 per cent have been No and 41.2 per cent have been Yes. That gives me a great deal of satisfaction, as I am sure it does to many hon. members who have spoken, and to hon. members and people who are in this House who are federalists.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not just many, all of us.


Paul James Cosgrove: If 1 may be permitted to make a few comments, as other hon. members have done earlier this evening, the election of a certain provincial government in the province of Quebec threatened a number of Canadians. One of those was the present leader of the opposition in the province of Quebec, Mr. Claude Ryan. I do not believe politics was necessarily his first milieu or avocation. He indicated that he came to the defence of Canada in the political field as a result of that election. I think he has done a fantastic service to Canada, and it shows tonight.
I was impressed as well that a number of people this evening and this afternoon who spoke about this bill were municipal politicians, people with municipal experience who know grass-

May 20, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
roots communities from school boards, commissions, local councils, city councils, etc., just as I have during the last ten years. I would like to say that although I am pleased to be here as a member of the federal government, I thought as I served my local city, I was serving Canada. I am sure that people in the provinces who serve in local or provincial offices, whether elected or appointed, feel in some ways that they serve Canada.
Canada is many things. It is a federalist system which involves, we know formally, the provincial and federal jurisdictions, but it also involves all people who serve in public life and all citizens who are good citizens in this country. They serve and have served Canada, and so even though I am here this evening and privileged to speak as a federalist in the federal House, I feel that my training and my first involvement in municipal politics were also a contribution to my country in the widest sense.
However, there are people who have responded to the federal cause, and they have responded in a special way. They are people who have stood out in this referendum debate and referendum choice which we have seen related back to us in the results this evening. 1 ran three times in three campaigns to be here this evening because I believed that there were some fantastic federalists in this House who should be supported, and I refer to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: These two federalists should feel vindicated this evening, as 1 feel vindicated, and as I am sure the constituents who are responsible for my participating this evening feel vindicated by the results of the federalist vote tonight.
1 speak of the past, and I want to conclude my comments by addressing the future. Some say Bill C-4 deals with local government. What does that mean in the scheme of things? To me this bill is a good omen. The distinguished House leader of the New Democratic Party defended the Peace Tower this evening. That is fantastic. 1 think any person who comes to this parliamentary precinct as a young person will feel he has a champion in the hon. member opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: However, it is interesting that Bill C-4 tonight, as was indicated by an hon. member opposite this afternoon, is here because we have an antiquated constitution. We have an antiquated system of government devised 113 years ago which requires this House this evening to meet and talk about a bill because, for some reason, the law does not permit the federal government to be treated as any other constituent or person in the community. I predict this bill is a good omen for the future, for federalism and for renewed federalism in this country, and its quick passage this afternoon and this evening shows that hon. members are conscious of this.
It has been suggested that a new deal has to be concluded quickly. I offer one caution. It has been said that the 40 per cent of those people who voted Yes in the Quebec referendum have said that they want a new deal. One player in the renewal which has not been talked of today is the province or provinces. This phenomenon, probably second to the growth of local government, should also be taken into account. The strength, the muscle, the will, and the exercise of regional activity through the provinces are one thing which has to be taken into account, and if we are to be successful in a new deal there is a heavy, heavy responsibility on the provinces to match the will demonstrated this evening by this House and at this level of government to address the future through a renewed federalism, and a search for a federalism which will bring people not only in the province of Quebec but in all other provinces into a better Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.

Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-13, respecting the relocation of government agencies, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself much more briefly than my last comments to Bill C-13. In my opinion this matter is one of housekeeping. It is a matter which ought not to engage a long debate in this House, and I would like to give my reasons why 1 offer that opinion and view.
A number of departments and agencies which are subject to statutory requirement to have offices or perform functions in Ottawa have relocated or are in the process of relocating outside the city of Ottawa. The situation must be rectified by new legislation which introduces changes in existing legislation covering each of the affected bodies to permit a legal recognition of the location of that agency or service outside the city of Ottawa. That is what the bill is about. It is a simple housekeeping matter. Bill C-13 deals with the necessary changes.
May 20, 1980

In five cases the words "City of Ottawa" are replaced by the words "National Capital Region". In the case dealing with the Department of Veterans Affairs moving to the city of Charlottetown, the words "City of Ottawa" are replaced by the words "such place in Canada designated by the governor in council". The location within the city of Charlottetown is a point of some concern to some members in the House, and I understand that the matter will be brought up in the late show tonight, Mr. Speaker.
Bills were introduced by the former ministers of public works in the previous two Parliaments to correct this situation, as was the case with Bill C-4 with which we dealt previously today. Bill C-13 is identical to Bill C-22 which was introduced on November 6, 1979, in the first session of the last Parliament, and which was the successor to Bill C-32 and Bill C-23 in the third and fourth sessions of the previous Parliament under the former Liberal government. To a municipal politician that means that people have gone through two elections and the bill is still sitting here.
A majority of these bodies which have been relocated during the past year or two are located in the national capital region, in Hull or Vanier. The affected bodies are the Economic Council of Canada, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Land Titles Office, the Canadian Transport Commission, Public Archives and DREE. In addition, provision is made for the relocation of the Canadian Pension Commission, the Pension Review Board, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to which l have referred.
The present bill, which is identical to Bill C-22, differs from Bill C-23 in that all references to the Farm Credit Corporation have been deleted. This change was introduced following the last government's decision in July of 1979 not to relocate to Camrose, Alberta, and it was deemed appropriate not to include it in the present legislation because of the uncertainty of a review of the over-all decentralization program.
In brief, that is the introduction of the bill.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister accept a question before he sits down?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wishes to ask a question. Does he have the minister's permission?


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister, in order to enable members in the House to participate intelligently in the debate on this bill, table the costs of the move from Peterborough to Cornwall, and from the waterfront site to the uptown site in the other case, so that we might intelligently debate those aspects of this bill on decentralization?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question put by the hon. member opposite, let me say that, in my opinion, that question is not pertinent to the main thrust of the bill before us this evening, which is housekeeping. If members wish to review the substance, the cost, the efficiency or otherwise of
Decentralization
the actual physical moves, which, in my opinion, have nothing to do with this, there will be other occasions and other forums available for that type of discussion. I urge members to seek those other forums. In my opinion this bill does not provide the occasion for such a discussion. If my friend wants those figures, I would be happy to produce them in another forum.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I tabled, in answer to a request of hon. members opposite, the cost, for example, of the move to Charlottetown. I would be happy to provide those figures, but I say to hon. members that I do not think this is the time or the place.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to the minister this afternoon that it was rather interesting that he was cutting his eye teeth on Bill C-4 which dispenses largesse to thousands of municipalities across the country. As he mentioned tonight in his concluding remarks, the principle of the bill has the basic consent and approval of parties on all sides of the House, so perhaps it was a very interesting and fortuitous bill for the minister on which to cut his parliamentary eye teeth.
Having heard those gratuitous remarks, naturally I was a little disappointed in the minister's concluding remarks. While he thanked my House leader for expediting the passage of Bill C-4, obviously he did not really congratulate the speakers on all sides of the House, or any of the speakers on this side of the House who, frankly, had the conduct of the bill and who, through their co-operation, enabled the minister to get Bill C-4 through the second reading stage into committee, regardless of all the deference which he paid to the venerable hon. member who, some people think, lives in the Peace Tower, for his pet project on the parliamentary Peace Tower.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that 1 started lightly on Bill C-13 because the minister, having made a few gratuitous remarks to the wrong side of the House, in my view, and not having answered any questions from this side of the House, should not expect as easy a passage through the House of Bill C-13 as he had on Bill C-4.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) rises on a point of order.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, surely the time at which I spoke, about ten minutes ago, was not so long ago that my friend can say I did not thank both leaders of the parties opposite for the support they gave to Bill C-4, because I did do that. Surely he would not make that statement.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 was here in the House and I heard the minister's remarks. But I will not amplify this because, frankly, it does not address the substance of the bill before us. I must say to my friend, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), or whoever he may be, that I would appreciate hearing him on this bill which involves the relocation of government agencies.
So far as the ambit and the principle of the bill are concerned, when you relocate government agencies, it seems to

May 20, 1980
Decentralization
me that the question of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was most relevant, because one of the things the taxpayers want to know, when you relocate an agency or a government department for whatever cause, be it good, bad, or political, is what is the cost to the taxpayer.
There are several matters which give us concern, and I must say that the minister, in the schizophrenic world in which we live in the political arena, perhaps chose well to put before us Bill C-4 first, and chose well when he decided to cut his parliamentary eye teeth on that bill, because Bill C-13 is a decayed and diseased wisdom tooth which should be extracted, because it has none of the parliamentary attributes of a positive nature that Bill C-4 had.
Here 1 want to digress for a minute because I know the minister ad libbed very well in his concluding remarks on Bill C-4 about the results of the vote tonight. I will not digress too far on the implications of that vote because others in other places tonight are perhaps trying to assess and divine the situation and the full implications of that vote. All I can say, having been a member here for a few years, is that 1 do not think the vote tonight has settled anything. I quite agree with those members of the House, as well as those who have spoken outside, that unless this House gets off the dead centre on many issues, some of the divining going on tonight may not be quite as prophetic and may perhaps be a little more pathetic than some people who believe in the federal system would like to believe.
1 do not feel any great excitement about the result tonight, although 1 am glad that the forces in favour of No have so obviously won. But when you get such a massive support for the Yes side, there are implications for any federal member who looks at the federal scene, let alone the disquiet and alienation in other parts of the country.
For a long time this House has been preoccupied with a justification for the problems in Quebec which is very close to us, especially when we talk about the national capital district. In fact there are those of us who could suggest, in terms of the history of Bill C-13, that now that the buildings are across the river in Quebec, in Hull, the government brings in what the minister euphemistically calls housekeeping legislation to legitimize retroactively the move of many departments across the river to the national capital region in Hull. Without getting too philosophical, I think Bill C-13 respecting the relocation of government agencies, in its strictest sense is involved in an indirect manner with the vote tonight.
As the minister mentioned, this matter is not new. We in this House saw changes in the Ottawa region, the capital region and/or construction on both sides of the river, without any great parliamentary debate. With the shift of locations of government agencies, now we are coming in to ensure, in the subject matters which the minister mentioned, be it the Economic Council of Canada, the Land Titles Act, the National Transportation Act, the Public Archives Act or the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act, that where "Ottawa" appears it comes to mean "the national capital region."
There are two matters raised by Bill C-13, as far as 1 am concerned. One is the historic reason why we even have a Bill C-13, that is, expansion. I am not necessarily saying that I am against that, because it is a fact of life. A man called John Diefenbaker, a former leader of my party, in 1958 expanded the whole definition of the national capital region to include parts that were never included after many years. As your Honour knows, he expanded it far across the river. I do not want anyone to misinterpret my remarks tonight, but he expanded the definition of the national capital region to include other parts of the Ottawa area, the Ottawa-Hull area, the parkway system and the Gatineau. As the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, it is a pleasure for many of us who live here temporarily, or for those residents who live here permanently. It has enhanced the area. There is no resident of Ottawa or member of Parliament who has been here for a few years who has not seen the improvement in the national capital region.
Having said that on the positive side, through enhancement, enrichment and development in a positive sense of a national capital region, I cannot stand idly by, meekly bow, and say that we should now just acquiesce in retroactive approval of things which should have been debated in the House before they ever occurred. I am referring to the move of many agencies across the river into buildings there, leaving vacant space in the heart of Ottawa, let alone other moves across the country that have caused concern.
The minister may be a little surprised by my comment because I am from one of the so-called areas of economic disparity. It is not that so-called in economic terms. It is an area that is somewhat economically deprived. Having been in theory and in principle in favour of decentralization, I am sure the minister may wonder why this member for Atlantic Canada is questioning the principle in this bill of decentralization.


An hon. Member:: Yes, why?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The answer to the rhetorical question and/or the question of the hon. member opposite, is that there is a real fundamental difference between decentralization in principle based on proper criteria and decentralization which occurs strictly for political patronage. As far as 1 am concerned. Bill C-13 is founded not only on weak history. It should have been debated, and perhaps it would not have caused the negative reaction in my mind. It should have come into the House open-ended. We talk about freedom of information and all the other things that members of Parliament and the public should be exposed to and know about, yet a case could be made for almost a surreptitious movement which in effect is legitimized, after the move, by bills such as Bill C-13.
I hope, when I speak this way, that future governments will not take this back-door approach to expand the operations of the federal government for whatever purpose, be it laudable or otherwise. This afternoon the minister did not answer any questions on Bill C-4 which were put objectively by members
May 20, 1980

on this side. Frankly, the questions were not that pointed because the members were all in favour of the principle of the bill which they kicked around. Ironically we have here a bill legitimizing "national capital region" for the word "Ottawa" for five government agencies in areas where the public servants have already moved in large measure, yet the bill has not moved off dead centre of the House of Commons. If the barn door has ever been closed after the cattle have gone out to pasture and were likely to break down the fence, Bill C-13 does it.
1 suggest that this bill must be looked at critically. One of the main reasons why it must be looked at especially critically now, notwithstanding the fact that tonight there was a very profound and historic vote in Quebec which has been good for the nation from sea to sea, is that tomorrow the work really begins. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and all party leaders in all parts of Canada must get down to discussing the merits and demerits of a renewed federalism and/or a renewed constitution. As some political scientists have said, there can be a real difference between a renewed constitution fundamentally or a brand new constitution fundamentally and a renewed federalism where parts of the whole, for example the provinces, have a much more meaningful say than perhaps they have had heretofore. I must say that I am somewhere in the middle, which perhaps is the safe place to be on a question like this.
I do not think the provinces are given a real meaningful say in a substantive way by just building buildings in different plots of land, no matter how great the building, no matter how great the plot. That type of cement mentality somehow often builds walls around the way we think about our federalism. We think it is there because of dollar signs.
From a personal point of view and that of a federal politician, albeit outside of the province of Quebec, I suggested this was a question for Quebec, although it affected all of Canada, because until very recently there was no emotional content in the debate in Quebec for those in favour of a No vote. I will not go much farther down that road, paying compliments where perhaps compliments can be paid. I might surprise some members in terms of where 1 think compliments should be paid. But 1 think the vote justifies the work of all who worked actively in the debate in Quebec. I hope we do not just stay on a Bill C-13 mentality, without substantive criteria for relocating agencies of government departments.
I am a politician and I make no apology for using the phrase "crass politics", but 1 must say that in terms not only of alienation of the regions of this country but also of the people of this land against politics, not only can they look at Bill C-13 and its strictness in terms of the national capital region in Ottawa, but they can look at what happened to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) versus the former mayor of Cornwall.
Some people in the House do not yet know that the change of the Parks Commission from Cornwall to Peterborough followed the change from Cornwall to Quebec in order to divide the whole thing up. At one time the parks department
Decentralization
was solely in Cornwall and it looked after the interests of both Quebec and Ontario. When the parks department changed its location to Quebec in order to be closer to the people, naturally there was pressure to make sure that the remaining parks office in Cornwall was moved to where it could better serve the people of Ontario, where the park was, closer to Peterborough than Cornwall. It was not the Conservative government of a few months ago that suggested this. This is where the question of the hon. member for Yukon is most relevant. What is this topsyturvy flip-flop on parks in Cornwall or Peterborough, or the Charlottetown move, or the move of Eldorado from Port Hope to the northern Ontario region?
If there are legitimate reasons for this, when are we as politicians, or when is the government as the leader of politicians, i.e. the leader of this Parliament, going to start taking people into its confidence by saying, "Okay, there are five good reasons for the move and three bad ones, but these are best"? The people of Canada should make their choice, and those are the reasons. Sometime they will be able to make their choice.
There are many times as a member of Parliament, whether dealing with Bill C-13 which is trying to legitimize something which has occurred after the event, for example relocation, or another bill, I really cannot see the justification. This bill is trying to legitimize the move to a wider national capital from the narrow strict definition of Ottawa, that is, a relocation of government activities to other parts of the country under the umbrella of decentralization. I really wonder how you justify the move, for instance, to Peterborough from Cornwall.
I thought the whole concept of decentralization began with a move out of Ottawa to the periphery, the east and the west, or even to Winnipeg. 1 thought it was a move of activity out of Ontario, perhaps. I am talking as an Atlantic politician, and I feel there might be a little more benefit in a federal presence in areas more distant from Ottawa. However, we all know that decentralization has been manipulated and used for political purposes. As a politician I recognize the reality of that.
If politicians are to earn the respect of the alienated public out there from coast to coast, in contrast to alienated parts of the country, then the politicians in this chamber, especially the leaders here, i.e. the cabinet ministers, must have the intestinal fortitude to come clean.
This new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) has some experience in municipal politics in the Toronto area. 1 do not know the mechanics of the bylaws in the Scarborough region, but 1 know he was involved in municipal politics before becoming a federal member, and I am sure that he knows in most cases the workings of school boards and municipal councils at the grassroots level are more open and more public that here at the top of the totem pole.
1 am really serious that in areas where the public dollar is involved it is time we, as politicians, remember that we are not just playing the Parliament game under the rules of John A. Macdonald, and we all have to vote with the party whip-that

May 20, 1980
Decentralization
is a subject 1 would like to make a speech on at some time- but we are dealing with an alienated public not restricted just to Quebec. As a body corporate, as a House of Commons, if we make these moves we should make them for legitimate reasons.
Quite frankly I was not overly excited about confirming the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown. I received briefs from legions of this land and talked to many good veterans who, quite frankly, were not excited about this move. I am speaking as an Atlantic member, talking about a move to Atlantic Canada which might help Atlantic Canada in terms of jobs, but there should be a good reason for such a move. I suggest in some areas the reasons should have been openly questioned with the merits and demerits placed on the table.
As far as I am concerned, as the lead-off speaker for my party in respect of Bill C-13, obviously the national capital is an area that has the approval and approbation of this side of the House. However, we do have to be critical about legitimizing things after the fact.
There is another question that has not been covered by this bill. Perhaps it is not overly relevant. Under the British North America Act, section 16, the capital of Canada shall be Ottawa until otherwise directed by order of the Queen's Council. As a result of these decentralization moves there may be people at the grassroots level who could successfully challenge the federal government. Some of these people may successfully challenge the federal government in respect of some of its regulations or laws having regard to some of these departments that have been carrying on business in certain areas for a couple of years. Perhaps an aggrieved citizen could challenge the federal government by suggesting that a head office must be here in Ottawa.
The suggestion could be made that the federal government must issue its edicts, its summonses, its expropriations and whatever here in Ottawa, the designated capital of the country. Such an individual might suggest that the federal government is out of circuit and out of tune because its head office has to be here in Ottawa. Such a challenge could be made on the basis of the change from Ottawa to the national capital region. From the little 1 used to know about constitutional law I think there very well might be a good class action on the part of the taxpayers regarding some of the federal processes. Tonight, or whenever we pass this bill, we will legitimize this change.
Let me conclude, since others want to speak, by saying that this is a pretty poor way to run a railway, and it is an even poorer way, quite seriously, to run a government. If there is anything that the vote in Quebec should tell us, and quite frankly, that the vote during the last two elections in 18 months, does tell us, it is that there is an alienated public out there, not enamoured with politicians in general and with some politicians in particular. I hope this new minister does not become confined with just the bureaucratic knee-jerk reaction. 1 respect those bureaucrats around us as fundamental and necessary, but the problems of government, and this includes
many political shades of government, occur when there is a knee-jerk reaction as a result of the advice of the bureaucracy.
I am informed that in regard to Bill C-4 there was a gentleman in the Department of Finance who has been involved in writing this proposed legislation with each change of Parliament, for about nine years. He has been involved in this legislation on grants in lieu of taxation to municipalities. He is obviously an expert. No doubt the answers the minister is provided for the questions that might be raised in the House by the opposition are good answers, but I hope this minister does not rely solely on the advice of these bureaucrats but, rather, takes advantage of the experience he has had in the municipal field.
I hope he uses his newness in this government, which is an old government, when looking at some of these problems with a fresh approach. Perhaps in this way he can avoid any further deterioration of the public's respect for the political process, and that deterioration has occurred from coast to coast, regardless of region. Hopefully in this way we can avoid a repetition of some of the dramatic events which have occurred in this country. 1 am sure we will be faced with even greater problems in the future as we go on with the nation's business in a substantive way. I would hope, therefore, when the minister concludes his remarks in this debate, or when providing information in the committee, he will make sure there are answers to the questions, including those asked by the hon. member for Yukon earlier regarding two precise points.
The minister could bring in those figures tomorrow. With the answers to these questions and those figures, this debate might be expedited. In this way he could perhaps cast bread on the waters and ease the passage of the bill. Whether this information comes tomorrow or at the committee, members of Parliament on all sides, and especially ministers, have an extra duty to be more open than the government certainly has been. Until that takes place we will just be whistling Dixie if we think the public is going to have a different perception of politicians who are supposed to be running this country.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-13 this evening. It is a privilege to speak on this day, particularly in light of the results which have been realized tonight in la belle province. I would like to congratulate the minister, the hon. member for York-Scarbor-ough (Mr. Cosgrove), on his dynamic approach to his responsibilities. With the introduction of both Bill C-4 and Bill C-13 in the same day, he is obviously a very busy minister. 1 would like to identify and associate myself with this dynamic minister in the sense that I was able to relate to his remarks earlier this evening, having served personally on a municipal government for eight years in New Brunswick.
I speak in support of the relocation of the government agencies, but before 1 get into my remarks I would like to take this opportunity to participate in what I feel is true debate in this House between two members on such a bill. The previous
May 20, 1980

speaker, the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) contradicated himself so many times that he laid the groundwork on which 1 can say something about the importance of the relocation of government agencies to the Atlantic area.
The hon. member started off by saying that he would be brief, but then he went on for a long period of time holding up this bill. He mentioned the two elections and the fact that there has been a long delay in the passage of legislation in this House. From that comment, I understood the hon. member to mean that he was as anxious as all of us are to clean up these housekeeping bills and get on with the nation's business, as he called it. Yet, the hon. member went on to say a number of negative things about what the minister is attempting to do.
The very fact that the hon. member does come from the Atlantic area, and after saying what he said this evening, very clearly established the case that he was contradicting himself.
I do not know why the hon. member would do that, or from what base he made those remarks when he criticized the move to Prince Edward Island. This is a move which 1 have supported 100 per cent, not only in the days when we were in government but during the days, that very brief period of time, when we were in opposition. I defended the decision taken by our colleague, the former minister of veterans affairs, even when he was not here in the House. Now that he is back and is the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) again, he has the privilege of seeing the work he commenced in an earlier Parliament come into reality.
As one who had the privilege to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of urban affairs who was also responsible for CMHC and other matters, I had an opportunity to realize fully the workings of the National Capital Commission. I join with other members in stating my belief and understanding of the importance of the national capital. Of course I will not be able to muster the enthusiasm nor find the words to express how proud 1 am of the nation's capital and of Ottawa, but 1 have nothing but admiration and understanding for the work and the role of the members who represent this region.
1 state that because as a member of Parliament 1 understand the difficulties of those members of Parliament, and 1 sympathize with them as representatives of the people of this region. On the other hand, it being a two-way street, I would hope that they would understand our position, coming from a have-not, underdeveloped region of the country.
There is very little which I can add this evening in this debate. It has been so well stated by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on previous occasions and, more recently now that we have commenced with a new administration, that both he and the government have indicated how strongly they hold the position that the have provinces must continue to seek and to find ways and means to assist in every way the have-not and underdeveloped areas.
That is why I find it strange for a member from the Atlantic provinces, the member from Annapolis Valley, to stand in his place and qualify himself eminently as a member speaking out
Decentralization
of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand he said that we may need this type of relocation and support for the Atlantic area and, on the other hand, he chastised the government, by bringing in the usual type of sly innuendo, that decisions were taken for other than appropriate reasons.
The program which was announced in October, 1977, addressed the relocation of several thousands of full and part-time jobs from the capital area to 24 communities in all ten provinces between the period of 1977 to 1982. I will make no reservations about it since I represent an important constituency in New Brunswick. 1 am very much interested in supporting Bill C-13 this evening because I want to do what 1 can in my work to attract some relocation of government agencies to my area, which is one of the most beautiful areas in Canada. I refer to the beautiful Restigouche River, the salmon and all that we have going into the Gaspe area.
However, we also need jobs in order to survive, and we must develop the economy. We have some industry there with mines, with the Noranda group and Bathurst Mining and Smelting. We have the pulp and paper industry which employs thousands of Canadians who are hard-working people. There is also tourism and various other aspects which will help the economy. However, we also need due and fair consideration when it comes to relocation and decentralization.


J. Michael Forrestall: Speak to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Maurice James Harquail: To the hon. member who is trying to enter the debate by way of interruption, I am satisfied that you have received, 1 think, fair consideration, in time, through reallocation and the very substantial location of federal jobs in your riding.


J. Michael Forrestall: I lost it all. You took it all away from us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please address his remarks to the Chair?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy your support in restraining these interruptions, especially with regard to a member who enjoys to a large extent great benefits from the federal government, from such departments as the Department of National Defence-


J. Michael Forrestall: You got to be kidding.


Maurice James Harquail: -the Department of Fisheries-


J. Michael Forrestall: You got to be kidding.


Maurice James Harquail: -the Department of the Environment, and all the other federal agencies which have very substantial installations in his immediate area. 1 believe that the hon. member represents the Dartmouth area. Certainly I would think that the hon. member has very little to quibble about in terms of reallocation and location of federal departments and agencies in his own area.
In my short experience in this House, and being from the Atlantic area, I have found that it is not uncommon to suffer
1238

May 20, 1980
Adjournment Debate
interruptions from colleagues who share the same concerns as I have with regard to attempting to develop ways and means to develop the Atlantic area. Notwithstanding the negative comments made this evening by the hon. member from Annapolis Valley, and seconded and supported by the hon. member from Dartmouth in his interruptions, we will go on because we have received the mandate of the people to do this. When the member from Annapolis Valley-


Erik Nielsen: Annapolis Valley-Hants.


Maurice James Harquail: It's of no great "Hants". It does not enhance, nor has he convinced me of any enhancement tonight or on any previous occasion. Having experienced interruptions by that hon. member, at least I had the benefit of that experience to prepare myself well for my intervention this evening. When the hon. member mentioned his leader and his party's position, he would have to conclude that that was part of the message delivered to him by the Canadian people, when we were returned to government, that people want relocation of the government agencies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock the House will now proceed to Proceedings on Adjournment Motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, given the events of earlier this evening, I must join with all of those who tonight will not necessarily breathe a sigh of relief because well in excess of one million of our fellow Canadians have expressed a desire that may not be in sympathy with our own, while slightly less than two million have expressed the opposite desire. 1 do not think we should take any comfort from that. It is clear that we have an extraordinary task ahead of us to reunite this country.
In terms of the question that 1 raised on April 17 having to do with energy, how we are going to pay for it and how we are going to bring it into this country, might 1 raise two points for the distinguished parliamentary secretary whom I do not see here at the moment but who, 1 hope, is here. These two questions have to do with the rejection this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) of any possibility of participation by Canadians and Canadian ships crewed by Canadians and subject to Canadian law in the movement of energy from Mexico into Canada.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us that the question, to the besLof his knowledge, has not
even been raised. In such a vital area to Canada, I am amazed that the question has not even been raised.
Last year leaving ourselves open to external interests, as Canadians we paid very close to $3.7 billion on the movement of goods in and out of this country by water-borne means. That includes exports overland of Canadian manufactured goods, through the United States, exporting through United States ports. These goods went out in foreign-registered bottoms, not Canadian ships, but foreign registered ones. The agencies here in Canada took their usual fees for these purposes, but the ships were foreign registered.
In discussions with Mexico with respect to the agreement to import eventually upwards of 100,000 barrels of oil a day into Canada-and I speak as an eastern Canadian who is totally reliant on imported oil-1 am told this afternoon by the government of this country that the question of who would move that oil was not even considered. I find that reprehensible. 1 find it equally reprehensible with respect to energy and the question of whether or not this government has bothered to consider how we are going to export northeastern British Columbia coal to Japan.
It is my suspicion, not confirmed and not too late to be corrected, that this government has not even introduced into its discussions the possibility of the utilization of Canadian ships built in Canada, crewed by Canadians and subject to Canadian law, in the export of Canadian natural resources to Japan. It is my suspicion that that has not even happened.
A second problem that I raised on April 17 had to do with where the money is to come from to pay for eastern oil in terms of compensation. It is not in anything mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). In fact it is some $2.5 billion to $2.8 billion short of the premises on which the Minister of Finance introduced his mini-budget. I am sorry to see only one member of the Treasury Bench here, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove). 1 am pleased he is here this evening. Where is the money going to come from? How is the money going to be raised to meet that compensation fund? 1 want an answer to that question.
The third question I posed on April 17 had to do with whether the government was prepared to honour the commitment given by the previous government to assist refineries in eastern Canada with regard to the upgrading of their facilities in order to accommodate the heavier crudes now coming out of Venezuela and which will come out of Mexico. Where will the money come from to help them? Are they going to have to do it on their own? If so, when will they be told so that they may start on their own? If there is any federal financial assistance forthcoming, when will they know about it? When will they know what the level of assistance will be?
Those are my three points. When in God's name are we going to start to move our own resources-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.
May 20. 1980


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in raising this matter this evening the hon. member has provided the opportunity to demonstrate again the international involvement of this government in ensuring a stable and secure energy supply for Atlantic Canada.
Last week 1 indicated to the House what we have done to foster energy conservation and diversification in the maritime provinces. While those efforts have already brought rewards and shown considerable further promise, we cannot eliminate the need to import oil into Atlantic Canada in the immediate future.
An energy agreement with one foreign supplier, Mexico, was initialed in May, 1979, one year ago. It provides for the delivery of Mexican crude oil to Canada. The intent is to initiate delivery this year, increasing to 50,000 barrels per day one year after delivery commences. Later, if Mexican production allows, this may rise to a volume of 100,000 barrels per day. The precise mix of heavy and light crude oil remains to be negotiated.
As is the case elsewhere in the world, eastern Canadian refineries have a limited capacity to process heavy oil. Certainly we have a responsibility to consider these limitations while negotiating with Mexico. Once this oil supply agreement is finalized, Petro-Canada is expected to arrange for the efficient transport of this oil to eastern Canadian destinations. We expect that this will minimize the costs involved, and allow Petro-Canada to exercise its mandate to assist in protecting our national interests. If available and suitable, we shall, of course, give first priority to Canadian ships.
While the price of Mexican crude is in the upper range of current international prices, it would be accepted by companies which look forward to receiving crude oil from a secure source. This acceptance can be explained by the fact that crude oil contracts from other sources would likely entail prices which would equal, or exceed, the price of Mexican crude available to Canada.
To respond to the subject the hon. member raised regarding financial assistance to the refining system, I can repeat that it was studied extensively in 1979 in consultation with officials from provincial governments, including those of Atlantic Canada. At that time it was concluded that no assistance would be required. Accordingly, the previous Conservative government took no steps to provide financial aid to those who would be refining imported Mexican crude oil.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-RELOCATION OE DVA SITE IN CHARLOTTETOWN
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on this historic and happy occasion 1 hesitate to raise a mundane matter although the issue I wish to discuss is of great interest to my riding of Hillsborough, to my province of Prince Edward
Adjournment Debate
Island and, indeed, to all Canadians concerned about good government. It has to do with a question in the House of Commons on Tuesday, May 13, 1980, which, in the first instance, I put to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). It concerned the attempt by the federal government to locate the Department of Veterans Affairs in the centre of Charlottetown, the capital city of Prince Edward Island, despite a binding legal agreement between the federal government on the one hand and the province of Prince Edward Island and the city of Charlottetown on the other, through the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation. The agreement required the Department of Veterans Affairs to be located on the waterfront.
I asked the President of the Treasury Board on that occasion whether it was his intention and that of the government to ignore the obligations they had incurred under the binding agreement, and whether it was also the intention of the government to force its choice of site on the people of Prince Edward Island. The hon. gentleman was unable to answer my question, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), in an effort to rescue his colleague, entered the discussion and answered as best he could. In essence, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works presented more or less the same statement that he tabled the next day, an analysis on the basis of which the government proceeded with the change of site. Mr. Speaker, the answer to my question by the Minister of Public Works and the statement he tabled in the House the next day were both riddled with inaccuracies and unfounded assumptions. In the short time I have at my disposal in the House tonight, 1 would like to deal briefly with each of his points.
The first had to do with cost. He maintained that the waterfront site was between $1 million and $1.5 million more expensive than the uptown, alternative site. The truth is that the waterfront site is valued at $1.5 million. By contrast, the uptown site is valued at $2.1 million, leaving an advantage in favour of the waterfront site of $600,000. It is true, as the statement provided to this House by the Minister of Public Works pointed out, that piles and a seawall are required to be installed to make the waterfront site suitable for a massive federal government building. But the cost, according to the best estimates, would not exceed about $400,000, still leaving an advantage of something like $200,000 in favour of the waterfront site. But one has to calculate also the additional cost to the federal treasury of getting out of the binding agreement with the Charlottetown Area Development Corporation, which may exceed a million dollars. So it may well be that it will cost in excess of a million dollars for the federal government to change the site from the waterfront to the central core for political reasons.
The second point the minister made in his answer and, in his statement the next day, was the desirability of the uptown site compared with the waterfront location, in terms of parking, of traffic and of other things such as bringing business to the neighbouring retail stores. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal for the uptown site does not even conform with the

May 20, 1980
Adjournment Debate
city's bylaws, guidelines, and restrictions with respect to the required ratio of parking spaces to the number of employees in a building.
What is more, the proposal to which the minister is a party would contemplate the placement of a massive federal government building right in the heart of a small community-a capital city but, nevertheless, a small community. This measure will worsen parking problems, especially in the summer, when we have something like 600,000 visitors. During that time of year, 600,000 tourists are added to the population of Prince Edward Island, which is only 123,000. The uptown site will cause congestion of traffic in the centre area of the city, and it will devour valuable commercial space better suited to commercial purposes rather than government or institutional purposes.
Almost as important, I think, is that the decision will place a huge federal government building across the street from the provincial legislature, which is a national historic site. The building is a shrine because it was where the Fathers of Confederation met in 1864 to draft the British North America Act. The placement of the building on the waterfront, on the other hand, would give a much needed boost to the waterfront development that is going on with the help of the federal government, the province and the city, and into which the federal government itself has already poured something like $5 million.
By changing the site and by wrenching out of that project the Department of Veterans Affairs, which was to be the centre-piece or flaghip of the waterfront development, the federal government has in effect undermined a project in which it itself is substantially involved.
I want to make one additional point in conclusion. The waterfront site is not, as was implied by the minister, a million miles away from the centre area. It is only three blocks from the downtown centre. It is close enough to the centre of the city to complement local businesses and retail outlets, while being far enough away not to disrupt city planning in the way the downtown core option would.
May I conclude by saying that the placement of the building in the centre core of the downtown area will not accelerate the relocation, as the minister implied. The fact is that with the haggling that will take place between the federal government and CADC over the binding agreement, and with so little done in the uptown core area by way of preparation, this change in site from the waterfront to the centre area will delay rather than accelerate the relocation of DVA to Charlottetown-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, on April 25, 1980, it was announced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) that the new building would now be built on the Kent-Grafton Street site presently owned by the federal government.
I am very disappointed that my hon. colleague opposite should think, because this building is intended to be next to a shrine, a place which marks the beginning of this country, that that very important building in that part of this country is not an appropriate location for the headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would think that if he had the opportunity of asking the men who put together the basis for this country some time ago whether they thought it appropriate, whether the shrine which marked people who died for this country was good enough for them, or the shrine which marks the continued administration for people who were maimed and still suffer as a result of their sacrifice to their country- whether they think that this shrine and this place is good enough to be next to them, contrary to what my friend says, 1 think the answer would be, "We would welcome a shrine to these people."
I think that my friend does a disservice to himself, to his province, and certainly to those who served in world wars, and who are served by the Government of Canada through the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to carry on the way he is about the location of this site.
I will rest.


TRANSPORT-CROWSNEST PASS FREIGHT RATES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, with regard to my question of May 15, which was followed by my question of privilege on May 16, I expressed my sympathy to the minister for having been misled by the Canadian Pacific Railway over the matter of CP rail's freezing of the $322 million Rogers Pass project until the government adjusted the Crowsnest Pass freight rate.
I offered sympathy because CP has sent the minister into the House stark naked except for the pathetic excuse that CP executive vice-president Bill Stinson had been misquoted when he had talked to five reporters on the special Calgary to Vancouver train which was showing off all the improvement CP was making to increase the capacity of its main line, but not all the improvements, however, because Mr. Stinson said that if the Crowsnest rate was not replaced by a compensatory rate of about five or six times as high, CP Rail would freeze Rogers Pass improvement as a sign of bad faith with the Government of Canada over the transport policy. That was Mr. Stinson's statement to the Canadian Press reporter, Steve Merdl. Then, one of CP Rail's highly paid public relations men no doubt told one of the assistants of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that Mr. Stinson had been misquoted.
However, that was not the end of the story. Then the other reporters on the train started filing their stories. I have mentioned that one of them, Bobbi Lambright of the Edmonton Journal, filed an almost identical story to the Canadian Press account. Miss Lambright wrote, and I quote from her story in the Edmonton Journal of Thursday, May 15:
If the money-
May 20, 1980

That is, money from higher compensatory rates for hauling grain.
-is not available, some major projects will have to be shelved resulting in serious ramifications for rail transportation in the 1980s. A $300 million double tracking project through the Rogers Pass could be the main casualty if finances are not available.
The link between the Crowsnest Pass rate, which the CPR would dearly love to do away with, and the CPR main line improvements, was established by those reporters. This is what I was referring to when 1 said the CPR was practising corporate blackmail on the Government of Canada.
There was further evidence. The CBC has a reporter on this train to nowhere, and his report made the same link. Canadian Press, which is always sensitive to charges of misquotation, declined to change its story.
This was the background to our question on Thursday, May 1 5, and the subsequent question of privilege on Friday, May 16. On the question, I am sorry but the minister and this House have been shamed by the statement by CP Rail which has proved incorrect.
1 am somewhat more disturbed about the matter of privilege. Madam Speaker ruled stating that it appeared to her to be a matter of whether the MP was satisfied with the answer given by the minister. The question before the House was whether the House had been misled. If so, why whould CP rail not be called before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to determine why they had decided to tell the minister something other than what three trained newspaper reporters had concluded after an extensive interview with executive vice-president Stinson?
There is a legitimate press issue here, Mr. Speaker. We are often confronted with a public figure who, when he has said something indiscreet, hides behind the protective veil of claiming he was misquoted. This does the press of this country, which already has serious credibility problems with its public, little good in establishing its own legitimacy as the reporter of public events which serves the vital function of shaping public opinion in this nation.
If this matter could have been cleared up by the committee, I think the press, the public and the Parliament of this nation would have been better served for it. That is my regret, Mr. Speaker.
Also, we could have returned in the House to the substance of my first inquiry, namely, whether it is the Government of Canada or CPR which determines the transportation policy in this country. Would the government invoke section 262 of the Railway Act if Mr. Stinson makes good on his threat to move grain at a lower priority than other freight if the Crow rate remains in place, thereby ensuring that western farmers get the priority they deserve in shipping the export wheat which does much to earn the foreign exchange which this country needs so desperately? Would the government consider the recommendations for Crow related freight rates as recommended in the Hall Commission report on grain handling and
Adjournment Debate
transportation, and remove the disparities for producers of semi-finished goods such as rapeseed meal and oil?
These are the real questions that matter in the west, not whether some functionary for the CPR claims he was misquoted. We should have an end to these kinds of diversionary tactics which impede the work of the House and its members. What we need are answers to the questions which are on the minds of many westerners, as they see what is supposed to be the fate of this country played out as in Quebec tonight.
I do not doubt that this is so, but I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) to come prepared with answers to this House when questions are asked. It is not an edifying experience to have to sit here and listen while the minister ducks a simple question as to whether the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board was consulted when the initial price of wheat was set this year. Surely one of the minister's dedicated assistants could find that out with a simple telephone call to Winnipeg. If that kind of candor and dedication were more readily displayed, then there would be fewer questions of privilege coming before this House.
Now that the authenticity of the blackmail has been established, would the Minister of Transport answer my question: what does he intend to do in the face of this blackmail?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael).


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the Dominion Government and the Canadian Pacific Railway entered into the Crowsnest Pass agreement in 1897. In return for certain concessions, the railway agreed to lower rail rates on grain and to maintain them at that level. The Crowsnest Pass rates were incorporated into the Railway Act in 1925. They now apply to western grain moving for export as well as domestic grain moving eastwards to Thunder Bay.
The low rates on grain began to make themselves felt in the 1950s, and the effect upon the railways was recognized by the MacPherson commission from 1959 to 1961. In 1975 the Snavely commission was appointed to identify the costs to the railways of moving grain at statutory rates. The Snavely commission found that the 1974 cost of moving grain was $231 million. Three years later, by 1977, the cost had risen to $354 million. In that same period the railways' share of the costs almost doubled from $89 million to $175.5 million. It is evident that the continued existence of the Crowsnest rate will exert a significant impact upon the finances of our two major railways. The impact of the statutory rate on other parties must not, however, be forgotten.
With respect to the position of Canadian Pacific's proposed $322 million Beavermouth, British Columbia, tunnel project, economic growth forecasts for western Canada in the 1980s will require a marked expansion of railway capacity to move traffic between Calgary, Edmonton and the west coast. While there is an ever-increasing demand for railway capacity, we

May 20, 1980
Adjournment Debate
arc all experiencing a very high inflation rate, which means for railways a very high capital cost for capacity additions. Until now the railways have been able to add capacity in relatively small increments such as dieselization, large capacity cars, and long trains. These methods have been exhausted, and now both CN and CP rail are faced with large, one-time plant capacity expansion programs through the mountains.
The railways have not been able to increase their revenues in relation to the increased requirement for funds. About 22 per cent of the total traffic handled through the Rockies by CP rail is grain which moves on a fixed rate. The minister has requested up-to-date forecasts for grain traffic and a report on
capacity expansion from the president of CN by this September. Also, CP Rail is expecting to provide the minister with information on its capacity expansion. With this information we will be able to deal with the important issue of the availability of railway capacity for western Canada.
The minister outlined his views on the Crow rate in the House during the debate on this subject on May 15, 1980, and I need not reiterate them here for the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
May 20, 1980


FEDERAL
[Stage Direction]
Program
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION Farm Credit Act
Farm Syndicates Credit Act

[Stage Direction]
Farm Improvement Loans Act

[Stage Direction]
FBDB Loans
BRITISH COLUMBIA Agricultural Land Development Act
Agricultural Credit Act -Guaranteed Loans.
Interest Reimbursement Program.
Peace River Livestock Production Incentive Program.

[Stage Direction]
(See Friday, May 16, 1980 p. 1165)

[Stage Direction]
Eligibility
Full-time farmer or about to become a full-time farmer. Under the "Beginning Farmer" program, applicants must be full-time farmers within five years.
A group of 3 or more farmers who wish to form a syndicate to jointly purchase and use machinery, equipment or buildings that can be used cooperatively.
Bona fide farmer.
Canadian business.
Under 65 years old with annual farm income of at least $1,600. Must have resources to make use of developed land.
All farm operations. Gross income must exceed $1,600 and non-farm gross income must be less than $25,000.
Loans made through credit unions, chartered banks, FCC, FBDB and VLA. Loans made for machinery, livestock, land, buildings, improving land, debt consolidation. All farm operations with gross income over $1,600 and nonfarm gross income less than $25,000.
Beef and sheep producers in the Peace River area.
Purpose
To establish viable farm units. Loans funds may be used to purchase land, breeding stock and equipment, make improvements and pay debts.
To provide the financial means for farmers to act cooperatively in overcoming the cost of individual ownership of machinery, buildings and equipment.
Farm improvement including the purchase of livestock, equipment, machinery and additional land, constructing buildings and fences, and for drainage, irrigation, etc.
To promote and assist in the establishment and development of business enterprises in Canada.
Land improvement including drainage and irrigation, breaking land, orchard renovation, well drilling.
Complements services of existing agricultural credit agencies. Provides credit to farmers who cannot qualify for bank loans.
Reduce the cost of borrowing by reimbursing a portion of the interest.
Encourages producers in Peace River to establish or expand beef cattle and sheep production by purchasing or retaining females for breeding.
Terms
Maximum loan of $200,000 per qualifying applicant to a maximum of $400,000. Interest rate is based on the yield of 5 to 10 year government bonds. Currently set at 13%. Maximum loan is 80%>
of the cost to a maximum of $ 15,000 per member or $100,000, whichever is the lesser. Current interest rate is 13%.
Maximum loan is $75,000. Loans may be used to finance up to 75% of the cost of livestock and equipment and up to 90% for other purposes. Repayment period of 15 years for land and 10 years for other purposes. Interest rate varies with the prime rate of chartered banks plus 1%.
Direct loans at competitive interest rates. Rate increases with the size of loan.
Maximum loan $15,000, 4% interest rate. Repayment over 15 years. May arrange to have interest payment only for first 3 years.
Provincial loan guarantees through chartered banks and credit unions. Interest rate may not exceed prime plus 1%.
Reimburses rate to an average for operating-, intermediate-, and long-term loans from previous year. In 1980, reduces rate to 2% below average bank prime and starting in 1981 to 1% below prime.
Reimburse interest on loans to purchase or retain livestock to a minimum of 4 per cent and 4'/2 per cent on guaranteed loans. Maximum loan is $10,000 for up to 7 years with interest only for the first 2 years.
Contact
Farm Credit Corp., P.O. Box 6309, Postal Station J, Ottawa, Ontario, 613-9967921.
Farm Credit Corp., P.O. Box 6309, Postal Station J, Ottawa, Ontario, 613-9967921.
Chartered Banks and approved lending institutions.
FBDB, 901 Victoria Sq.,	
Montreal, Que.	H2Z 1R1,
FBDB offices in cities.	all major
Dir., Financial	Services,
B.C. Ministry	of Agric.,
Victoria, B.C. 5121.	604-387-
Dir., Financial	Services,
B.C. Ministry	of Agric.,
Victoria, B.C. 5121.	604-387-
Dir., Financial	Services,
B.C. Ministry	of Agric.,
Victoria, B.C. 5121.	604-387-
Dir., Financial	Services,
B.C. Ministry	of Agric.,
Victoria, B.C.	604-387-
5121.	
[Stage Direction]
May 20, 1980
Program ALBERTA Direct Farm Loans
Beginning Farmer Program (Direct Loan)
Disaster Assistance Program (Direct Loans).
Financial Restructuring Loan Program (Direct Loan)
Specific Guaranteed Loans.
Vegetable Production Loan Program (Guaranteed Loan).
Alberta Farm Development Loan (Guaranteed Loan).
Dairy Development Incentive Program (Guaranteed Loan).

[Stage Direction]
FarmStart Corp. Loan & Grant Program.
Corporate, Cooperative and Partnership Loans.
Eligibility
Primary producers unable to obtain long-term credit from other sources.
Yong person with farm experience or equivalent in college and farm experience and who has 10% equity or vested equity.
Farmers who have suffered a natural disaster.
Ample land for security, good credit history, conditions beyond the farmer's control must have contributed to the situation, and must be a good manager.
Borrower is unable to obtain financing from another lender and is a primary producer.
50% of the borrower's annual net income must be from the farm.
Any size of operation is eligible. Only 10 per cent of the total loans made by a lending institution in a 3-year period are guaranteed.
Dairy farmers who wish to improve their dairy facilities.
Those who intend to make farming their principal occupation. Net worth less than $113,000, total assets after loan of less than $200,000 and earn less than $18,000 net income per year. Must be able to retire the loan by 65 years of age.
Cooperatives, corporations and partnerships are eligible for loans but only if every member of the organization is eligible for a loan of about equal amounts.
Purpose
Purchasing land, permanent improvements, consolidating debts and other purposes related to maintaining farm.
All agricultural purposes.
Provides long-term loans to repair and replace buildings and replace livestock.
Assist farmers whose shortterm and long-term debt is out of balance.
Short- or intermediate-term guaranteed loan for any agricultural asset, operating capital and debt consolidation.
To assist vegetable producers to purchase equipment for vegetable production with a government guaranteed loan. Usually this is an Alberta Farm Development Loan.
A guaranteed loan for short-and intermediate-term for almost any purpose except debt consolidation.
Assists dairy farmers to secure short- and intermediate-term credit at preferential rates. Funds available for buildings, improving dairy facilities, equipment for milk production and milk quota.
Credit and grants for those establishing or expanding in livestock including improvement of grazing land, purchasing livestock and machinery, improving livestock facilities and irrigating land.
Credit for establishing or expanding livestock production.
Terms
Suggested maximum of $150,000. 30-year repayment period. 20% equity required. Interest rate is 12% with a 3% rebate on interest for the first 5 years for full-time farmers. For part-time farmers, the interest rate is 12%.
Up to $200,000 for a maximum of 30 years. Total assets and loan cannot exceed $300,000. Interest rate of 12% with a 6% rebate on interest for the first 5 years. Recommended maximum of $150,000. Terms and conditions are on the basis of need.
Maximum loan is $150,000 for up to 20 years. Interest rate is the direct loan rate (12%).
No maximum is specified, but expect that borrower will have 20% equity. Maximum term depends on lending agency.
An incentive equal to an interest rebate of 2% of the declining principal balance for first 5 years. A maximum of $50,000 for up to 10 years.
A maximum of $75,000 for 15 years. Interest = prime + 1% for up to 10 years or prime + 1 '/2% for loans of 11 to 15 years.
Incentive payments are available at $70 per $1,000 of original loan amount eligible for first 3 years. Maximum loan is $30,000 for individual operators and up to $50,000 for two or more families.
Maximum loan of $150,000 must not increase individual's productive assets to more than $200,000. The interest rate is set at 8% for the first 5 years and then increases to 10% for loans up to $90,000 and to 12'/2% for loans over $90,000. Maximum repayment period is 15 yrs. Grant of $8,000 is also available to applicants with a net worth of less than $36,000. A farmer must expand his livestock operation by at least $4 for each $1 of grant.
The amount of loan for a multiple operator unit is equal to the sum of the amounts which can be borrowed by each individual member in the above program.
Contact
Agricultural Dev. Corporation, 4910-52nd St., Cam-rose, Alta., 403-672-3347.
Agricultural Dev. Corporation, 4910-52nd St., Cam-rose, Alta., 403-672-3347.
Agricultural Dev. Corporation, 4910-52nd St., Cam-rose, Alta., 403-672-3347.
Agricultural Dev. Corporation, 4910-52nd St., Cam-rose, Alta., 403-672-3347.
Agricultural Dev. Corporation, 4910-52nd St., Cam-rose, Alta., 403-672-3347.
Agricultural Dev. Corporation, 4910-52nd St., Cam-rose, Alta., 403-672-3347.
Agricultural Dev. Corporation, 49I0-52nd St., Cam-rose, Alta., 403-672-3347.
Agricultural Dev. Corporation, 4910-52nd St., Cam-rose, Alta., 403-672-3347.
Sask. FarmStart Corp., Admin. Building, Regina, Sask., 306-565-6460.
Sask. FarmStart Corp., Admin. Building, Regina, Sask., 306-565-6460.
May 20, 1980
Program Land Bank.
[Stage Direction]
Rural Housing Program.

[Stage Direction]
Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp. (MACC), Direct Loans, Long-Term.
Direct Loans Intermediate-Term.
MACC - Corporate, Cooperative and Partnership Loans.
MACC - Farm Production Guaranteed Loans.
MACC - Specific Comprehensive Guaranteed Loans.
Cooperative, Corporate and Partnership Guaranteed Loans.
Stocker Program.
[Stage Direction]
Eligibility
A maximum net worth and maximum average 3-year net incomes are established as part of eligibility criteria. They are reviewed every year.
Business must be located in Saskatchewan.
Must reside in a community with less than 2,500 pop. Must have a gross family income to meet selection criteria.
18 years of age or over. Principally occupied in farming or will be after the loan. A resident of Manitoba or will be after the loan.
18 years of age or over. Principally occupied in farming or will be after the loan. A resident of Manitoba or will be after the loan.
Cooperatives, corporations, partnerships and producer boards are eligible.
Any farmer.
18 years of age and principally occupied in farming.
Cooperatives, corporations, partnerships and producer boards are eligible.
Farmers who have feed and facilities to raise calves.
Purpose
Transfer land within family. Facilitates transfer of land for people retiring out of agriculture and allows potential farmers an opportunity to rent land. Land Bank will also provide funds for land improvement.
Specialized agricultural operations. Basic farming operations are not eligible.
Assists low and moderate income families to acquire new homes and improve housing. Promotes use of local materials and financial resources.
Long-term direct loan for land, livestock and machinery, permanent improvements and debt consolidation.
Intermediate-term direct loans for land, machinery and livestock and permanent improvements.
To establish and develop multiple-owner farm enterprises for all conventional farming operations and feed lots and vegetable storages.
Guarantee lines of credit made to farmers by lending institutions for operating expenses, livestock and equipment.
For land, livestock, machinery, permanent improvements, debt consolidation and operating capital.
To provide operating capital by a bank or credit union without the borrower having to provide securities.
To retain Stocker calves in Manitoba.
Terms
Land is leased on a flexible cash rent basis. Rent is based on productive value of land. Land may be purchased after 5 years of leasing. If purchased, lessee receives 20% discount on home quarter to maximum of $5,000. Balance of land purchased at average market value. The Land Bank does not finance purchases. There are no set maximums but the amount cannot exceed 80% of fixed assets. Longterm loans with no set maximum term.
A nominal down payment is required. A loan for the balance of approved cost is available. Mortgage will be amortized over 25 years.
Maximum of $150,000 for 30 years up to 90% of security- 60% of security must be in land and up to 40% may be in livestock and a maximum of 20% in equipment. 4% interest reduction offered to farmers under 40 on the first $50,000 for first 5 years. Interest rate is Vi per cent over cost of financing to province. Maximum of $60,000 up to 90% of value of land and livestock and 65% of machinery. Repayment period is 10 years.
Maximum determined by Board of Directors approval. Mortgage or floating charge on borrowers' assets. Guaranteed loans are also available. Repayment period is 30 years.
The loan guarantee and any FIL loan cannot exceed $60,000. Repayable annually or at the completion of a production cycle. For other than operating purposes the term can extend to 10 years. Interest rate is prime plus 1%. Maximum of $200,000 over 30 years. Interest rate is prime plus 1% for loans 10 years or less and prime plus l'/2% for loans 10 to 30 years. Terms and conditions are set by the Corporation which guarantees the total loan.
Farmer agrees to feed steer stocker calves purchased by MACC. Calves may be sold up to 18 months after purchase. Stocker agreements may not exceed 300 head or $60,000 per farmer. Interest rate is the same as that set for Intermediate Term Loans.
Contact
Sask. Land Bank Comm., Admin. Building, Regina, Sask. 306-565-5321.
Sask. Economic Dev. Corp., 900-1867 Hamilton St., Regina, Sask., 306-5231601.
Sask. Housing Corp., 2024 Albert St., Regina, Sask. S4P3P4 306-565-4177.
Manitoba Agric. Credit Corp., 1500 Notre Dame Ave., Winnipeg, Man. 204786-3401.
Manitoba Agric. Credit Corp., 1500 Notre Dame Ave., Winnipeg, Man., 204786-3401.
Manitoba Agric. Credit Corp., 1500 Notre Dame Ave., Winnipeg, Man., 204786-3401.
Manitoba Agric. Credit Corp., 1500 Notre Dame Ave., Winnipeg, Man., 204786-3401.
Manitoba Agric. Credit Corp., 1500 Notre Dame Ave., Winnipeg, Man., 304786-3401.
Manitoba Agric. Credit Corp., 1500 Notre Dame Ave., Winnipeg, Man., 204786-3401.
Manitoba Agric. Credit Corp., 1500 Notre Dame Ave., Winnipeg, Man., 204786-3401.
1246
Program
MANITOBA-(Cone.)
Farm Diversification Program.
Manitoba Development Corporation.

[Stage Direction]
Ontario Young Farmers Loan Program.
Farm Lease Program.
Installation of Agricultural Tile Drainage.
Ontario Home Renewal Program.
[Stage Direction]
Farm Credit Act administered by the Farm Credit Bureau.
Farm Loan Act.
Quebec Farm Improvement Loan Act.
[Stage Direction]
May 20. 1980
Eligibility
Farmers under 45 years with gross farm sales of between $5,000 and $25,000. Can also accept 15% of the farmers on the program with gross farm sales of less than $4,500 and 10% over 45 years. Must have ability to accept Management advice.
Anyone can apply for assistance.
18-35 years old and intend to farm for at least 10 years.
Young people with farm experience. People who do not have resources to purchase a farm.
Land must be in agricultural production and owned by a farmer. Drainage work must be completed by a licensed contractor.
Adjusted family income cannot exceed $12,500.
Individuals of legal age principally engaged in farming.
Borrowers under the federal Farm Credit Act and the Veterans' Land Act. To qualify, the borrower must meet the same eligibility criteria as for the Quebec programs. Individuals of legal age principally engaged in farming. Need is the main consideration.
Purpose
Encourages farmers to diversify into livestock production. Loans for livestock, buildings, machinery, pasture improvement and operating capital.
For any purpose that will benefit the province economically and/or socially.
Intermediate-term credit to help establish young farmers. For farm development purposes such as livestock, equipment, buildings or consolidation of debts.
Provides opportunity for young people to start farming on land owned by Ontario Government for future development.
Loans are available from the government through township councils for tile drainage.
Assist owner occupants to repair homes especially substandard dwellings with emphasis on faulty structural and sanitary conditions.
For the purchase of farm land, livestock and machinery, constructing buildings, improving land, consolidation of debts, etc.
To subsidize the interest rate charged under the Farm Credit Act and the Veterans' Land Act.
Provides for guaranteed loans from chartered banks and credit unions. Provides intermediate financing for purchase of basic herd livestock, quotas, additional land, machinery, farm buildings, and other farm improvements.
Terms
Maximum loan is $10,000. Grants of $2,000 are available for pasture improvement, fences, corrals, feed facilities, barn and milkhouses.
Variable.
Maximum 10-year repayment period. Interest rate is 1% above prime rate. Made through chartered banks and designated credit agencies. A promissory note must be signed.
Rental fee based on land available for production, quality of land, farm buildings and farm residence. Five-year leases with option to renew.
Up to 75% of the cost of under-drainage work repayable in 10 years. Interest rate is 8%. Loans are secured by the township through a debenture. Maximum loan in a year is $20,000 and maximum in life-time is $60,000.
Maximum loan cannot exceed $7,500. Maximum amount of forgiveable portion of loan cannot exceed $4,000. Interest rate varies from 0-8%. Maximum term is 20 years. Forgiveable portion is $600 per year.
Up to 3916 years. 2'/2% interest for first $15,000 and balance at 8%. Maximum loan is presently $250,000 per individual and $450,000 per group. The loan cannot exceed 90% of the appraised value of the property for establishing, expanding and developing an enterprise and 80% of the appraised value of other purposes. For chattel mortgages, the limit is $100,000 for an individual and $200,000 for a group, or up to 80% of the appraised value of chattels, whichever is the lesser.
The Quebec Government pays the amount owed to the lending agency in excess of its own rates, i.e. anything over 2'/2% on the first $15,000 and 8% on the remaining amount.
Maximum loan is $100,000. repayment up to 10 yrs. except for additional land and tile drainage where limit is 15 yrs. Interest rate is prime plus 1% with interest reimbursement of 3% on first $ 15,000.
Contact
Economics Branch, Manitoba Dept, of Agriculture, Norquay Bldg., Winnipeg, Man.
600-428 Portage Ave., Winnipeg, Man., 204-942-0251.
Farm and Rural Development Br., Ontario Ministry of Agric. and Food, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto, Ontario, 416-965-7661.
Food Land Development Br., Ontario Ministry of Agric. and Food, Parliament	Bldgs.,	Toronto,
Ontario, 416-965-9433.
Food Land Development Br., Ontario Ministry of Agric. and Food, Parliament	Bldgs.,	Toronto,
Ontario 416-965-9433.
Community	Renewal
Branch, Ont. Ministry of Housing, Parliament Bldgs., Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, 416-965-2826.
Quebec Farm Credit Bureau, 1020 Route de I'Eglise, Place de Villc 2, Ste. Foy. Quebec, G1V 3V9. 418-643-2610.
Quebec Farm Credit Bureau, 1020 Route de I'Eglise, Place de Ville 2, Ste. Foy, Quebec, G1V 3V9, 418-643-2610.
Quebec Farm Credit Bureau, 1020 Route de I'Eglise, Place de Ville 2, Ste. Foy, Quebec, G1V 3V9, 418-643-2610.
May 20, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Program
Act to Promote Long-Term Farm Credit by Private Institutions.
Act to Promote Credit to Farm Producers.
Act to Promote Special Credit to Agricultural Producers during Critical Periods.
Act Respecting Farm Loan Insurance and Forestry Loan Insurance.
NEW BRUNSWICK Loans to Full-time Farmers (Part I).
Loans to Part-Time Farmers (Part II).
Loans to Commercial Farmers and Agricultural Linkage Operations (Part III).
Interest Rebate Program.
Eligibility
Individuals of legal age principally engaged in farming.
Individuals of legal age principally engaged in farming.
Producers affeetd by a disaster.
Loans made by lenders under all the Farm Credit Bureau's Acts.
A farmer or qualified person wanting to farm.
Non-farm annual income cannot exceed $15,000 with farm sales not less than $3,000 annually.
Commercial farmers and agricultural linkage operations.
All FCC borrowers.
Purpose
Same as under the Farm Credit Act except private lending institutions provide the funds.
Provides short-term guaranteed loans for operating expenses for crop and livestock production and for the purchase of standing crops and livestock raised for meat or egg production and for a farmer's salary and living expenses.
Special credit to cover losses as a result of exceptional circumstances such as droughts, flood and other natural disasters.
Guarantees losses incurred by authorized lenders on loans made since Aug. 1, 1978 on all Acts administered by the Bureau.
Loans for the purchase of farms and additional land, buildings, livestock and equipment and consolidating shortterm debts. Leases are also available to assist farmers to establish an economic farm unit.
Provides loans and leases land to qualified part-time farmers at low interest and rental rates to assist in establishing a viable economic unit.
Provides loans to commercial farmers and agricultural linkage operations to maximize returns to the producer.
Provides an interest rebate to encourage farmers to borrow from FCC.
Terms
Same as under the Farm Credit Act except private lending institutions provide funds. Farm Credit Bureau rebates the interest and provides funds between 75% and 90% of security value. Interest is rebated to Vh% on first $15,000 and to 8% on the amount between $15,000 and $150,000 for one operator and $200,000 for many operators. The maximum loan is $250,000 for one operator and $450,000 for more than one operator.
Guaranteed loans of $100,000 available from chartered banks and credit unions for up to 30 months at the current rate of interest.
Government guaranteed loan. Each disaster is covered by a different regulation which allows flexibility in the program.
All loans made under the Acts administered by the Bureau.
Term loans to a maximum of $150,000 including any amount extended by FCC on security of personal and real property. The interest rate is set at x/i% above province's borrowing rate. For new farmers, the interest is forgiven for 2 years and for the next 5 years there is a 3% rebate. For others, the rate is the provincial rate with a 3% rebate for 5 years.
Term loans to a maximum ot $30,000 on security of personal and real property. Interest rate is provincial rate with a 3% rebate for 5 years. Annual rental fee of leases of $1 for first and second year. 5% of board's investment each subsequent year.
Term loans at prime interest plus 1% to a maximum of $250,000 or $300,000 in the case of joint applicants. Security is taken on personal and real property.
Provides for payment of up to 3% of the interest charged by FCC to a maximum loan of $ 150,000 or a total of $4,500.
Contact
Quebec Farm Credit Bureau, 1020 Route de 1'Eglise, Place de Ville 2, Ste. Foy, Quebec, G1V 3V9, 418-643-2610.
Quebec Farm Credit Bureau, 1020 Route de 1'Eglise, Place de Ville 2, Ste. Foy, Quebec, G1V 3V9, 418-643-2610.
Quebec	Farm	Credit
Bureau, 1020 Route de I'Eglise, Place de Ville 2, Ste. Foy, Quebec, G1V 3V9, 418-643-2610.
Quebec	Farm	Credit
Bureau, 1020 Route de 1'Eglise, Place de Ville 2, Ste. Foy, Quebec, G1V 3V9, 418-643-2610.
Farm Adjustment Board, N.B. Dept, of Agric. Bldg., Fredericton, N.B., 506-4532524.
Farm Adjustment Board, N.B. Dept, of Agric. Bldg., Fredericton, N.B., 506-4532524.
Farm Adjustment Board, N.B. Dept, of Agric. Bldg., Fredericton, N.B., 506-4532524.
Farm Adjustment Board, N.B. Dept, of Agric. Bldg., Fredericton, N.B., 506-4532524.
[Stage Direction]
May 20, 1980
Program NOVA SCOTIA
Agriculture and Rural Credit Act
Loans to Commercial Farms.
Loans to Young Farmers.
Loans to Part-Time Farmers.
Farm Land Purchase and Leasing Program.
Interest Subsidy Program.

[Stage Direction]
Land Development Corporation.
Eligibility
A farmer who is over 35 years of age and obtains more than 50% of gross income from farming or who will operate a farm with gross sales over $10,000 annually.
A farmer under 35 years of age and of legal age.
Part-time farmers whose main source of income is from off the farm.
An individual who is or will become a full-time farmer.
FCC, VLA and N.S. Farm Loan Board borrowers who are commercial farmers.
Farmers, producer cooperatives and family farm corporations who want to establish or expand their operation. Part-time farmers are eligible provided they have a gross income of $7,500 from farming with an off-farm maximum adjusted income of $21,000.
Purpose
Provides loans to well-established farmers.
Assists young farmers to develop viable farm enterprises.
Assists part-time farmers to produce agricultural products.
Provides assistance to farmers by acquiring land of high agricultural potential for development and leasing or selling to farmers.
Subsidize interest rates for borrowers from FCC, VLA or the N.S. Farm Loan Board.
Buying and/or improving land. May also hold land for lease and resale. Can also erect buildings on leased land or mortgaged land.
Terms
Borrow a maximum of $200,000 at 7% interest rate on first $125,000. 816% on balance up to $200,000. Loan cannot	exceed 90%	of
appraised value of farm land or 75% oif a chattel mortgage is required. Loans over $200,000 are approved by Cabinet.
Borrow a maximum of $200,000 for up to 30 years at 6% on first $50,000 and 7% on balance up to $125,000. 8'/2% on $125,000 - $200,000. Loan cannot	exceed 90%	ofappraised value of farm land or 75% if a chattel mortgage is required. Loans over $200,000 are approved by Cabinet. Borrow	a maximum	of
$45,000 or up to 75% of the appraised value of the land and buildings, whichever is lesser. The interest rate is 8'/2%. Must reach a gross farm income of $5,000 per year by end of 5 years or interest rate adjusted to bank prime plus 1%.
Property	is leased by	the
Board for 5 years with an option to purchase. The lease fee is 5% of the purchase price, plus acquisition costs, taxes and insurance. Lease may be renegotiated for 10 years or the land may be bought.
A subsidy of 2!6% on principal owing where the interest rate is 5% or more. A subsidy or /i of the interest rate is paid on funds borrowed at less than 5%. Maximum interest subsidy is $1,250. For young farmers under 35 years, the interest is paid by the province for the first 2 years on FCC and NSFLB loans.
Sells land at cost and may take a mortgage for up to 30 years at rates comparable to FCC. There are no statutory loan limits. Both short-term leases of I to 3 years and standard lease of 5 years with an option to purchase. Interest rate on leases is 8.2%. Mortgages 103/4%. Under agreement of sale, may finance up to 80% of market value or under a mortgage up to 75%.
Contact
Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board, Truro, N.S., 902895-1571.
Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board, Truro, N.S., 902895-1571.
Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board, Truro, N.S., 902895-1571.
Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board, Truro, N.S., 902895-1571.
Nova Scotia Farm Loan Board, Truro, N.S., 902895-1571.
P.E.I. Land Dev. Corp., 156 Richmond St., P.O. Box 1390, Charlottetown, P.E.I., 902-892-4137.
May 20, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Program	Eligibility	Purpose	Terms	Contact	
Lending Authority					
-Working Capital Loans.	Borrower must have suitable land resource, machinery and equipment and presently farming.	Provides working capital for cropping expenses, i.e. out of pocket expenses.	Maximum loan based on production cost guidelines and is repayable annually. Security is a crop mortgage, chattel mortgage, collateral mortgage, etc. Loans are supervised.	P.E.I. Lending 180 Kent St., town, P.E.I.	Authority, Charlotte--Intermediate-Term Loans.	Borrower must be currently farming.	Provides intermediate-term loans for farm equipment, farm trucks and livestock.	Loans are repayable from 3 to 5 years depending on type of livestock and equipment. No maximum.	P.E.I. Lending 180 Kent St., town, P.E.I.	Authority, Charlotte--Capital Loans.	Borrower must be currently farming or about to become a farmer.	Provides capital loans for the purchase of farm land and buildings and for the construction of buildings.	No maximum loan. Repayable over 30 years. Cannot exceed 75 per cent of appraised value of fixed assets. Interest rate set by Authority.	P.E.I. Lending 180 Kent St., town, P.E.I.	Authority, Charlotte-

[Stage Direction]
Farm Development Loan
Board.
Individuals of legal age principally occupied in farming who wish to improve or expand their operation.
Assists farmers to establish viable farms through loans for livestock, equipment, land development and buildings.
Maximum loan of $10,000 for livestock, equipment and land development. Maximum loan of $20,000 for farm building. The maximum term is 15 years and the interest rate is 5%.
Nfld. Farm Dev. Loan Board, P.O. Box 1821, St. John's, Nfld., 709-7374619.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 21, 1980