1982-11-22

THE LATE HON. WALTER DINSDALE, P.C. TRIBUTES TO FORMER DEAN OF THE HOUSE

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that we in this Party pay tribute to the memory of a man who has been a symbol of dedicated service and continuing achievement in the House of Commons for more than three decades.
Walter Dinsdale was, indeed, the Dean of the House of Commons, not just in terms of years but also in the manner in which he revered the daily life of this Chamber and its potential for serving Canadians. We remember him as a soft-spoken and reasonable man, but those quiet ways concealed a fierce determination to see even the toughest challenge through to a practical conclusion.
Walter Dinsdale's life was the epitome of public service. In World War 11 his courage earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross. In peacetime his efforts were channelled into social service work through his beloved Salvation Army and a personal crusade on behalf of a better future for the handicapped.
In political life these sensitivities led the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker to single out Mr. Dinsdale, first for assistance as a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and then as Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In that portfolio he completely immersed himself in a dream for a better life, more fair and more productive, for those Canadians and, indeed, those resources which were located "north of 60", as he put it. The task continues, but many of the improvements which he sought in 1960 have moved forward in subsequent years.
More recently this House associates Walter Dinsdale with the remarkable work which has been done in the field of the handicapped. It was a cause which he pursued relentlessly and, in 1979, during the Government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), he became Chairman of a Special Committee on the Mentally and Physically Handicapped.
That was certainly one achievement which this Government was eager to continue, and the background and experience of Mr. Dinsdale as the Vice-Chairman of the Special Parliamentary Task Force on the Disabled were a key element in the success that that group of Members has had in seeing the implementation of a majority of the recommendations of the "Obstacles Report".
All of these qualities were clearly evident to the people of Brandon-Souris when they elected him first in 1951 and sent him back with enthusiasm in each election since. We on this side express our condolences to his constituents who will miss the tradition he had established and, more particularly, we offer our sympathy to his wife, Lenore, and their children, to whom he was so devoted. May he rest in peace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I rise to join the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in speaking of the Hon. Walter Dinsdale whose death, on Saturday, ended a courageous recent struggle against illness, and ended a life of passionate, selfless, principled service.
All of us knew Walter Dinsdale as the Member whose continuous service was the longest in this House. As the Prime Minister said, he won a by-election in June of 1951 and was re-elected repeatedly in 11 subsequent elections. He served, with distinction, in almost every office the House of Commons offers-as a private Member, as a Committee Chairman, as a Parliamentary Secretary, a Cabinet Minister, and as a front bench spokesman in the Opposition. Those were the categories of his public service. But the quality of his service-the quality of the man-was even more remarkable.
He was a man of profound and genuine religious faith, who believed deeply in brotherhood and in peace. Yet, when he was called upon to defend his country in a world war, he served willingly as a night-fighter pilot with the 410 Mosquito Squadron, and displayed the courage under fire that won him the Distinguished Flying Cross.
He was a strong man, born to good health and an active family. Yet he displayed throughout his life a sensitivity, a compassion toward those in need. No Member of this House, and few citizens of this country, did more to assist the disabled and the handicapped than Walter Dinsdale. In Parliament, in the United Nations, in literally thousands of meetings and conversations across the country and around the world, this strong man, born to good fortune, worked to help and to encourage the disabled. It is relatively easy to espouse principles. Walter Dinsdale acted on them, and he brought help and priceless hope to thousands of his fellow humans.
As a Minister in the Diefenbaker Government he brought that same concern for people to his work. The residents of the National Parks remember him as a Minister who reached beyond the bureaucracy to deal directly with their real concerns. In the North, he gave personal face and force to the

November 22, 1982
Tributes to Former Dean of the House
Conservative Government's commitment to northern development, and it was he who turned the sod to begin construction on the great Pine Point Railway, In Montreal, he chaired the historic Resources for Tomorrow Conference which, apart from its important concrete results, was a model of the way federal and provincial Governments should work together in a federal state.
In addition to his formal responsibilities, Walter Dinsdale, as a Minister, took it upon himself to be the Member of the Government to whom younger people turned. I first met him then, and so did many Members of my caucus and my Party. He was a Minister who saw it as a part of his job to keep the Party and the Government young and open.
His list of accomplishments is long. He founded the National Prayer Breakfast. He was a director of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. He received honours across the country and around the world, and he served his neighbours and his constituency with such care that they elected him 12 times.
He was a steady man, quiet and reserved in his public conduct. But there was a force and a fire in Walter Dinsdale. He showed it in that first by-election when, campaigning in his Salvation Army uniform, he upset a distinguished opponent, later the Lt. Governor of my Province, Grant MacEwan, whom the then government was grooming to be a future Minister of Agriculture. He showed it in his commitment to his faith, his family, his constituency and, most particularly, in his extraordinary care for people in need.
Walter Dinsdale was born in Brandon, a prairie town, a relatively new town in his youth, but he was born to a tradition of service imparted by his parents, and it was a society so new that everyone was equal and every person was worthy of respect. That tradition formed the man of service who was a friend, an adviser, an example to so many of us, and whose death we all mourn today.
I know I speak for all Members of this House in our sincere condolence to Lenore-and to Gunnar, Gregory, Elizabeth, Eric and Rolf. His life was full, and we are thankful for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, all of us in the House are sad at the loss of Walter Dinsdale, particularly in view of the nature of the illness which befell him a short while ago and which brought about his death.
I welcome the tributes which have been paid both by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when they talked about the kinds of things Walter Dinsdale worked on. He was one who did a great job for all kinds of people, especially children and other who needed his help. He worked for veterans and for others groups. He was recognized in this country and in other parts of the world for the work he did, and it is truly .emarkable he did
so much work in the 31 years that he was a Member of the House of Commons from the Province of Manitoba.
I confess that a bit of my personal grief concerning the loss caused by his death last week comes from the fact that, when his illness in Brandon resulted in his being brought to hospital here in Ottawa, I immediately found that he was put into the very bed in the very room where I had spent several months. I soon discovered that he was being attended by the same kind of people who worked for me. It was my hope that the kinds of things they could do for him would give him a chance to live a longer and more healthy life. I enjoyed my conversation with him. Of course, as we know, he could hardly do any talking at all, but he seemed to enjoy the efforts that some were making to try to help him and to give him a chance of recovery. Most of us felt that, as a result of the treatment that he was undergoing here in the hospital, he could recover. We are now sorry at- the turn of events in the last few days, and we regret his departure.
I join with the Leader of the Opposition in expressing condolences to Walter Dinsdale's wife and five children. If 1 may add a personal word, not only did he stay in the same hospital as I did, and not only did we both come from Manitoba, but I also had the privilege, as Chancellor of the University in Brandon, of giving degrees of one kind or another to Walter himself, and to three or four of his children. It is a connection which means something to all of us. I am very sorry at his departure, and I speak on behalf of all of us, particularly those from Manitoba and those of us in this Party, in praising him for the work he has done, and we remember him most kindly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to associate myself with the words which have been spoken in memory of our friend and colleague, the late Hon. Walter Dinsdale.
Walter Dinsdale's model for a life of service was his father, who served Brandon as Alderman, Mayor, and Conservative MLA for Brandon. Walter learned the responsibility of service at his father's elbow-a responsibility he carried out faithfully until his death.
Service was the hallmark of the Dinsdale family and is best expressed in the words that Walter so often used in the 12 successful federal elections in Brandon-Souris. Those words were, "Has served, is serving, will serve." His actions of 31 years gave meaning to that motto.
It was Walter who served as a model for those of us who entered this House of Commons from the Province of Manitoba. It was a word of encouragement, it was a helpful hand that
was always given.
As one who served in the portfolio of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1 constantly met Canadians living "north of 60" who would request information about their friend, Walter. He leaves an indelible imprint on that vast part of our country, an imprint made strong by the vision he shared
November 22, 1982

with the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, of a Canada "From sea to sea, To northern sea".
He threw himself into the cause of the handicapped. The dream of these Canadians to take their rightful place in Canadian society is possibly best expressed in the opening quotation he used in an article which appeared in the The United Nations Association in Canada Bulletin, marking the International Year of the Disabled Person. It was from the Old Testament prophet, Isaiah:
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing-
Today, we express our sympathy to Lenore and the children, Gunnar, Gregory, Elizabeth, Eric and Rolf.
While our hearts are saddened, it was Lenore's desire that this be a day of thanksgiving-thanks for a life that was expended for good.
To a group of us on the Hill and across the country, Walter's leadership will best be remembered for his deep, religious faith. He lived his faith daily. It was this faith which led him to start the Prayer Fellowship-a group from all sides of the House and Senate that meet weekly for prayer and fellowship. It was this faith that has encouraged thousands of Canadians to pray for our country and for its leaders.
Walter's reward was not an earthly one but one that had eternal value.
The life we are honouring today is best expressed by the words of his Saviour as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew:
Well done thou good and faithful servant: Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to say a few words on this occasion. I think that when we look at an individual we know that every single person in life communicates a message to us. Such was the case with the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). His life communicated a message to many of us.
Within his own family he had to live the experience of having someone who was disabled, and he was able to formulate, through his own life experience, a message and a concern for others.
When I was working with the Society for Crippled Children and Adults in Manitoba, for three years as the supervisor of group programs, Walter was one of the Parliamentarians whom we could quite often turn to when we needed assistance, whether it was technology or machines, to assist those who were disabled.
He was a man who was able to rise above partisan politics. He was a statesman. Reference has been made to his role in the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast. Many of us appreciated being able to see, beyond what happens in the House here, some of the spiritual depth that individuals such as Walter had. When I came onto the Hill and to the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast group, Walter was one of the first people to
Tributes to Former Dean of the House
welcome me. Also, he was instrumental in seeing that in western Manitoba we would have a leadership prayer breakfast as well.
He was one who lived his faith and took seriously the admonition that our faith should be accompanied with works, and he was one who practised what the Salvation Army preached. He was deeply involved in making sure that his works backed up his faith.
He will long be remembered. He will be sorely missed by all Manitobans. To his family I offer my sympathy at this time and, has been expressed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), also on behalf of our Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, having spent a great part of my professional life as a surgeon working with the handicapped, 1 feel that I too must pay tribute to Walter Dinsdale.
Those of us who have been in that field treating the disabled realize the importance of rehabilitation. When the definitive surgical work has been completed and the medical attention has been given, the individual is left to fend for himself in the world. Walter Dinsdale realized the importance of rehabilitating the injured and the sick to face the exigencies of life.
One of his major contributions was to co-ordinate the work of many voluntary organizations across Canada. Very often these organizations duplicate services; they very often fail to cover some aspect of the work. Walter Dinsdale helped to found the Canadian Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled. He served on its board of directors, and later as chairman of the CRCD technical aid Committee.
In the technical field he was able to harness the advances of electronics to aid those people unable to use their extremities. He set up an information system whereby these technical aids were made available to people with critical disabilities. In my contact with him in the Year of the Disabled, he showed what it was to be compassionate and understanding. He was singularly able to focus the attention of the Committee on the special needs of the disabled.
I respect him for the work he has done with the National Prayer Group, and particularly for the respect he has shown for life, and for his work in the field of championing human rights. I also respect him for his war record during which he scored three victories in the air. He also worked closely with the Polish fighters who contributed so much to the Battle of Britain, and with whom he also associated himself in the years following the war.
I join other Members of the House in paying respect to Walter Dinsdale as a war hero, a humanitarian, and an able parliamentarian. He will be sorrowfully missed.

November 22, 1982
Tributes to Former Dean of the House


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, it was said in the House today that our late colleague, Walter Dinsdale, was the Dean of the House of Commons, and 1 think it is appropriate at this time for me, as the dean of those Members who have had heart surgery, to inform the House that last week 1 had the privilege of meeting Mr. Dinsdale's family at the hospital where I myself was a patient. 1 must say that when 1 got to know Mr. Dinsdale after his heart operation, I realized that he was a great man. Last week, 1 met his family, and 1 therefore wish to offer Mrs. Dinsdale and her children our sincere condolences, and make it clear that while the House of Commons has lost an honoured colleague, Canada has lost a great Canadian.


Madam Speaker:: I join all of you in expressing my sorrow at the passing away of the Hon. Walter Dinsdale, and in expressing my deepest-felt sympathy to his wife and his children. May I ask you all to stand and observe a minute of silence in the memory of our colleague.
(Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.)


Madam Speaker:: Have we all agreed that the sitting of the House will be suspended until eight o'clock this evening?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: As you
have just indicated, Madam Speaker, since many Members wish to attend the memorial service here in Ottawa this afternoon for the late Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), 1 understand there is the agreement you referred to, and 1 move:
That the sitting be suspended until eight o'clock p.m. this day at which time the House will proceed to Orders of the Day and that proceedings under Standing Order 40 be suspended.
I am moving this motion in order to specify the order of business this evening.


Madam Speaker:: The House agrees to the motion. This House stands suspended until eight o'clock this evening.
At 2.27 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 21, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc that Bill C-91, An Act to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-91 is an Act to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act, and I am appalled at the horrendous power which this Bill seeks to transfer to the Minister of Public Works. For example, in Clause 1 (3) we see these words:
The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor-in-Council, incur expenditures or perform, or have performed, services or work in relation to
(a)	properties belonging to Canada of which he does not have the management, charge or direction; or
(b)	properties not belonging to Canada.
What a colossal fraud this Bill hopes to perpetrate on the people of Canada. The Government is now seeking authority to sell or lease any property, whether or not the Government owns it, whether or not it is required for public purposes. In the past, Mr. Speaker, when the Government wanted to sell or lease public lands required for public purposes, it could obtain the authority to do so through a $1 vote in the Estimates. As a consequence of last June's ruling by Madam Speaker, the Government may no longer follow this route. As such, the Government is now seeking authority in Clause 1(3) of Bill C-91 to sell or lease any property regardless of whether or not it is required for public purposes. My own concern is not so much with lease-backs per se, as with the blanket authority granted in Bill C-91 to sell any lands. While the horror story scenario of selling all the Government's property to foreign investors and then renting it back is unlikely to occur, there remains the need for parliamentary control.
The main objection to having legislative items in the Estimates is that they reduce parliamentary control over the executive. It is almost ironical that, having lost the ability to make specific exemptions through Estimates, the Government must now remove whatever parliamentary control exists in order to allow lease-back arrangements in the future. We are just eroding parliamentary control, and that is why we are in such a disgraceful economic mess in this country today. The complete loss of any control over expenditures is highlighted in the Auditor General's reports year after year.
Now, Section 33 of the Adjustment of Accounts Act, passed in 1980, permits amendments to certain clauses of that Act through an appropriation act. If we are willing to permit the Government to lease or sell lands required for public purposes on an ad hoc basis, we should consider a similar provision for Bill C-91.
To give you an example of why we need proper parliamentary control over federal public works, Mr. Speaker, Petro-
November 22, 1982

Canada has been paying rent of about $18,000 a day for eight months on a vacant 24-storey office building in the heart of downtown Calgary. If the company agreed to pay only $24 a square foot under the absolute net system, which means the company is likely paying another 20 per cent of the annual rent for utilities, taxes and other expenses, the actual cost of the building is likely to be $6.68 million a year, $556,000 a month, or about $18,000 a day. Meanwhile, one block away, construction crews are working on two other high-rise buildings that will house Petro-Canada offices. The smaller tower will be 32 storeys, the adjacent tower will be 54 storeys when completed, and it will be the tallest building in Calgary. While the national oil company has been busy erecting Petro-Canada signs on newly acquired service stations in eastern Canada, no sign marks the high-rise building on the corner of Centre Street and Sixth Avenue South-West. Petro-Canada signed a 20 year lease on the property more than a year ago and has been paying rent on the empty building since April. That, Mr. Speaker, points out why we need parliamentary control and why we should not leave it in the Minister's hands.
Petro-Canada also rents more than a dozen other premises in Calgary for offices, research facilities and laboratories, including nine floors at its head office location, known locally as Red Square. Of course, this highlights why we do not have cheap gas today, because we are renting empty office space and building more and more buildings for Petro-Canada. Surely the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, with over 300 branches, divisions and agencies, and some 4,000 employees-the Department occupies 11 pages in the Government telephone directory-could handle much of the work currently being done by the 2,000 employees of Petro-Canada. We have approximately 6,000 civil servants in the oil and energy business, and we wonder what they are all doing. Also, we have 700 oil companies operating in Canada. So we have mass duplication here, and I have a list of all the different departments in Energy, Mines and Resources; surely to goodness they could be handling a lot of the work that Petro-Canada is doing without building skyscrapers and renting empty office space.
To give you other examples of the horror stories in Public Works, there is the cost over-run at the Place du Portage. The four phases of the Place du Portage office complex in Hull were estimated in the early 1970s to have cost $124.5 million. By the time of completion in March, 1979, costs had risen to $217.5 million; $93 million or 75 per cent over the original budget. That is why we need some control in these Chambers, Mr. Speaker, and should not leave it in the hands of an irresponsible Liberal Cabinet Minister.
There was a cost over-run at the C.D. Howe Building. Treasury Board approved the construction of that building in Ottawa at an estimated cost of $57 million. It was completed in 1978. Instead of paying the full purchase price immediately, the Government is making payments of $6.1 million per year to the developer for 35 years. Land and construction costs paid directly by the Government were estimated at $102 million. Based on its original estimates, if the Department itself had let
Public Works Act
construction contracts, the building would have cost approximately $90 million on a present value basis, or $12 million less than the alternative selected. The total estimated cost of the building as shown in the estimates was $34 million, while the capital cost calculated on a present value basis was $102 million. The difference between the approved $57 million and the final $102 million capital cost is $45 million.
Another example is the cost over-run at the Montreal major postal plant. Treasury Board approved the construction by Public Works of a major postal facility in Montreal similar to Toronto's Gateway. The original projection of the final cost was $212.1 million. On completion in June, 1979 the final cost was $273.6 million, a cost over-run of $61.5 million, or 29 per cent. On and on it goes, a clear indication that there is no proper supervision or control over anything in Public Works, Mr. Speaker.
Another example is cited in the 1977-78 Report of the Auditor General which pointed out that the Department of Public Works, which leases expropriated buildings in Ottawa, was not billing tenants for their share of increasing operating and maintenance costs even though such escalation clauses are contained in the leases. It subsequently billed tenants $267,000 for 1966 and 1977 but had to write off 1975. That is one of the best examples of blatant mismanagement and, probably, of porkbarreling.
Another example was cited in an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 16, 1980, headed "Grit Restaurant Shortchanges Taxpayers $500,000", and which had this to say:
In 1973, an untendered contract was awarded to business associates of Cabinet Minister John Munro to supply liquor and food in the Place du Portage for a period of twenty years. They were evicted by the Department of Public Works in 1980 after they failed to make rental payments totalling $490,543 for their three commercial operations in the building.
The Senate has spent a lot of time examining the activities of the Department of Public Works and has pointed out that the Government "took a bath" on an office deal. An article by Don Sellar of Southam News Services on September 28, 1978 began as follows:
The federal government took a bad beating on four lease-purchase deals it negotiated for offices in Ottawa-Hull, a Senate committee charged today.
In a searing report, the Senate Committee on National Finance said the transactions were so "questionable" they have damaged the public works department's management credibility.
If the Department does not have management credibility, Mr. Speaker, then we should not pass bills like the one we are debating tonight. The article continued as follows:
" ... These agreements," the Liberal-dominated committee declared, "have committed public works to paying rates for this space well beyond the prevailing private sector level."
The senators found that in June, 1977, the market rate for newly-built offices in Ottawa was between $1 and $4 per square foot less than the government paid for its new accommodations.
The committee conceded Ottawa was short of building funds and badly squeezed for office space when it made the "understandable" decision in 1974 to adopt a lease-purchase policy for some public buildings.
20862

November 22, 1982
Public Works Act
The Senate Committee also pointed out that the Government should pay for the cost of accommodation and other services provided by the Department of Public Works. It suggested that if its recommendations were followed, this would lead to the construction of less-costly buildings by the federal Government to accommodate its departments. If the Minister had to come before the Elouse or before the Standing Committee, then there would be more scrutiny of the operations of his Department.
I have revealed the monstrous blunder by the Department of Public Works which occurred in Winnipeg a few years ago when the new Tax Data Centre was established there. Rather than accelerating plans for the construction of a new building for the Tax Data Centre at an estimated cost of $15 million, the Department planned to lease the CAE building for three years but also planned to spend an additional $1,700,000 in renovating it. It was estimated that there would be an additional cost of from $4 to $5 million incurred by the Government in not locating in a new leased building, but rather moving into temporary rented quarters.
When the Bill was introduced last May, a colleague from Ontario introduced an amendment which we hope will be adopted by the Committee. It reads as follows:
1.	Section 9-That clause 1 of Bill C-91 be amended by striking out line 15 on
page 1 and substituting the following.
(4) No service or work may be performed in relation to properties not belonging to Canada without the consent of the owner thereof."
2.	Section 39-line 27 page 1
That clause 2 of Bill C-91 be amended by adding to line 27 page 1 the following words..
"and be referred to the Committee on Public Works."
3.	Section 4(1 )(a)
That Bill C-91 be amended by adding to line 8 page 2 the following words...
"that it be referred to Committee of Public Works
That means it is not to be administered by the Minister of Public Works or any of these mischevious Orders in Council, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Government will accept those amendments when we reach Committee. We cannot continue with these horror stories and blunders that are occurring in the Department today.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: powers. It is frightening enough to realize how mistreated Canadians have been, particularly with regard to airport developments in many parts of this country, with due process being provided for expropriation, but what do we see? Now we see legislation which says that it does not matter any more because the Government does not even have to take title to your property by expropriation, purchase or any other means; it can just move in and do as it wishes.
I wonder why the Government was afraid to incorporate one of the basic fundamental rights of a free democratic society in the Constitution of Canada, the right of the individual, as stated in the Canadian Bill of Rights, to enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, except-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) permit a question?


Thomas Edward Siddon: At the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a degree of sensitivity on my left to this issue. While some people like to pay lip service to the important freedoms we are privileged to enjoy in this country, the freedoms that brought our ancestors and own pioneers to Canada to take a piece of land and put some pride into developing and producing something of value out of that asset and then getting a piece of paper to say that land was theirs, there is a tremendous anxiety on the part of the NDP with respect to their concept of private ownership. The NDP will tell us, as the Hon. Member for Burnaby would probably like to say, that it was the provinces that made it difficult for the federal Government to incorporate the right to own and enjoy property in our Canadian Constitution. 1 say balderdash to that, Mr. Speaker. There is a notwithstanding provision clearly written into the Canadian Bill of Rights, although under Section 92 of the British North America Act, provinces have the right to deed and administer the ownership of land. That does not prevent the provision of a legal means of expropriation when it is deemed to be in the public interest that certain lands be acquired for public purposes. They cannot have that kind of simple way out. The remedy could clearly have been introduced into the legislation were it not for the fact that-if we recall what happened a year ago last April-the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), on a Friday, accepted the Progressive Conservative amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would have provided all Canadians with the right to own and enjoy property. Over the weekend somehow the illustrious Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) got to the then minister of justice, who on Monday morning said, "no deal". Somehow the Leader of the NDP then got together with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the then minister of justice. They decided that Canadians should not be entitled to the right to ownership and enjoyment of property even with a notwithstanding provision because it is repugnant to their concept of state ownership. That is why there is only one Party in this House-
Public Works Act


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. My name has been used by the Hon. Member. He made a series of allegations concerning the time when 1 was minister of justice which are not based on the truth. He would like to say exactly what happened. He would like the House to know that it was very evident at that time that the provincial Governments did not want that provision. In the negotiations I had, the problems were left with the Hon. Member on the left over there. Then, for example, the Premier of Prince Edward Island and the Ministers of the other Provinces, of course, including the Minister from Saskatchewan, because they were afraid to put it in the Constitution-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the Minister, 1 must give the floor to the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I have not only struck a sensitive spot with Members of my left, but also with the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien).


Some Hon. Members:: He is on your left, too.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The former minister of justice prides himself on having been a very capable negotiator and, to my knowledge, he is deemed to be a reasonably good lawyer. Therefore, I cannot for the life of me understand how it is that he did not sit down with the Premiers to work out an arrangement whereby it could be ensured that people could not stand in the way of important progress that was beneficial to the whole of the community. The Hon. Minister could have worked out appropriate legal means of doing that because the whole concept of expropriation is provided for in the various municipal Acts of the Provinces of Canada as delegated to those Municipalities by the provincial Governments in light of their responsibilities as set out in Section 92 of the British North America Act.
One wonders why it is that if it is not the ultimate objective of the Government to take away the right to own property, the Government would not agree to amend this legislation along the lines I suggested a little earlier, as was reflected by the former minister of public works when he introduced the Bill requiring consent of the owner before the federal Government moves in with its bulldozers and construction equipment. Why would Clause 1, Sub-Clause 3(b) not be amended to provide that only if the consent of the owners was gained could such activity be carried on on private property. 1 for one cannot agree to support this legislation until such an amendment is allowed.
One of the features that is so very dangerous about this legislation is that it could well be used as a bludgeon to get people to sell property to the federal Government without it going the route of expropriation, as presently provided for in the law. Bill C-91, if it is adopted, will enable a federal land agent to come to a private person and say, "We are building a new bridge abutting on or overpassing your property. We really do not want to go through that messy expropriation

November 22, 1982
Public Works Act
procedure. We propose to offer you 75 cents on the dollar",- which is usually the way privately held land is evaluated- "We will not offer you what its trading value is on the real estate market, but we will offer you 75 cents on the dollar. Take it or leave it. If you do not take it, we can wave this little piece of legislation in your face that says it does not matter whether you want to accept our offer or not because we will build whatever we want without your consent." This legislation would make that possible.
1 think the implications here are very dangerous because they would lead to a subversion of the entire process of expropriation.
I want to spend a few moments, if I might, talking about just how corrupted that process of expropriation has become with regard to certain kinds of public works development over the years in this country. I will give specific reference to the expropriation of lands at Sea Island on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. These were privately held lands which were expropriated for the purpose of expanding runways and building a larger airport. This subject will sound familiar. I am pleased to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is in the House this evening. He knows that similar types of abuses of the private right to ownership and enjoyment of property have occurred with respect to the acquisition of properties around the Pickering Airport. That is an airport that never came to pass because it was ill-conceived from the beginning. Another example is Mirabel, which was ultimately built but has proven to be a tremendously costly burden to all Canadians.


Mr. Blenkarn:: It is called a white elephant.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It has become so trite these days to refer to it as the white elephant. The Government has recognized the mess that it has created to such an extent that it is now contemplating the possibility-with a lot of pressure from this side-of returning much of that important agricultural land to the people who originally owned it.
There are several hundred acres on Sea Island in British Columbia which have been assembled since 1954 for the purposes of airport expansion. One of the groups which first became involved in assembling this land was connected with a well known former Cabinet minister in the House, Senator Arthur Laing, who had owned large tracts of land on Sea Island. He and certain other parties on that island were able to sell their land to a firm called Web and Nap at approximately $5,000 an acre, whereas certain other property owners who were not highly favoured by the Government, perhaps because they subscribed to a different political philosophy or perhaps because of family connections in support of a different political Party, had their property expropriated and were offered $1,700 an acre for some 46 acres of land. That offer, which was made after the first expropriation notice was served in 1954, still stands. To this day, the matter involving that particular family has never been resolved. They were offered $70,000 for 46 acres of prime farm land in the Lower Fraser Valley, and not one nickel was offered for buildings with the
exception of one house for which $28,000 was offered, later increased to $40,000.
This particular family has refused to move. It has refused to accept $1,700 an acre since 1954. They were not particularly opposed to an airport development but rather to the fact that the property was being acquired in order to give it to de Havilland Aircraft of Canada. This is the type of tricky dealings that some people associated with the Party opposite were involved in many years ago. I trust this has not happened in more recent times.
In fact, de Havilland had 100 acres on Sea Island at the very spot where the new runway was proposed to be built but which has not been built to this date. The Department of Transport wanted that 100 acres for the runway and it arranged to expropriate privately held farmland from this particular family, which I gather happened to be of the wrong political stripe. They were offered one-third as much as that offered the other well connected family of Senator Laing. Something is rather corrupt when a family can be faced with expropriation proceedings for a period of almost 30 years without having the matter settled.
As a matter of fact, it has been 18 months since the most recent appeal, and a decision has not yet been brought down.
The point I am making is that the rights of people in this country are being abused today, even with the legal and due process being provided for within the law. The Bill before us tonight would strip away that need to follow that due process of law.
Another matter dealing with this particular family involves the construction of a bridge which connected south Vancouver to Sea Island to link with the new airport terminal. That bridge is called the Arthur Lang bridge. It flies virtually over the top of this family's property. In fact, it missed the actual boundary by one foot. When this bridge was being constructed the aggrieved party was trying to operate a store directly beneath the new overpass that was being built. The federal Government of this country never settled for the loss of goodwill and the loss of business to that store. It never settled for the dust, noise and aggravation which was caused from 1971 to 1973 when that bridge was being constructed.
This Government makes a mockery of the right to freedom of choice and the right to live our lives without the great hand of Government bearing down upon us. We hear much from the Government about our free country but it does not reflect its attitude in the way it conducts its affairs. Even with the due process of law which is provided, people's property can be tied up, frozen, zoned down and developed without their permission merely by the execution of an extradition order. The Government can keep the poor, ordinary free Canadian frustrated for as long as 28 years.
I realize that it is not appropriate to comment directly in this Chamber on the court system, but one gets the impression that the system can be used in order to wait until someone dies so that the Government can then have its way. That is a travesty of democracy.
November 22, 1982

This Bill is a provision to allow the Government to move on to anyone's property and construct anything it wishes without having to get the consent of the owner. What we are witnessing is a move toward a system of Government which believes in the control of land and advocates the control and manipulation of the media, as we have seen in its attempts to implement the provisions of the Kent Commission Report. We see a Government which clearly advocates control of the means of production in this country. For example, we have heard talks about the nationalization of INCO. Clearly, the Government has taken great steps to nationalize the oil industry of Canada. Before too long it will be in the tractor business as well. The Government, through its attempts to bail out certain sectors of the mining and automotive industry, is moving toward more control.
1 am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is in the House tonight because the greatest concern of those who value their rights in a free society is when the Government attempts to control the food supply. There is a piece of legislation before the House which will rapidly move us in the direction of federal domination of the buying and selling of grains, livestock, and agricultural and poultry products. That is very dangerous indeed.
1292;-1 1 believe that it is improper and unacceptable for land agents to coerce people by showing them this piece of legislation and saying, "If you do not sell us this land we will not expropriate, we will just move in. If you do not want to sell at our price, then you do not have a right to be heard in this country."
I suggest that there is a conflict of interest involved when agents from the Department of Public Works moved to acquire properties which they want for public purposes, because they can make the appraisals as~well as serve the notices. They are acting both as agent of the proponent of the acquisition and the appraisers. That represents a tremendous conflict of interest.
Another puzzling measure is the second important provision of this Bill, which is the amendment under Clause 2 to the Public Works Act and a subsequent amendment to the Public Lands Grants Act which eliminates the requirement to show that properties are being held by the Crown because of their public need. This Bill, Bill C-91, proposes to dispense with a requirement which has been a tradition in our parliamentary and legislative framework. Traditionally, in order to dispose of Crown-owned property, the Government would normally have to come before a parliamentary committee, or follow the due process if that property was deemed to have been acquired for some public purpose. This Bill proposes to dispense with the requirement that properties that are up for disposition not be required for public purposes. That opens the door to a horrendous scale of abuses, where the Government could sell property to some well-connected friend. I noticed that the former minister of public works when he introduced this legislation spoke much about his friends in the real estate business and about what a great business that was. I think we know some people in the real estate business who have done very well because of their friendship with the Government opposite. A
Public Works Act
former minister, who has now taken his seat, made it quite evident that he enjoyed working with the real estate industry. It makes one wonder why, if a piece of property owned by the Crown is needed for some public purpose, the Crown would then want to lease it to someone else unless there was some friendship or implied favour in return.


Mr. Cosgrove:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Hon. Member, speaking in reference to myself and acquaintances, would include the former President of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Matthews, who headed the study on housing for the former government of the Right Joseph Clark.


Mr. Harquail:: He has named everybody else.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to remind the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) that the usual reference to Hon. Members of the House is by constituency or function.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not name the specific gentleman referred to by the former Minister, but 1 did not name Robert Campeau, principals of the Power Corporation and a number of other real estate companies in this country which have done fairly well because of their relationship with certain individuals in the Government. However, that is not my point. The point I am making is that if properties are owned by the federal Government, and they are deemed to be required for public purposes, then it makes no sense to allow the Government to dispose of those properties on a lease-back basis to some people when there is no absolute and clear-cut provision that such disposition should be done through the normal public process of tendering or auction. This legislation makes it quite clear, if these amendments are accepted, that properties required for public purposes may be disposed of, not necessarily at auction or by public tender but, rather, when authorized by the Governor in Council, without regard for public posting. Perhaps we are striking a few sore spots here tonight, but it makes one wonder why the Government would want to introduce important amendments to the Public Works Act and the Public Land Grants Act which would essentially strip Canadians of all the privileges and rights of private ownership and property. Second, it would leave the door wide open to corruption, abuse and favouritism if properties which were acquired or have always been retained by the Government because they were deemed to be in the public interest were then handed over to some friends so that they could build some nice, big Government buildings, lease the offices back for 99 years, and earn a pretty substantial profit over all those years because those friends happen to have the right connections. I say that it is shameful.
I submit that the Government must bring in amendments and restore a sense of decency, that it must get on with respecting the expropriation processes that are presently established, and that its land agents must not coerce people to

November 22, 1982
Public Works Act
sell their properties while these agents are entrusted with carrying out the evaluations of those properties. Certainly, we must not pass a piece of legislation which would allow a land agent to say to a private citizen, "Well, do not worry about the Government expropriating your property because we do not have to do this any more".
I think it is important that the Bill be rejected, and that Hon. Members of this House do something of a constructive nature by way of amendments to ensure that the Government is allowed to develop on property it does not own only with the expressed permission of the owner, and that would solve many of the problems.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-91, I would first like to make a brief reference to a remark of the Hon. Member who last spoke, one to which I took exception. I can certainly also state for the record that I disagree with about 99.9 per cent of what he had to say. I was disturbed when he made reference to the late Arthur Laing. I did not think that that was very becoming or that it enhanced the procedures followed by the House. We often talk about not naming people who are not present in the House to defend themselves, but when someone raises the name of a former member of the Cabinet who is deceased, 1 find that is just a little bit low.
1 do not want to go much further in my own remarks this evening without making a brief reference to the loss of a very dear colleague. The House adjourned for his funeral this afternoon, which 1 attended. He was a very special individual, and was the dean of the House. Certainly, his actions and his way of going about his daily life provided an example for all of us to follow. 1 say this on behalf of Hon. Members on all sides of the House. That is all I will say on this subject word because the eulogies were most eloquent and adequate. 1 did not feel it would be proper for me to make a speech today, which is a special day, his day, without making some reference to this great Canadian.
As I look at the changes made by the Bill and examin closely its raison d'etre, I am fully convinced that those changes, however minor, are important to the well-being of the relationship between the Department of Public Works, other levels of Government and the private sector. That well-being will, of course, benefit the population and country as a whole. The complexities of present-day realty operations are such that every economy of management, every flexibility in operations and every element which leads to understanding and cooperation also leads to savings of time and money. At the same time, they lead to a product which is consistent with the environment of the area in question.
The amendments which are being debated, while minor in nature, are major in erasing any ambiguity from the Act which will hinder the Department of Public Works from reaching a proper potential in dealing with other agencies and the private sector. Public Works has had more than a century of experience in many fields of responsible endeavour. This is very apparent in the Atlantic Provinces. When one considers the
results of federal initiatives, federal co-operation with other levels of Government and federal co-operation with the private sector, it becomes very evident.
The vast scope of the work being carried out in the Atlantic Provinces is brought home when the projects are examined more closely. Dredging of harbours, construction of federal buildings and post offices, renovation or renewal of heritage and older buildings and construction of security institutions all have a tremendous impact on the region, both economically and in the creation of physical assets. This is certainly true in my own riding in northern New Brunswick where we have deep water ports and have need of this flexibility I was mentioning earlier in moving these projects forward, not only because of the necessity for these projects, but also, indeed, because of the much-needed employment opportunities which they create.
Co-operation with other agencies and other levels of Government is highly visible in my own home Province of New Brunswick. Their successes bear out my contention that the amendment to Section 9 of the Public Works Act should be supported. This amendment, of course, gives clear authority to the Department of Public Works to contribute to work on nonfederal property for the over-all benefit of the community. It has always been implied that the Department has authority to make such contributions to achieve worth-while objectives. As an example, I use the building of a seawall, a retainer wall in Saint John, New Brunswick. This city is one of the oldest in our great country and, as in many of our older cities, the core had become run down and was in very poor condition. Planning was carried out for the revitalization of this area which would contain a marketplace, a hotel, a trade and industrial centre, a regional library, retail space and a very large parking structuring centre. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation acted as the chief agent of the federal Government for this project. Public Works acted as the technical adviser to CMHC and other Government Departments and agencies involved.
Much of the success of the plan hinged on the construction of this seawall which would prevent further decay and erosion of the seafront and thus make viable the whole project. Part of the land upon which the wall was to be built was the property of the National Harbours Board. Another part was owned by the city of Saint John. Major elements of the wall were to be built on land which was acquired and cleared over the past decade by a federal-provincial-municipal partnership. This was a prime example of what can be achieved by this type of cooperation.
Here we have three levels of Government working in harmony toward a common goal. This was done, and the city of Saint John was paid a grant by Public Works. The city became the construction agent for the project. Public Works' participation in this highly successful project provided 300 person-years of employment in an area that desperately needed this help and work. Public Works portion of the cost was $5.4 million, with
November 22, 1982

the total cost, excluding that grant, being $64 million. The federal share was listed in the Supplementary Estimates as contributions to a capital project.
Another valuable project that falls into the same category was in the northern area of New Brunswick in the City of Bathurst, where the federal Government, through Public Works, constructed a building for the Department of Employment and Immigration. Construction of this building was carried out over a period of three years and was completed at a cost of $25 million, and was a great benefit to the area that falls within that northern sector. I was quite pleased to see the success of this project as it provides a tremendous job opportunity to many of the citizens residing in my constituency of Restigouche.
The town planners felt that it would be of great value to the citizens of the area as well as to the merchants if a covered access could be built which would link the federal building located on the adjacent street to the main business thoroughfare and to a shopping mall. In an excellent example of Public Works dealing with another level of Government and the private sector, the planning for the covered walkway was completed.
A grant of $300,000 was made to the city, and the city became the prime contractor. The shopping mall developer assumed responsibility for another $75,000 of the cost. I submit that this is another example of the need to make more explicit the manner in which Public Works can deal with "properties not belonging to Canada."
We have heard today several speakers who have dealt with the realty function of lease/purchase and the clarification of Section 39 of the Public Works Act and Section 4(1 A) of the Public Lands Grants Act which would enable Public Works to carry out this modern method of providing accommodation.
One of the facets of contemporary realty life is a technique called lease/purchase. We have heard several examples of the use of this highly regarded realty tool, but I would like to go over a few of the points once again and then give an example of its usage.
Lease/purchase in the care of Public Works is a method whereby the Crown grants a piece of land or realty to a developer on a long term lease basis. The developer, at the same time, undertakes to provide a finished building on the site which would be leased back to the Crown at a tendered yearly rent. At the end of the lease the land and building revert to the Crown.
In a period of capital restraint it is a particularly attractive method of supplying needed accommodation. Not only is it attractive from the financial point of view in that the capital costs become the responsibility of the developer, but there are many other spin-offs that are worth repeating.
It guarantees a building suitable to the needs of the tenant. At the same time it guarantees a tenant to the developer. As the developer is in the private sector, it enhances the relationship between the public and private sector; an interchange that is much to be desired. It enables the private sector to take part in large-scale, long-term projects, adding to its initiatives for further developing. At a time when the federal Government
Public Works Act
may not engage capital funds, it creates and maintains employment in the areas where these forms of projects are undertaken. This tends to stabilize and to add to the local and regional economy. I can vouch once again that that is true in the projects that I have referred to with respect to the Province of New Brunswick.
It gives confidence in a society to see Government and the private citizen working together. This form of business arrang-ment also gives private individuals value for their tax-dollars. I believe that is most important-value for tax-dollars.
I would like to refer to an example of this form of melding and fusing of the Government's accommodation goals and the private sector's production. One example that is very good is that of the Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald Building in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
This building is to be the headquarters of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It will accommodate not only the Department's headquarters, but the War Veterans Allowance Board, The Canadian Pension Commission, The Bureau of Pension Advocates and the Pension Review Board.
This building is of the utmost importance to Prince Edward Island as a major element of the Island's construction program and will accommodate all the important jobs that will be created there at the same time. The building is one of a very limited number of projects of such magnitude in that Province in the foreseeable future. Once again, in reference to my remarks at the beginning of my speech, we would want also to remind the House of our very good friend and colleague, the former minister of veterans affairs, the Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald. Everyone has agreed to the naming of that building in his memory.
When it was decided to build this headquarters, different methods of supplying accommodation were considered. After a great deal of very close and in-depth study the lease purchase method was deemed best for all concerned, that is, Public Works, Veterans Affairs, local and regional residents, so as to bring the building on line in the shortest time, at the best price. It was then decided that Public Works would build the foundation and the superstructure and would lease this part of the construction to a developer, who would in turn complete the building; and who would then be responsible for the management and administration of the building. The superstructure has now been completed by a construction company from the region.
The building will be seen and recognized as the federal presence in Charlottetown. This recognition will be visually expressed by an integration into its surroundings which will give the feeling of belonging to the community and being a part of it. There was the challenge of fitting a building of about 15,000 square metres on a restricted site, while ensuring that it appeared to belong there. The building could not dominate nor be dominated by adjacent and neighbouring buildings. One facet was to be a memorial in concept, while the other facet was to be commercial. The building design reflects these concerns, and it will appear comfortable in its

November 22, 1982
Public Works Act
setting and consistent with the existing but contrasting environment.
I am extremely proud of the way in which the project is being carried out. With all of that, it also allows the Government to occupy the building at a reasonable price and to maintain the federal presence. It is an excellent example of building Canada together.
What Public Works has done to this date is to provide from 100 to 150 person-years of employment, while the second phase, costing approximately $14 million, will create another 400 plus person-years of employment. I am quite safe in saying that every Canadian supports and applauds this type of job-creation effort.
I foresee many projects such as this one in Charlottetown being brought onstream or, perhaps I should say, being made possible by this form of business arrangement. These are some of the direct, positive benefits that will accrue from the amendments in Bill C-91.
From the examples I have given, it is easy to see why I favour the amendment as presented in Bill C-91. I firmly believe that the phrase "not required for public purpose" has become a hindrance in the light of contemporary business practices and should be removed from the two Acts mentioned in the Bill.
1 am certain that the amendments reflect the new dimensions and fiscal realities and challenges of our modern-day business world. Real estate development, and indeed the whole realty field, is dynamic, and 1 believe wholeheartedly that, in the interest of proper accommodation planning, Public Works will benefit by these changes.
Under its present Act, Public Works has accomplished a great deal and added immeasurably to the well-being of our country. No one can dispute that fact. It is appreciated that, given proper direction and authority by the changes in the Act as outlined in today's Bill, the Department will also be able to contribute greatly to the socio-economic development of our country at all levels.
In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the work of the former minister of public works, who is in the Chamber this evening. I also want to take this opportunity, as it is my first such opportunity in public, to congratulate my colleague from my Province, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc). I wish him well and I wish him great success in the responsibilities he has both as Minister of Public Works and Minister responsible for Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation.
In light of all that I have said, I would call upon all Members to give their approval to the amendments in Bill C-91.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the proposed amendments to the Public Works Act and to the Public Lands Grants Act. The main thrust of my remarks will deal with the increasing encroachment into the private sector by the long and hungry arm of Government, and
with the continuing efforts of the few to take power from the many.
Bill C-91, when viewed critically, is just another Canagrex, another National Energy Program, even another War Measures Act. In other words, there are clauses in this Bill which give Government powers it should not have. It is also evident from the amendments this Bill proposes that once again the elected representatives of this country are losing their grip on the reins of power. Let me expand on these points.
The Minister opened his remarks on May 21 of this year by stating that the amendments which he proposes are simply housekeeping measures and that they relate more to parliamentary procedures than to the actual policies and practices of the Department.
What the former Minister has openly admitted then, and it has been duly recorded in the pages of Hansard for the eyes of posterity, is that his Department has been indulging in practices for which there has been no legislative authority, and that he has been putting the cart before the horse, for who knows how long. Bill C-91, as we in the Opposition have suspected, is just putting into writing what is already happening out in the field. I condemn such a practice. I resent being told that measures which we are debating in this House are already implemented and that we are acting as little tin soldiers applying our rubber stamps to the policies of the Public Works Department.
This is just another blatant example of the continuing decline of Parliament in recent times. It is evident to all but the most insensitive among us that the power of Parliament has been usurped and denigrated by the Liberal Government. Not only is the major decision-making no longer in the hands of those who have been chosen by the people, but our role has been reduced to yes men, or should I say yes Members who are gathered together to pronounce the benediction on pieces of legislation which are sneaked in the back door, sheepishly asking for permission to do things which are already being done.
When the Minister states publicly that the amendments "provide a general authority in a statutory way for departmental procedures which have been in use by the Department from time to time over recent years", I feel a little chill run down my spine.
What measures has the Department of Public Works been taking in respect of which he now guiltily admits he has no statutory authority? That documentation somehow has not found its way on to my desk. Perhaps the Minister should explain to this House how these procedures were carried out. When he says in Hansard of May 21 that "they were formerly executed under the authority of individual vote word changes as each case arose", I want to know what these cases were and how they were dealt with.
I allude now to the first amendment of Bill C-91 which will permit the Department of Public Works to perform work for other Government agencies, including those which have
November 22, 1982

statutory management of their own properties. I could see this as being a logical change to bring about in current legislation were it evident that Public Works was an efficient and tightly run organization, capable of managing in an acceptable way the property of others. However, in the light of current statistics related to the administration of the Department of Public Works, it would appear that they are barely able to take care of their own show let alone tell others how to run theirs.
Take, for example, the cost overrun at Place du Portage. The four phases of the Place du Portage office complex in Hull were estimated in the early 1970s to cost $124.5 million. By the time of completion, in March 1979, the costs had risen to $217.5 million, or 75 per cent over the original budget. I take it the Minister wants to transfer this efficiency to Canada Post Corporation. At this rate, if Public Works manages the real estate belonging to Canada Post, a stamp will cost $2 by 1990.
In a memo circulated on October 21, 1982, the Public Works Commission stated several urgent reasons for the immediate passage of Bill C-91. 1 am glad that the Government considers the amendments to the Public Works Act to be an urgent issue. With unimportant problems such as unemployment and a dragging economy lurking in the background, it is crucial that we draft legislation allowing Public Works to manage the affairs of the Post Office. Although I was being intentionally facetious in the last statement, I am very serious when 1 state to our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he needs to get his priorities straight. We have a country which is confronted with major problems. This winter there may have to be soup kitchens opening in the major cities just to keep men from starving. Mortgages are being foreclosed. Old age pensioners are barely making ends meet and are being told by the Minister of Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) that this Government just cannot afford to pay them an extra $25 a month. And the party in power is about to give carte blanche to the Public Works Commission, with its undeniably extravagant administrative philosophy, to manage the real estate of the Post Office and other such enterprises.
I sympathize deeply with Canada Post, which, as mentioned in the memo of October 21, is currently fully occupied with upgrading postal delivery. 1 have no argument with Canada Post endeavouring to improve its delivery record, but to say that it is "fully occupied" at improving its efficiency borders on the ridiculous. Ask the man on the street about that. Most ridiculous of all, however, is to make such a statement as grounds for allowing Public Works to continue its empire building.
Quoting from the same memo I mentioned previously, Canada Post-:
-is currently fully occupied with upgrading postal delivery, and it would place a major burden on it to assume the management of its 2,000 buildings and 800 leases at this time. Moreover, this would be totally unnecessary since Public Works, as the long-time manager of these properties, already has in place realty management capability and organization.
We in the Opposition question the validity of any statement insinuating that there exists "management capability and organization" in Public Works, given the abysmal track record
Public Works Act
of that Department. Perhaps if they continue to manage the Canada Post real estate, they will rent out some post offices at $4,000 a month so they can recupe some of the money which is currently being squandered on that apartment in Vancouver for the Commissioner General of Transpo '86.
The second amendment contained in Bill C-91 will permit the Department to perform work on all properties adjacent to properties which are the subject of attention by the Department and other ministries of the Government of Canada. This, of course, is with the due approval of the Governor in Council.
I would like to make two comments on this amendment: first, the terms of this Clause are too general. What does the word "work" mean? Does it mean bulldozing houses, building fences, stripping topsoil, constructing unwanted buildings? 1 think it is just an expression meaning, "we'll come in and do what we please with your property in order to facilitate access to Government land, and this could include paving your fields and building an overpass beside your barn." There is an old fashioned word, "expropriation" which seems to sum up the philosophy of this amendment.
Secondly, if the approval for such measures need only come from the Governor in Council, then we are simply nailing another spike in the coffin of parliamentary democracy and its notions of accountability to the people. Implementing the policies mentioned in these amendments will surely involve expenditures of gigantic sums of money, if past activities of the Department are any harbinger of future spending sprees.
The point I want to emphasize is that the Department of Public Works must be held accountable to Parliament for every dime it spends. 1 regret to state to this House that even now this is no longer the case. Taxpayers' dollars are not now being spent with due regard to the labour involved in earning them. It is always mildly amusing, although somewhat disheartening as well, to watch the internal revenue service pursue the tax evader to the ends of the earth while the Public Works Department and its army of free-spending bureaucrats continue to shell out huge sums of money to dubious causes.
We rarely stop to consider the great sacrifices made by the Canadian citizen to provide the money which is so gleefully squandered by this Government. Are we, the elected Members of this Parliament, going to stand by and consent to the passing of yet another Bill which will permit the spending of money and the approval of projects without our express permission? Effective control of the public purse is passing from the many to the few. Parliamentary control over the executive was once the pride and joy of this country. We are passing from a representative democracy to an unrepentant oligarchy.
Despite the recommendations of the Lambert Report, the Auditor General's Report, the 1977 Standing Committee Report on Procedure and Organization, as well as our own proposals which were tabled by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in the Thirty-first Parliament when we formed the Government, we are seeing yet another blatant example of Liberal Government insensitivity to the true wishes and aspirations of the Canadian people. They are callously

November 22, 1982
Public Works Act
disregarding the wishes of the elected officials of this country and turning decisions affecting hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of hidden bureaucrats who will have no qualms about employing these funds for whatever misbegotten projects please them. In the meantime we continue to have tours of the House of Commons with the guide telling legions of students, "Here, major decisions affecting the lives of millions of Canadians are made every day." Hogwash! Those decisions which are vital and which hit us in the pocketbook are being made in the Liberal Caucus boardrooms. The intent of this Bill is to continue in that same noble tradition.
I would like to comment briefly on the third amendment involved in Bill C-91 which permits the Department to dispose of property which may still be required for public purposes under a lease-purchase arrangement. I have two major concerns about this change in policy. Perhaps I should not say "change in policy" because we are all fully aware that this practice is common already and we are here today to give our retroactive consent. However, I object to the blanket authority which is granted in C-91 to sell any lands. Who decides which lands should be sold? Who decides at what price, and to whom? Although chances are slim, perhaps we will be selling the Parliament Buildings to the Russians and renting them back at the rate of 2,000 rubles per month. The fact remains that Parliament must have some control over such sales and we are losing it by giving assent to this Bill.
The second drawback to lease-purchase arrangements is that they involved a linking of hands of Government and big business. The minister recognizes this fact and is demonstrably proud of it. I quote from Hansard of May 21, 1982 at page 17696 which reads:
Also important is the fact that lease-purchase is a means by which the Department can harness the skills of the strongest real estate development firms in the country-Canadian firms, Mr. Speaker. They are recognized internationally as the best in the business, and we need them to assist us with part, but an important part, of the evolving program of accommodation plans by Public Works.
I would not use the words "political payoff', but is there any special reason why these real estate companies are prospering so well? Consider the enormous potential for profit making which lies within the lease-purchase arrangement. Yes, I fully believe that leasebacks are building up the private sector, as the Minister continually emphasizes, and some are laughing all the way to the bank as Government space is leased out at ridiculously low prices.
One major publication in this city is leasing office space from Government at $4 a square foot in an area where the average rental is $12 per square foot. On the other side of the coin, the Government is leasing from the private sector and paying incredible rents for stylish offices which really are not required. Take, for example, the Canada Manpower Centre located in L'Esplanade Laurier. That is probably the classiest area in this city. Is there any need for this unwarranted expenditure? Surely there is no such need when people are walking into my office, as one man did last week, who are so hungry that they turn to their Member of Parliament for a meal. Yet this Government is seeking the passage of a Bill
which signifies further entrenchment of policies which lead to profit-making at the expense of the electorate.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the intent of Bill C-91, which ostensibly is to increase efficiency and expedite proceedings which are normally hampered by the red tape involved in having routine procedures approved by Parliament. If there were a way to do this without losing accountability to the people, then my colleagues and I could hardly object. However, as I see it-and I believe the above arguments substantiate to a satisfactory degree my sentiments-Bill C-91 is, in a sense, an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of this House and the people of Canada. We cannot give consent to a Bill which provides the Government with powers beyond its constitutional mandate. We cannot permit vaguely worded amendments which can be interpreted in many ways by clever lawyers to make what is wrong seem right. As the Opposition it is our duty to protect the average citizen from legislation which could affect his property rights, and, even more importantly, could take away his right to determine where public moneys are spent. There has to be more accountability in this Government, not less. And I assure you that the trend in Bill C-91 is certainly not toward "more".
As the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker once said, "I have always been a House of Commons man". I appeal to Members of this House to be House of Commons men and Members, and keep the power of this Government under control by adamantly opposing the threatening policies of this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to deal with the concern of the average citizen of this country, the men and women who are having a difficult time being heard, men and women who believe in a democracy in which government should reflect the thinking of the people. How frustrated these people are becoming.
There are two extreme forms of Government, if you want to call them extreme. One is democracy, which endeavours to reflect the thinking of the people. The other is when the Government thinks it knows all, has omnipotent wisdom and tells the citizen what is good for him. More and more we are getting away from the Government to which any citizen may appeal, make representations and feel that his voice is heard. Tonight I want to give some definite illustrations of what I am trying to say.
The first clause of this Bill defines properties as belonging to Canada or properties not belonging to Canada. That covers just about everything. Then it says:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act or in any other Act, any public work may be sold or leased, under the authority of the Governor in Council, and the proceeds of such sale or lease shall be accounted for as public moneys-
You see, some things are good. When things are sold I think they should be accounted for. But then it says any public work may be sold or leased, and that is something that concerns me.
November 22, 1982

Then there is a semi colon and it is modified to some degree. It
says:
-but such public work shall be sold or leased by tender or at auction after public advertisement-
That is splendid. If we are going to sell something, it should be done by tender and after the people have been advised by public advertisement. It should not be suddenly thrust upon the people. Again, that something that is good. Then there is another modification:
-unless-
I felt good until I saw the word "unless". It says:
-unless it is otherwise authorized by the Governor in Council.
In other words, the Governor-in-Council can sell it without public auction, without public tender and without public advertising. Surely the Minister does not agree with that type of thing. In other words, the Governor in Council has dictatorial powers; any land can be sold, public or private. The Government can deal with any public works under any Act in the Statutes of Canada, and it can do so without public tender, advertisement, and even without public knowledge. I wonder what we are coming to. That concerns me, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Minister must be concerned with the generality of that kind of power. That is not appropriate with a Government which should reflect the thinking of the people whatever the stripe of the Government.
I want now to deal with a specific instance which I think is relevant, although it actually comes under the National Parks Act. However, Bill C-91 deals with any other act. Before doing so, I want to refer to an excellent document which the Government issued on December 20, 1973, a guide to the federal environmental assessment and review process. I commend the Government for this brochure which explains Canada's environmental assessment and review process for federal projects. The document says:
The Process is based on a Cabinet decision of December 20, 1973, that directs federal departments and agencies to assess the environmental effects of projects they initiate or sponsor.
Let me emphasize that. It does not request, it does not ask; it directs federal departments and agencies to assess the environmental effects of projects they initiate or sponsor. It goes on:
The Environmental Assessment Panel was established on April 1, 1974, in response to this Cabinet decision, to act as a formal reviewing agency for those federal projects considered by the initiating departments to have potentially significant environmental impacts. One of the Panel's prime responsibilities is to advise the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment on the acceptability of such projects.
In other words, this initiating process must be done before any decision is made. That fits right in with democracy. It considers the recommendations and thinking of the people down at the grass roots, the citizen who thinks that his voice can be heard. This document gives him some hope. Then I go on to the first page, a brief history, and I read one sentence:
The federal Cabinet in June 1972, accepted a departmental proposal that all new projects initiated by the federal Government be screened for this purpose, and directed that those requiring further assessment be referred to the Department of the Environment.
Public Works Act
That is a splendid thing, Mr. Speaker, but let us see what is happening now. About the middle of November the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) issued a permit to a company called Meteor Developments Ltd. I will not deal with the principals of that Company although that may come up later. A permit was issued to the Company to build an apartment building for staff in an excellent park within the town site of Banff, near Marmot and Cougar Streets. The park was started about 1970 when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Excellent housing was built around that area and about 4.2 acres was kept as a park. Much to the delight of the people concerned, the Department started to improve the park. In a letter dated June 4, 1971, the Minister wrote to the President of the Banff Advisory Council as follows:
The design of the attached housing units will be co-ordinated within the overall scheme for the area and any modification to the original design will be controlled. Thus, I assure you that the design stipulations for the individual residential lots will not be unduly affected by any possible revisions to the design for the attached housing units.
People were assured that if they spent several thousands of dollars building a home, they would always enjoy the area and nothing would be done that was not in conformity with the environment. I commend the Minister for taking that stand.
For ten years the Department developed the park, providing benches and building bridges over streams. Animals were welcomed and one summer there was a bull moose in the area. There are deer there today so it is a beautiful place. People from all over Canada enjoyed walking over the foot bridges and looking at the trees, some that are 100 years old.
Then in the middle of November the Minister of the Environment issued a permit to Meteor to build an apartment for staff in the park. I have nothing against that because we need staff accommodation in Banff, Mr. Speaker, but not in the middle of a park. I do not know how many letters I have sent to the Minister advising him of a situation that already existed at the co-operative Mountain View Estates. Staff housing was built close to single family dwellings and there has been nothing but trouble ever since.
The single men and women in the staff housing are young and they play loud music all hours of the day and night. The families want to sleep at night. They want to enjoy a quiet atmosphere rather than the noise of a rousing party. The police are called to the area three or four times a week to try to quell the chaos. The single people and the families each have their rights. I do not deny the younger people their right to have fun and loud music but it should not interfere with families with little babies and growing boys and girls.
In spite of this example in Banff, the Minister has issued a permit to build an apartment building for staff in the middle of this park. That has been done without an environmental study. 1 wrote to the Minister complaining that there had been no environmental study and no impact study. How can a permit

November 22, 1982
Public Works Act
be issued for a building in a national park without an environmental study being done? If the Department of the Environment is not going to protect our national parks, who is? There are towns and villages all across the nation where the people would love to have parks. They are spending their money on such projects, yet here is a town site with a park already within its boundaries, and an apartment building is being erected in it.
In spite of the guideline that that people must be advised and that there must be public tender for such a contract, the Minister issued the permit without public tender and without the benefit of an environmental study.
There is a stream in the park that runs open all winter long. This project will interfere with the natural flow of that water and the result may well be that the homes will have their basements flooded. I spent a number of years involved with the construction of highways, Mr. Speaker, and early in the game I learned to beware of changing natural streams, because such an action can affect the water supply.
One assessment has indicated that the project would involve increased traffic flow to the site which could result in traffic congestion, and that the alteration of Whiskey Creek by channel realignment, filling or dredging, would have an adverse effect on residents and visitors viewing the watercourse and the walking trails. It pointed out that alterations could very well interfere with the natural flow of that water. That is a very serious thing. It went on to suggest that the construction impact on the watercourse could be significant. Of course, if everything was done properly and nothing went wrong, things could turn out all right. But the whole project should be studied and we should not take a chance on flooding basements, Mr. Speaker. Yet the Minister has proposed to do the very things that should not be done. It said that the matter would be referred to a Panel.
In 1977 there was a proposal to appoint outsiders to the Panel, and more than 1,200 people sent letters and cards to the Minister about the project. There was no call for public tender. The people claimed they had no advance notice of it. This amounts to the destruction of a beautiful park that should be there 100 years from now for the enjoyment of the people of Canada. An apartment of all things should not be put in a beautiful park.
I have asked the Minister to put a hold on this project until the water problem has been studied. But the Minister has said no because Department lawyers have told him he does not have the authority. I question that, and I have advised the Minister. I had the authority over the building of highways for 20 years in Alberta. Earlier on we made a mistake. A contract was issued that was not in the public interest. When I went to the site and saw that a highway was being built on an inadequate base, I said to the Deputy Minister that we could not go on with it. I told him it was ridiculous and it was a waste of public money. I told him to tell the contractor that we were cancelling the contract. The Deputy Minister said he did not think we could do that. I said to him, "Do it."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I told the Deputy Minister to tell the contractor that this was using public money, and to come to Peace River to talk about it. The contractor flew to Peace River. I told the contractor that we could not put an expensive coating of blacktop on top of an inadequate base. He said to me "I know we can't. I do not like the contract. We do not like building roads that way and I am glad you have cancelled the contract." We put the project out again for tender and we had a proper contract that looked after the base. I say to Hon. Members "Don't tell me a Minister does not have the authority to cancel a contract." If a Minister has the authority to issue a permit, he has the authority to cancel a permit.
The Public Works people in Banff informed me-and the Minister asked me who it was, but 1 am not telling him-that they would stop the work if the Minister sent a wire asking them to do that and the RCMP would enforce it. The Minister has refused to do that.
I like the part of this Bill that says these things have to be done by public tender. I do not like the part which gives the Minister authority regarding any public works in Canada. Any public works, Government or otherwise, encompasses a vast host of things and I will not begin to enumerate them. I like the part that states that any public works will have to be contracted, sold or leased by tender or at auction after public advertisement. But I do not like the way the Banff Park project was carried on.
I have appealed to the Prime Minister, and I appeal to all Ministers and all Members of this House to realize that it would be criminal if we permit that park to be destroyed. Already a number of trees that took 100 years to grow have been cut down. This situation can still be remedied if this project is topped now.
Let the Government show its intentions by stopping that work. There are other places in Banff where apartment buildings can be constructed. Let us not destroy our park.
I want to deal now with expropriation. This Bill alarms me in this regard. I know a little bit about expropriation from experience. Most governments, municipal and provincial, endeavour to compensate when they have to take land, from a farmer or from an owner of land, because that action interferes with an individual's rights. In the provincial Government we always went to the person to try to get an agreement. Occasionally we had to expropriate land. But when we had to expropriate land there were certain procedures we had to follow by law. I was one of the people who had something to do with putting the procedures in place. Even though it slowed us up, it gave the individual who owned the land some rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is what we have to recognize in this country. Rights are being taken away from individuals. People have come to me about the expropriation of land. The individual does not have a say. I have appealed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and to the Minister of National
November 22, 1982

Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) about these things. They expect sympathy, but they have not been prepared to do what I think they should.
For instance, if I own a farm and the Department of Highways or the municipality wants the area, perhaps a 20-foot strip belonging to me, they have the authority to take it if certain procedures are followed. If they expropriate the land, that means the owner is an unwilling seller. That happens in such a case? The owner has to pay capital gains on the expropriated land. First, he is an unwilling seller. Second, capital gains are applied against him. That is completely wrong. If capital gains have to be imposed, let the authority doing the expropriation pay those capital gains. It will make the authorities stop and think about whether the expropriation is really necessary. Capital gains should not be imposed upon the poor land owner who is losing his land; having to pay gains on something he did not want to sell. That is common sense, and 1 think every Minister over there would agree if they looked at the situation.


Mr. Thacker:: But they don't understand over there.


Gordon Edward Taylor: In some cases whole farms are expropriated. The law says if the farm land is replaced somewhere else, no capital gain is involved. When a man and a woman has spent, 50, 40 or 30 years building a farm, they cannot always replace it somewhere else. People get to an age when they do not want to start all over again, homesteading and working from the beginning. Many do not have the strength to start all over again.
What happens when expropriation procedures take place? The Government tells the owners how much they will get for the land. Then these people are stuck for the tax on capital gains. But these people were unwilling sellers. They wanted to spend their lives on their land. 1 ask Hon. Members of this House why they cannot put themselves in other people's moccasins and realize how they feel when the roots are pulled from under them, having to pay capital gains which amounts to a big chunk of the money received? This Bill will encourage this type of thing and I do not like that at all. Surely, we cannot permit it to continue.
We pride ourselves in the ownership of land. We say that a man's home is his castle. We say that nobody has the right to come into someone's home unless he gets a warrant, and that nobody has the right to trespass on someone's land. We put value on our property, but a federal body, the Canadian Transport Commission, is forgetting about that. It is not abiding by the rules set out by the Cabinet in 1933 and amended in 1977. This is an excellent document.
I want to cite just one case reported in the Calgary Herald. The article was written by the agricultural reporter, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) knows him. He is an excellent agricultural reporter. His name is John Schmidt. He wrote this in the Calgary Herald'.
-CTC was asked by CP Rail to authorize construction of an 18-kilometre branch line from Elk Island on the Willingdon subdivision to the Fort Saskatchewan petrochemical-industrial basin.
Public Works Act
The CTC allowed the railway to bisect the farm of Wilfred Naundorf of Fort Saskatchewan. Mr. Schmidt's article continued;
Despite the fact the project will cost nearly $20 million, the CTC accepted the argument by CP's stable of three lawyers that an alternate route suggested by Naundorf to bypass his arable land would impoverish the railway.
In other words, the CTC ruled in favour of the railway in spite of the fact that there was an alternate route. The owner of the land said he was not trying to stop the railway. He wanted to see the proposed line or lines aligned on the eastern side of his property, which was not quite so arable, running alongside a property owned by Shell Canada Limited. The CTC said no. This land owner not only faces interference with his farming operations, but this line will gobble up 10 per cent of his arable land. Trains would soon be travelling within 100 yards of his house. The CP Rail lawyers argued that it would require three times as much land for the railway route as it would to bisect his land. I say: so what? 1 say that does not matter if we value the ownership of land in this country.
I have talked with many provincial Ministers of Highways in this country. 1 remember discussing a case with the late Jack Douglas, who was not of my political affiliation but who was nevertheless an excellent member of the CCF Government. He recognized the rights of individuals, and I respected him for that. It was the opposite situation in this case. This man said that there was an alternate route, but the CTC said no. What did the LC lawyers say? They said that the landowner can take this case to court by hiring a lawyer at $100 an hour and proceeding to ask for compensation under the Railway Act. How can an individual fight the Government railway?
The CTC indicated that it will put the railway through his arable land, in spite of the fact that there is an alternate route. They said that the line will be built in the public interest.
I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) why a public tender was not called for on this land in Banff? He indicated to me in a letter that normally these things are done by public tender but that in this case he had the authority under the Act, in the national interest or in the interests of the park, to do it by ministerial order. He might have the authority, but 1 question the morality of his actions.
With respect to acting in the public interest, the situation in Banff does not take into account public interest, nationally, locally or municipally. Just ask the hundreds of citizens there who are so concerned about this matter that they parked their cars around the area in order to save the trees. But what happened? The workers walked in with chainsaws this morning and started to saw down 100-year old trees. It makes your heart bleed to see this happen.
I believe it is time to reconsider what is done in the public interest. What happened in the case 1 just mentioned was not really in the public interest at all. This farmer would be plowed under in the public interest and his food-producing ability

November 22, 1982
Public Works Act
would be diminished in the public interest. Surely public interest takes into account the individual as well as the national, provincial or municipal interest.
Let me proceed with this example to show how sad this situation really is. The entire petro-chemical industrial complex at Fort Saskatchewan is served by the Canadian National Railways. They already have a rail line there. It is not necessary for CP Rail to put a line into the area, in the opinion of a CN witness. It was brought out in evidence by J. B. Bromley, Vice-President of CP Rail for the Pacific Region, that CP had tried to renegotiate running rights over the CN line to Fort Saskatchewan from Edmonton in return for giving CN running rights over CP Rail to the Carseland petro-chemical basin from Calgary. But CN apparently said no.
The CTC could very well have said to CN and CP that those two corporations should get together and arrange to use those lines which already exist. That would be the sensible thing to do. I am familiar with the area. Those lines are only used a quarter of the time, but nevertheless a farmer's land is going to be used instead of those lines which already exist. The CTC was not so kind when the town of Canmore wanted an industrial site for future development and therefore wanted to retain the railway that was already there. The CTC denied that request because it did not have the industrial site in place, even though it had set aside the land for it. So it ordered the abandonment of the railway. However, in this case the CTC has no reservation about going headlong over the rights of an individual when there is an alternative route in existence.
While this Bill does have some good measures, there are some very poor ones in it as well. This is what concerns me.
If the Government wants to show the people that it wants to take positive steps through this Bill, it will show its good will by ordering that the project in Banff be stopped immediately.


Mr. Peterson:: Nonsense!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) shakes his head. I am ashamed to see him shake his head. He wants to ruin a park. He does not care about the people there. His first concern should be the will of those people.
There are several other examples that I could cite, but I will conclude by saying that giving the Government the authority to take anyone's land, either publicly or privately owned, through an Order in Council without the benefit of public tender or advertising is going too far. It smacks of totalitarianism. We want democracy in this country, not totalitarianism.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, here we are again with another Bill before the House
during the debate of which the Liberal majority will sit quietly and then stand up when called upon to vote to pass it through the House. It is another Bill which will be oppressive to ordinary Canadians across the land who are trying to earn their living and pay their fair share of taxes. In order to do that they must have access to capital, land and property. That majority will deny that access, and the NDP will stand up with them again because this is another Bill that concentrates too much power in too few hands. That is what this debate is really about.
How many jobs will this legislation create? It will not create one, but it will continue to concentrate too much power in too few hands.
This simple Bill, which consists of two or three sections, does have some good provisions in the sense that it gives the Government the power to lease out land and then sell it or lease it back. However, this is accomplished by Order in Council. This just adds to the approximate 3,600 Orders in Council which are passed by the Government each year, as compared to the less than 600 in the United Kingdom which has twice our population. This makes it evident that we are really powerless here. The reason that we have no power is that successive numbers of backbenchers on the other side, aided and abetted by the NDP to our left, have continued to concentrate that power and intend to continue doing so. They will continue to do this until Canadians realize what is happening, as they are now realizing. Canadians are becoming aware that this continuing wave of socialism and concentration of power has not made the individual any richer but has continued to be a drain on their purse.
The latest example of this is Petro-Canada. When all the oil companies in the country, even the dummies, were making money and paying taxes hand over first, Petro-Canada was not. We all have had to pay $2 billion in capital so far, as well as paying a tax of four cents a litre. This money was to cover the purchase of Petro-Canada. But are they worth-while assets? No, they are secondhand service stations of no value and almost all of them are on the wrong corner of the street. This will continue. It is happening as a result of a group of Liberal backbenchers not standing up to their Cabinet and saying they will not permit this to go any further.
I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It being 10 o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Tuesday, November 23, 1982