November 14, 1949

RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES


Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Breithaupt.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

FEDERAL DISTRICT OF REGINA CITY

LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from the chief electoral officer a copy of the report of Hon. James T. Brown, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench for Saskatchewan, a commissioner appointed by the chief electoral officer under the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, to inquire into certain alleged irregularities in connection with the election in the federal district of Regina City, in the province of Saskatchewan, in the dominion election of June 27, 1949; and covering letter from the chief electoral officer in connection therewith.

Topic:   DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT
Subtopic:   FEDERAL DISTRICT OF REGINA CITY
Sub-subtopic:   REPORT OF COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES
Permalink

CROWN PROPERTIES

FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES

LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement with respect to certain proposals the government has concerning grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes. I must ask the indulgence of hon. members for the length of the statement, but the questions involved are important, and I think it is as well that hon. members should have a full statement of the reasons which prompted the government to make the proposals which it intends to make. Of course full opportunity will be afforded for discussing them when I ask for appropriate financial provisions to carry them into effect.

For some considerable time the government has had under review its policy in respect of the tax-exempt status of its real property in various municipalities throughout Canada. The present situation, which reflects the exemption from municipal taxation granted to crown property under the British

North America Act, has given rise to increasing complaints as the number and variety of federal properties have multiplied during the past few years. These complaints have been embodied in representations from such bodies as the Canadian federation of mayors and the Ontario association of mayors and reeves, as well as from individual municipalities.

The government, aware of the problems faced by at least some municipalities in financing continuing growth and expanding services, has studied these complaints with sympathy and with the utmost care. Every effort has been made to gather together the relevant data and to examine these data in the light of conditions and needs in our own country and the experience of other countries.

One of the first steps in this study was to make a preliminary survey of all federal government property in Canada. This survey took a good deal of time to complete, but it was absolutely necessary to arrive at an appreciation of the nature and magnitude of the problem.

Another phase of the study was a review of the experience and practice, in this field, of other countries of the world, particularly the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the Scandinavian countries. This review was most illuminating. It revealed, in practically all countries, conditions and a course of development very much like our own. In practically every country, as a result of either legislation or custom, the practice is, or at least has been at some time, to exempt from local taxation the real property of the central government. However, there has been increasing recognition that this tax exemption gives rise to a problem for the municipalities, and a number of countries have found it advisable to have their central governments assume a measure of responsibility. Nevertheless, no consistent or uniform pattern has been evolved. The problem is still under consideration in most countries, and quite a few are looking with interest to any solution which may be proposed by Canada.

While this review of the practices followed elsewhere was most helpful, none of the various solutions adopted abroad was found to be wholly applicable to Canada. A solution suitable to a closely-knit unitary state, such as the United Kingdom, cannot be applied to a federal state, such as Canada,

Crown Properties

where governmental powers are divided and where the municipality is a creature of a provincial rather than the central government. The only two countries where the central government was found to pay full rates on all its properties were the United Kingdom and Eire, both unitary states where the local governments are subordinate to and integrated with the. central government and where financial and administrative relationships are more a question of financial accounting then separate fiscal responsibility. It is significant that even in these two countries the central government has felt it necessary to maintain the right to assess its own property and thereby determine the total amount of taxes payable to municipalities. Unfortunately it was found that in the United States and the other federal states which were examined, where despite differences of size and historical development the basic ingredients of the problem are the same as in our case, no satisfactory solution has as yet been worked out.

Having obtained information on the nature and scope of the problem in Canada, and after studying the methods followed in other countries in dealing with a similar situation, the government came to the conclusion that if an acceptable solution were to be found it would have to be one that was based on consistent general principles, one that recognized the absence in Canada of any administrative connection between the central government and municipal governments, and one that would in its application be equitable to all municipalities as well as to the Canadian taxpayer.

As a first principle it was decided that the constitutional exemption of federal property from municipal taxation must be maintained. Consequently the federal grants in lieu of municipal taxes, which we propose to seek parliament's authority to make, are to be made solely as a matter of grace and are to be subject to discretionary determination by an agency of the federal government. It is proposed to set up under the treasury board a unit which will be staffed with competent men, preferably men who have had some experience in the field of municipal tax assessment or valuation of properties for tax and other purposes; and it will be the job of these officials to consult with municipal authorities and to apply as fairly as possible to the assessment of government property the same principles and practices as are being applied in the assessment of similar private properties.

I think hon. members will readily agree that we are under an obligation, in adopting a program of this sort, to avoid creating a situation whereby a few municipalities, by means of discriminatory assessment practices,

could benefit at the expense of other municipalities and the taxpayer in general. I may add that our survey of the experience of other countries revealed a universal acceptance of this general principle.

In the second place, it was decided that, to be fair to all municipalities, any federal program of this sort should recognize that the presence of federal property within a municipality normally brings certain definite benefits to the municipality. These benefits include not only the increase in local incomes and business activity resulting from the presence of federal employees who work and live within the municipality, but also the greater degree of stability given to municipal revenues by the fact that a good proportion of municipal taxpayers are in the employ of the federal government. It is not difficult to demonstrate that these benefits do accrue to municipalities which have federal property within their boundaries. Such benefits are constantly reflected in the competition which, as all hon. members know, exists amongst municipalities for new federal buildings or new federal enterprises of one sort or another. I need only refer to a recent controversy highly publicized in this community, the controversy resulting from the decision to remove the government printing bureau from Ottawa to Hull.

It has indeed been argued by some that the benefits resulting to a municipality from the presence of federal real property within the municipality are more than sufficient to compensate for any added cost of municipal services which might be occasioned by the presence of this added property. I think this contention carries the benefit theory too far, if not in all cases, at least under certain circumstances to which I shall refer more fully in a moment. However, there is sufficient in the theory, I believe, to demonstrate that in any program of federal grants in lieu of municipal taxes, it would be unfair to municipalities generally to base the grants on acceptance by the central government of responsibility for a full equivalent of ordinary taxes.

The third general principle relates to the special circumstances I referred to a moment ago, the special cases where it clearly cannot be said that the benefits derived by a municipality from the presence of federal property within its limits are more than sufficient to compensate for the added costs resulting therefrom. This special type of case is where there is an abnormally large concentration of federal property within a municipality. The studies which have been made have convinced the government that where federal property is heavily concentrated, a problem is created for the municipality because our

present municipal tax systems are not designed in such a way that they obtain for the municipal corporation as such all the benefits which accrue to the municipality at large from the presence of federal property. As everyone knows, municipal revenues are based primarily on real estate taxation and therefore may not fully reflect a substantial increase in personal incomes and business activity within the municipality which may flow from a heavy concentration of federal properties. We have therefore reached the conclusion that the key to any solution to the problem before us is the degree of concentration of federal property in a municipality; and the solution which I am about to propose is based primarily on this premise.

To be able to apply this solution, it is first of all necessary to establish a clear test of what constitutes abnormal concentration of federal property. The test which we are proposing is that anything in excess of the national average of all federal property to total municipal assessments in all municipalities in Canada shall be considered abnormal concentration. The preliminary figures we have obtained as a result of the survey of federal property I referred to at the outset of my remarks indicate that this national average is somewhere between four per cent and five per cent. For the purposes of the solution we are proposing, it has been decided to use the lower figure of four per cent, at least in the initial period. This, of course, is more favourable to the municipalities than adopting the higher figure. Later, when we have completed the work of applying the ordinary principles and practices of municipal assessment to all our federal property, we may have to revise that figure to some extent.

I am therefore glad to be able to announce that the government is prepared to seek the authority of parliament to pay annually to any municipality, as a matter of grace, a grant determined according to the following formula, namely, a grant equal to 75 per cent of the sum determined by taking that percentage of the general tax levy for municipal and school purposes-but excluding business taxes-which is equal to the percentage which total federal property assessments bear to total taxable assessments in the municipality, less four per cent.

The grant is to be equal to 75 per cent, rather than 100 per cent, of the sum determined by the above formula, for two reasons:

(a) to reflect in some degree the fact mentioned above that benefits do accrue to the municipality from the presence of federal property within its limits; and

(b) to take into account the further fact that there is always in any municipality a

45781-108$

Crown Properties

proportion of other than federal property which is granted exemption from municipal tax.

In this formula the term "federal property" is taken to mean all federal properties, except such types as parks, harbours and more or less self-contained defence establishments and property owned by crown corporations or agencies. I am presenting a detailed schedule of the excluded categories which, with the permission of the house, I would like to have tabled and printed as an appendix to this statement. Certain of these excluded categories may, however, be included in the calculations for any particular municipality if such municipality can demonstrate that special conditions exist which warrant such inclusion. ,

It will be noted that while school taxes are taken into account in determining the amount of a grant, the total amount will be paid to the municipal corporation, which will have the responsibility of applying the amount of such grant in the best interests of all taxpayers in the municipality. It is clear, of course, that any contribution to the cost of any local service eases the burden on taxpayers generally for the total cost of their local services.

Perhaps I might now be permitted to give an illustration of how the formula would work out in the case of a hypothetical municipality. Take a municipality which has total tax assessments of $100 million. Using the same assessment practice, the total assessment of federal properties would amount to $10 million, or 10 per cent of the total. The municipal tax levy for ordinary and school purposes is $4 million. Our first step is to deduct the national average of federal property assessments to total municipal assessments, assumed at 4 per cent, from the figure of 10 per cent, which represents the corresponding figure for the municipality in question, leaving a net of six per cent. Applying this percentage, six per cent, to the total tax levy of $4 million, we arrive at the figure of $240,000. The grant payable in the case of this municipality would therefore be 75 per cent of this sum, namely, $180,000.

It will thus be seen that under the program which we are now prepared to recommend, the federal government intends to assume a proportionate share of the cost of maintaining ordinary municipal services in any municipality where the concentration of federal property is in excess of the national average. In return, the federal government will seek treatment in the matter of municipal services not less favourable than that accorded to ordinary taxpayers.

Crown Properties

It is proposed, in addition, to pay in future to any municipality in receipt of this type of grant a further temporary adjustment grant whenever the crown acquires a new piece of property in that municipality. This grant will ensure that the municipality will receive full taxes for the year in which the property is acquired, either from the vendor or from the government, depending on the sales agreement, plus full taxes in the succeeding year, and one half of taxes in the next following year. At the end of this period the assessed value of such property will be included in the total of federal assessment of the municipality-with a commensurate effect on the regular grant.

For any municipality where no regular grant is made because total federal property in that municipality is below the national average, the government proposes in future to pay, in respect of any piece of property acquired by the crown, full taxes for the year of acquisition in the same way as above, plus full taxes for the succeeding year and in each of the next three years grants of respectively 75 per cent, 50 per cent and 25 per cent of the full taxes. At the end of this five-year period no further grants will be paid. These temporary grants are intended to permit the municipalities to adjust themselves to the loss of specific tax revenue upon the acquisition of property by the crown.

We will also propose the payment as soon as possible of all proper arrears and charges for local improvements against federal real property in any municipality, and the payment of all local improvement charges as they occur in the future.

In addition it is the intention of the government to pay for all charges for water received at government buildings on a meter basis.

Finally, I wish to say a word about the position of property held by crown corporations. With respect to such property the situation is complicated, but in general the policy of the government will be to authorize its crown corporations to work out fair and equitable agreements with the municipalities in which their properties are situated.

In the case of residential housing property owned or managed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there are already agreements with municipalities providing for payments in lieu of taxes. Because agreements between Wartime Housing Limited and the municipalities in relation to war workers' houses provided for payments in lieu of taxes which were considered insufficient, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply on July 22, 1946, indicated that these agreements could

be renegotiated with the corporation, with corresponding increases in rents to be paid by individuals to meet the adjusted payments in lieu of taxes. Most agreements of this kind have now been renegotiated, and the balance can be renegotiated if the municipalities so desire. In regard to housing properties completed since 1947 and under current programs, payments in lieu of taxes are being made in accordance with agreements negotiated with the municipalities which are believed to be equitable and will not be renegotiated.

In the case of the government-owned railways operated by the Canadian National Railways, agreements have been entered into with the cities of Halifax and Saint John for the payment of reasonable amounts in lieu of taxes. I understand that the Canadian National Railways will endeavour to work out similar arrangements with other municipalities through which the government-owned railway runs.

In general, as I have indicated, the policy will be to have crown corporations work out arrangements with municipalities which are fair and equitable under all circumstances.

It should be clear from what I have said that the government intends to pursue policies in respect to its federal real property which will assure fair and equitable compensation to those municipalities which have a genuine burden as the result of the presence of federal property within their boundaries, and will assure the payment of legitimate costs as they occur in connection with its properties.

The government proposes to make immediate arrangements to have its property assessed by its agents for the purpose of determining the grants to be paid. Preliminary information indicates that, in a number of cases at least, local assessments of federal property are considerably inflated. It should be borne in mind that such assessments have been made without contest or rebuttal by the federal government, because hitherto the assessment of federal property has been a matter of academic interest only.

While the procedure of assessment will probably require a couple of years to complete, it is proposed to institute the program I have outlined as of the 1st of January, 1950. Actual payments in some cases may be delayed, but they will be made retroactive. For obvious reasons it will not be possible to institute the system of grants for those municipalities having within their limits federal properties to an extent near the assumed national average of four per cent until the actual certification of the figures has been

completed. However, for those municipalities which, according to our rough preliminary figures, would seem to be clearly within the ambit of the new scheme, we propose, if our recommendations are accepted by parliament, to commence payments as soon after January 1, 1950, as possible, withholding 25 per cent until the final determination of figures has been completed. Adjustments will be made retroactively.

Figures now available would indicate that there are something over one hundred municipalities where there is a concentration of federal property in excess of the national average. I hesitate at this time to make any estimate of what the total annual cost of the entire program will probably amount to but I believe it is likely to be in the vicinity of $5 million.

This new program will supersede any existing arrangements with certain municipalities, such as those which formerly existed with the city of Ottawa. This city, the capital of the dominion, is not only the most outstanding case amongst the municipalities affected by a substantial concentration of federal property, but the situation is rather more complicated here, because of the proposed development of the national capital plan. This has, I am afraid, led to some confusion, and we think it important to a clear understanding of the proposals we are making, and to a satisfactory solution of our relationships with the city, that it be clearly recognized that in the case of the city of Ottawa there are two distinct and separate problems: first, the problem arising from the presence of a large amount of tax-exempt federal property within the city limits; and second, the financial problem which may be faced by the city in fulfilling its part in its own development as the national capital of Canada, as envisaged in the Greber report.

We fear that confusion in regard to these two problems has made them seem a lot more difficult and complicated than they really are. The discussion of relative participations in some new capital planning project has been complicated by arguments based on inadequate compensation for abnormal concentration of federal property, and vice versa. At times also statements have been made which appear to overemphasize the burdens placed upon the city by the presence of federal property or fail to take into account the contribution which the federal government is already making. Perhaps it is well that all hon. members should first be clear about this latter point. At the present time the federal government does its own policing, paves and maintains a good part of Wellington street, the federal district highways, Clemow avenue and two bridges over the Ottawa river, with

Crown Properties

the approaches thereto; maintains the federal district parks system, including a few of the city's own parks; collects and disposes of garbage from its own buildings; pays for all the water it uses at the fair rate of 20-82 cents per thousand gallons, and pays to the city an annual grant of $300,000 in lieu of taxes. On the other hand, the city supplies light and water for the parks and parkways within the city limits to which I have referred.

I wish now to outline the new arrangements which we are proposing. In regard to Ottawa's first problem arising from concentration of federal property, the government believes that the city should be treated in this respect in exactly the same way as a great many other municipalities which are confronted with the same problem in greater or less degree. In other words, if parliament approves the general program of grants I have outlined, the city of Ottawa will receive as from January 1 next a grant in lieu of taxes determined on the basis of the same formula as that applicable to all other municipalities. However, the arrangement which has been in effect in the past lapsed on June 30 last, and it is therefore necessary to decide on a grant to the city for the rest of the current year. I am happy now to announce that the government has decided to recommend payment to Ottawa of an interim grant of $250,000 to cover this six-months period. For the present it is not proposed to disturb the existing arrangement whereby the government now provides certain services for itself in Ottawa, as I have indicated. However, in accordance with our intention of seeking equal treatment in future in the matter of municipal services, these arrangements will be reviewed with the municipality when the new plan of regular grants in lieu of municipal taxes comes into effect.

Having disposed of this first problem in the way suggested, we hope it will now be possible to deal with the second problem separately and on its own merits. This second problem arises, as I have already indicated, from the necessity of financing the development of the national capital. For some years past, as the house is aware, members of the federal district commission and others who are members of the national capital planning committee, including a number of experts, have been working on a plan for the development of the capital. A master plan is being prepared setting out on broad lines the developments which should be followed from year to year by the different authorities and organizations having to do with the development of the capital.

From the very outset it has been recognized that the implementation of any master plan

Crown Properties

befitting the requirements of a national capital would involve developments of a character beyond the municipal improvements ordinarily required in other cities. This was foreshadowed in the report, dated August 1, 1944, of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons appointed to review the special problems arising out of the location of the seat of government in the city of Ottawa. The resolution which was passed by this house in June, 1948, explicitly recognized that fact and its corollary that "the development of a national capital is at least in part a national responsibility." For that reason the resolution went on to recommend the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, to be known as the national capital fund, to which appropriations would be made annually by parliament over a period of years of the amounts required from time to time to meet the costs of such projects as might be recommended by the federal district commission and approved by the governor in council for the development of the national capital and the surrounding area in accordance with the developing master plan. As hon. members are aware, the sum of $2J million was voted to be set aside in that national capital fund last year, and a similar item is included in the estimates for the current fiscal year.

On behalf of the government, therefore, I now wish to make it clear that we are prepared to see appropriate assistance given on the recommendation of the commission in the case of those individual projects which are considered essential in the development of the national capital plan, and yet would not be undertaken, at least not in the same form or to the same extent or at as early a date, if Ottawa were not the capital of our country and it were not necessary to have regard to the future development of the country as well as of the municipality. This would include, for example, part of the extra cost that might be necessary to make a new city hall comply with the architectural requirements of the national capital plan if the city should eventually decide to place it in a location where such additional standards would be required. Another example would include certain features of the Gore and Storrie report on sewage and water supply, and new Sussex street bridges over the Rideau river to complete the gap in the eastern end of the driveway system.

The federal district commission has power to discuss with the city participation in any one of these individual projects or developments. Any project will be considered on its own merits and on the degree of its

relationship to the city as an ordinary municipality or to the national capital, as the case may be.

Furthermore, the government proposes, in addition to the regular grant to the city, to make additional funds available to the federal district commission to cover additional expense which it may be necessary for the city to incur in co-operation and agreement with the commission in carrying out its obligations under provincial planning statutes, such as zoning and laying out on the ground by surveys the necessary features of the national capital plan. The amount of funds so made available will not be a fixed grant, but it is likely to vary to some extent from time to time, depending on the projects likely to be undertaken during the period in question.

It is the hope of the government that by keeping our consideration of this national capital development problem separate and distinct from the other general problem to which I referred in the early part of my remarks, we shall be able to remove the confusions and misunderstandings that may have existed in the past and secure the effective co-operation of the city authorities in promoting the growth and development of this beautiful city in its role of the national capital.

In conclusion, may I say that we would propose to ask for parliamentary approval of the interim grant to Ottawa and the initiation of the program for the whole of Canada by a special estimates item to be introduced at this session of parliament. I believe only a modest appropriation of funds at this session, over and above the amount of the interim grant to Ottawa, will be necessary to make possible the setting up of the necessary establishment in the Department of Finance, work out details of procedure, begin the job of assessments of federal property and provide for such initial grants as may have to be made before the close of the present fiscal year. At the next session it would be our intention to introduce a bill to provide permanent statutory authorization of the program as a whole. (Schedule of excluded categories follows:)

appendrx

Detailed Schedule of Categories Excluded From the Definition of Federal Property

Total federal property shall mean all federal property within municipal boundaries in organized territory, except:

(1) All military, naval and air force establishments which are self-contained or substantially so.

(2) AH harbours, canals and other lands held in connection with the federal government's responsibility for navigable waters.

(3) All lands held in connection with land conservation, irrigation, rehabilitation and forestation.

<4) All penitentiaries and D.V.A. hospitals where they are outside of urban municipal boundaries and/or self-contained or substantially so.

(5) All parks and parklands and historical sites and other improvements of a like nature.

(6) All property held by crown corporations or agencies.

(7) Canadian government-owned railways.

(8) Property of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Any of the above types of property in classifications 1 to 4 inclusive may be included in whole or in part for the purpose of determining the principal grant if in the opinion of the minister a municipality has demonstrated a good case for its inclusion.

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Will the minister file a list of the municipalities which it is expected will become eligible for assistance?

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. Abbott:

No, I am afraid that is not possible, because, as I indicated in the course of my statement, our survey of values of federal properties is still pretty rough. We know some, of course, that are clearly within the purview of the statement. Cities such as Ottawa, Halifax and Esquimalt are obviously within that sphere, but other than indicating one or two obvious cases, I would prefer at this stage not to attempt to give any list.

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Church:

Are there other cities in which bodies such as the Toronto transportation commission and the Toronto hydro pay full federal, provincial and municipal taxes, as private corporations do?

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. Abbott:

In no municipality does any agency of government, so far as I know, pay full federal taxes, unless it be under the equitable tax agreements negotiated by certain crown corporations, such as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Church:

Sir James Whitney went as far as that thirty-four years ago.

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Graydon:

Will there be any appeal from the assessment figure that is finally decided upon by the government?

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. Abbott:

No.

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

There is one point I should like to have clarified. As I understand the minister's statement, the plan now put forward provides for a system of compensation for taxation, other than business taxes, only in those municipalities which are above the national average of concentration of dominion government property, and as to any other case the plan will not apply, other than to provide for certain adjustments of taxes in the first year after purchase.

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. Abbott:

That is correct. It will be only in those municipalities where there is an abnormal concentration of federal real property.

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Graydon:

That is the government's escape clause.

Questions PRIVATE BILLS

Topic:   CROWN PROPERTIES
Subtopic:   FEDERAL GRANTS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL TAXES
Sub-subtopic:   NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Permalink

FIRST READINGS

SENATE BILLS

November 14, 1949