1986-02-28

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: When this Government and particularly this Prime Minister and this Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) come up with policies to help the rich, the word is: Good show, they are all right! But when the same Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government try to do something for the poor they come up with unfair policies, and the word is zilch! Here is why. Last year this Government decided that $23,500 would be the maximum income under which families would qualify for the child tax credit. This year, in an attempt to dissuade poor families from signing their child tax credit over to discounters, the Government has chosen to prepay part of the child tax credit, but only to families whose income does not exceed $15,000. Mr. Speaker, this Government and this Minister of Finance have just decided that there are two categories of poor families.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: In Wednesday night's Budget the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) provided a new income tax regime for many northern residents. 1 had hoped that this tax reduction for northern benefits would help people in remote areas. However, after checking with Revenue Canada officials, I found that what will happen is that many northerners will pay more in taxes.
For example, in the community of Churchill, CMHC is attempting to set the level of a unit up to $1,600 per month, despite the fact that residents in that community and the provincial Government object.
In checking with workers in that community I found that a janitor who works for the federal Government with the Harbours Board could be paid $16,500 a year. A clerk working for the federal Government could earn as little as $15,500 a year. What that means is that under the new regime, people who are going to earn $16,000 or $15,000 in real salaries will be paying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition criticizes the Government's initiative of returning federally-owned or controlled corporate entities to the private sector. It turns a blind eye to all of the studies which confirm that public sector enterprises tend toward inefficiency for there is no absolute necessity for them to compete. If things go sour, they just turn to the Government for more money. Those Opposition Members should talk to their Socialist soul mates in France and Spain. Those Governments have realized that state ownership is inefficient and expensive. France has sold more than 100 state-owned subsidiaries and is in the process of selling more. Spain has returned car, truck, and industrial companies to the private sector, with great success.
I believe that Canadians can run their businesses and companies without having to compete with their own Government.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced a Budget which confirmed to Canadians that we have stayed on the best course for Canada. This Budget places the deficit firmly on a declining trend, from $33.8 billion this year to $29.8 billion next year, and it will decline still further to $22 billion in 1990-91. With this year's reduction the Minister of Finance was right on target. I challenge any Hon. Member of the House to tell us the last time a Minister of Finance was so accurate with a forecast in deficit reduction.
Jobs, not tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands, some
580,000	jobs, have been created over the past 18 months. The facts speak for themselves. By solving the problems of the past, we are creating a future filled with prosperity and promise for all Canadians.

February 28, 1986


THE BUDGET
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, once again this Government has described a Budget as tough but fair. That is what it said about the last Budget. It sure as hell is tough but it is certainly far away from fair.
If we consider that because of the last Budget, which was introduced in May, a wage earner earning $15,000 paid an accumulative tax increase of some 36 per cent, we can compare that with the person who earned $200,000 and who faced an accumulative tax increase in the same period of only 2 per cent.
Last May Canadians were asking themselves what kind of fairness that Budget and that tax offered the average working Canadian. This week that problem has simply been compounded with the pressure of a new tax burden on middle-class Canadians.
In a year end poll last Christmas by Decima and Mcleans's magazine, a very specific analysis showed that this country is perceived to be between the haves and the have-nots-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Budget is marked by unfairness and incompetence. Let me just deal with the economic projections given on page 26 of the Minister's own document. The Budget will give us huge increases in corporate profits in 1986 and 1987 while both personal incomes and consumer expenditures decline in growth. Talk about unfairness of results.
What is tragic is that this is a slow growth Budget which shows our economic growth rate declining in 1986 and 1987 while the U.S. growth rate is increasing. What an incompetent development strategy. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should realize that we cannot take billions of dollars from the pockets of average families and expect dramatic growth. This Budget is a bust. In my economic grading, it deserves an F for failure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) demonstrated clearly that this Government is spending better and smarter. Canadians will recall that after both the November economic statement and our May Budget, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), the merchants of gloom and doom predicted hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and a depressed economy.
The same doom and gloom campaign has already begun as we are hearing today, but the people of Canada will not be fooled by their cheap political rhetoric. Look at our record. There have been 580,000 jobs created in just 18 months, a deficit reduction of $4 billion, and economic growth equalled only by Japan.
I am proud to stand in my place today to offer a hearty congratulation to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) for bringing sanity, common sense, and good management back to our nation's affairs.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in fulfillment of yet another election promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Budget contained a long-awaited announcement with respect to the taxation of northern benefits. All northerners will be pleased with the replacement of year-to-year remission orders by permanent changes to the Income Tax Act which take cognizance of the much higher costs of living in northern and remote areas.
In contrast to former remission orders, which tended to favour a select segment of the population, the new system, devised as a result of widespread consultations, will be as fair and equitable as possible and extend benefits to pensioners, federal employees, the self-employed, and employees of small business, people who had previously been neglected.
On behalf of all Canadians who live in the far reaches of the country might I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for an extremely well received Budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Rent):: Once again this week, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the Government has completely forgotten all about the tourist industry.
February 28, 1986

Instead, I will comment a little bit on what the Budget did for farmers.
As a western Canadian who grew up working on cattle ranches and farms for a good portion of his life, and recognizing the value of agriculture to our country, I know, as do we all, that the farming community is hard-pressed. In your Province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, farmers find themselves in a real crisis situation. The last best estimate that I have seen is that about 50,000 farmers across the country today are in a financial crisis situation. They are simply unable to pay off their debts. What has the Government done? Fundamentally, very little. If you are a farmer who happens to be doing business with the Farm Credit Corporation, and the President of the National Farmers Union said this morning that accounts for about 25 per cent of the troubled farmers, there is a possibility of renegotiating your debts. However, if you are part of the other 75 per cent who happen to be dealing with provincial financial institutions or the chartered banks and others, forget it. The Government of Canada has literally turned its back on you. Well, that is not true. The Government said it will help you get out of farming. It will find ways and means of making it easier for people to leave their farms. I am not certain that is the kind of support the farmers of Canada thought they would get from Mr. Mulroney during the election campaign in 1984.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Point of order, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). I know what she is going to say. The Hon. Member will please refer to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my inconsiderate use of the words "Mr. Mulroney". I was referring to the Prime Minister of Canada, obviously, in his previous role as Leader of the Opposition. When he was campaigning he said: "We are concerned about farmers, we are going to do something to them." I think they thought, rather than "to them", he would help farmers and not help them get out of farming. I do not think that was the kind of help people thought the Prime Minister was promising. However, when you look at all these documents, that is what you find. That is what is in the Budget for farmers.
I listened with interest to the Premier of the Province of Alberta this morning on the radio. He was very angry, upset and disturbed. He was saying there is nothing in this Budget for the Province of Alberta. He was very dismayed at that. I know the news media were trying to find Mr. Filmon of Manitoba to get an idea of what he was thinking. Unfortunately they could not find him in order to find out how the Leader of the Conservative Party in Manitoba reacted to the Budget. However, when the Premier of Alberta stands up and says there is nothing in it for Albertans, just you wait. Next I think it will be the Premier of Saskatchewan, not to mention the Premier of British Columbia.
Again, what is there in this Budget for farmers and ranchers? Very little. What is in it for the jobless of Canada?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Are you kidding? Jobs, jobs, jobs.
Borrowing Authority Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, taxes, taxes, taxes. You have that mixed up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Five hundred and eighty thousand new jobs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We have an initiative, the validity of which some of us question. Nevertheless, let us recognize the initiative by the Government called the Canadian Jobs Strategy. That is the Government's initiative to create jobs, to help business and community and non-profit groups to hire people. But what did this Budget do? It cut it.


Mr. Hudon:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes. The amount of funding in the Canadian Jobs Strategy this year was $900 million. Next year it is going to be $800 million. Using my simple arithmetic that means it has been cut, not totally, but cut in revenue. This is done at a time when there are 1.25 million unemployed people in Canada. The Government's own statistics tell us that this is not going to change much in the next couple of years. We are told that at the moment we have 9.8 per cent unemployment and with any luck it will get down to 9.6 per cent this year. That is hardly what one would think of as an optimistic forecast.
Why did the Government not set targets for the years ahead? Why did it not say, for example, that within two years it wants to move the unemployment rate down to 3 per cent, and in the next two years by another 3 per cent? Why did it not set some goal to shoot for so it could put in place strategies to accomplish that goal? I gather from reading the Budget documents that the Government is saying it knows we have a little more than one million people out of work, about 10 per cent of the labour force, but that is the way it is, that is the price we pay. I do not think that was the kind of initiative the people of Canada were expecting to find in this Budget. What was in the Budget for the unemployed other than cuts?
Something that troubles me greatly as a Parliamentarian from western Canada is that I notice one of the areas which will experience major cuts in the years ahead will be the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Which areas of the country does the Department of Regional Economic Expansion help? Does it do much for downtown Toronto or the city of Ottawa? It was by and large put into place to assist the Atlantic provinces and western and northern Canada, provinces like British Columbia. But the Government is making massive cuts in this Department. That sends to me a very clear message. The Government is saying to the regions of the country: "Forget it. We are abandoning you. We know times are tough but we are going to make them tougher. We are going to cut our support systems back and reduce job creation funds". That is what Government is saying.
I would like to speak about young people. I believe that if there is a disgrace in Canada today it is that so many of our young people are out of work and so many of them cannot afford to go to post-secondary institutions. Too many of our young people are collecting unemployment insurance and wel-

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
fare because there is nothing for them to do. We should declare this a national catastrophe. We should recognize the serious level of youth unemployment as a national crisis. There should have been an extraordinary set of programs put in place to alleviate this situation. But what does one find in the Budget for young people when one pours overe all of these pages? Zilch. There is virtually nothing here which addresses the plight of young people.
1 could be asked why 1 seem to be just concerned about young people. But I am not, 1 am also concerned about the older workers, those people who have reached the age of 55 years or 58 years who have lost their jobs, particularly in those regions where they are going to have difficulty finding employment. What was in the Budget for them? The Government cut programs which helped older workers. The Government removed actually more than 50 per cent of its support for those older workers.
What was in the Budget to assist single mothers and their children? Nothing. You can bet, Mr. Speaker, that the National Council on the Status of Women and all sorts of other groups which represent the interests of women will analyse this Budget word for word to see what the Government has done to enhance the status of women in the workplace in terms of providing equal pay for work of equal value. They will come up with a blank. I have looked through these Budget documents page by page and there is virtually nothing in there which will be of assistance to women and children.
Who did benefit from the Budget? Surely, when there are hundreds of pages in the Budget someone must have benefited. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, who it is. It is very clear. The corporate sector and the upper income earners benefited. The corporate sector will be paying less cumulative taxes next year, and I ask Hon. Members to turn to page 99 if they are in doubt. We find that corporate taxes will go down next year while personal taxes will go up to the tune of $5.5 billion, plus sales tax, and plus gasoline taxes on top of that. Selected segments of the corporate sector were the winners.
What about the wealthy in Canada? What about those people whose incomes are $150,000 to $200,000 a year? They will receive a tax break. Their rates do not go up, they go down. Just to clarify this point, in the last Budget the Government placed a surtax on upper income earners by adding 5 per cent to their tax rate. It comes off at the end of this year and it will be replaced with a 3 per cent increase from that base. We can say then that the wealthiest people in Canada will have their marginal tax rates reduced as a result of this Budget and the ordinary Canadian citizen will have his or her taxes increased by 3 per cent. It is perfectly clear who are the beneficiaries and who are the losers.
I would like to ask a question today, Mr. Speaker. I know my hon. friends in the Conservative Party will be speaking shortly to the Budget. I would like to ask them to tell us, in a sense of fairness, why it was that the Government left unchanged the fact that someone making money on a foreign stock exchange, selling land in a foreign country or selling paintings and jewellery in a foreign country, pays no tax at all
on those captial gains? People selling their yachts down in Barbados, selling their paintings in Honolulu, and those doing business on the Hong Kong stock exchange do not pay any income tax at all. Their income is tax free.


An Hon. Member:: How many?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not know how many but the point is that if there is a single person doing that it is unfair, not how many. The principle is unfair. When people make money on the Hong Kong stock exchange and do not pay any income tax at all on that income, I say that is unfair, unjust and absolutely wrong. The Government is absolutely wrong when it says it is fair in its dealings with the people of Canada. I do hope that Hon. Members opposite will stand up and explain why the Government allows people whose income is from capital gains based in a foreign country to pay no income tax either in that country or in this country? I hope those Hon. Members can explain that to the people of Canada?


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am sure my friend would want to correct something he said. He seemed to be referring to income tax and I am sure he will agree that those people would pay income tax, but if there were any capital gains they would be free of capital gains tax up to $500,000, after which they would pay capital gains tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Well, that is debate. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), clarified that. Yes, if you obtain capital gains from the transactions which gave you income on the Hong Kong stock exchange, that is what would be tax exempt. On the income gained from the income from capital gains on the Hong Kong stock exchange or from selling yachts in Barbados, or paintings in Honolulu, or dealing in jewellery in the Sudan, you would pay tax, but not on the capital gains.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired. If there are no other questions or comments, I will recognize the next speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify the situation, during my presentation a number of my colleagues raised points of order. Does the time which those points of order took to be made come off my time allotment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I gave the Hon. Member at least an additional three or four minutes before we recessed for lunch. I gave him another couple of minutes just now. Thus I have taken note of the situation.
The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) on debate. [Translation]


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-99, an Act to
February 28, 1986

provide borrowing authority. As you know, this year Canadians or rather our public administration will spend $27 billion on servicing the national debt. The cumulative debt is around $230 billion and would be increasing in geometric progression if we had not acted responsibly as a Government and taken radical steps to bring the situation under control. We should realize that during the financial year ending March 31, our national debt increased $34 billion.
This means that during the year starting April 1, 1986, according to the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on Wednesday, we will have to provide for additional monies to pay the interest alone on the additional $34 billion. Every year, this amount would increase even more if we had not been able to propose a number of difficult but sensible measures to Canadians in this Budget. In fact, the national debt would have doubled before the end of our mandate. However, this will not happen, Mr. Speaker, because the team heading this Government is not a bunch of amateurs or a bunch of socialists. Our team knows that Canadians will understand the difficult situation our country is in, and that they are all prepared to make sacrifices so that we can look forward to better days in the not too distant future.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House and of all Canadians to the fact that our Minister of Finance had predicted a deficit of 33.8 billion for 1985-86, and that for the first time in twenty years, these predictions were accurate. This is the first time a Minister of Finance, making his own budgetary projections with his own team, has been proved right. This performance is reassuring for all Canadians and for our economy, because now people realize we have a team that is able to make its predictions come true, and because we are firmly resolved to make the decisions that are necessary to attain our objectives and deliver the goods to Canadians, that is, to give them a renewed and expanding economy.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to give a quick overview of the Budgets of previous Ministers of Finance, to see to what extent they were able to achieve their budgetary goals.
Twenty years ago, in 1966-67 under Mr. Sharp, the Government predicted a Budget surplus of $615 million, and we had a deficit of $188 million, so that Mr. Sharp was out $803 million in his Budget of March 29, 1966.
On June 1 Mr. Mitchell Sharp announced a $288 million deficit for 1967-68, but the real deficit turned out to be $712 million, a difference of $584 million.
On October 22 1968 Mr. Edgar J. Benson forecast a $435 million deficit in his 1968-69 Budget, and it was one of the rare instances when the prediction proved to be just about right.
June 3, 1969, date of the 1969-70 Benson Budget, he called for a $375 million surplus but again fell short by $30 million.
Borrowing Authority Act
On March 12, 1970 Mr. Benson announced a $250 million surplus on his 1970-71 Budget. Result: a $779 million deficit, a difference of $1,029 billion. The billion-dollar merry-go-round began under the socialist Liberals.
On June 18, 1971 Mr. Benson tabled his 1971-72 Budget, and it was the day he chose to introduce his infamous capital gains tax legislation, the one we amended recently. The Budget deficit was to be $650 million, but in fact it amounted to $1,543 billion-again the billion-dollar merry-go-round under the Liberals.
In 1972 the Hon. John Turner, on May 8, tabled the 1972-73 Budget. Now Leader of the Official Opposition, he then forecast a $450 million deficit, but it turned out to be double, nearly triple that amount: $1,676 billion, a gap of $1.2 billion in the forecast of the present Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, it is that Minister of Finance who is now the leader of the few remaining Liberal Members-there are some leaving every day-who is now the Leader of our Official Opposition.
On February 19, 1973, Mr. Turner announced a second Budget for 1973-74. The estimated deficit was to be $975 million. The actual deficit was $2.2 billion, or a difference of 250 per cent. As Leader of the Official Opposition, he is now criticizing us for trifles. At the time, he could not even hit his own targets.
On May 6, 1974, Minister Turner announced his third Budget for 1974-75. The estimated deficit was to be $450 million. The actual deficit was $2,016 billion, a difference or mistake of 400 per cent.
On June 23, 1975, Mr. Turner announced still another Budget for 1975-76 which, fortunately, was to be his last. The estimated deficit was to be $3,175 billion. The actual deficit was $5,749 billion, a difference of $2 billion.
Mr. Turner, as Minister of Finance, disappeared and was replaced by Donald S. Macdonald who, on May 25, 1976, tabled his first Budget for 1976-77. The estimated deficit was to be $5 billion. The actual deficit was $6.3 billion: this skyrocketting increase in the deficit was the result of mismanagement and collective recklessness on the part of Canada's administrators.
The following March 31st, Mr. Macdonald announced the Budget for 1977-78. The estimated deficit was to be $7,160 billion. The actual deficit was $10,445 billion, a difference of $3 billion.
We realize from year to year the carelessness and lack of foresight of the previous Governments. On April 10, 1978, another Minister-and not the least, according to the Liberals-Mr. Jean Chretien, presented his Budget for 1978-79: estimated deficit: $9,250 billion; real deficit: $12,636 billion.

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, neither of these two Liberal bigwigs should have taken part in their recent party leadership race. The Liberal party membership should have checked the records of their two aspiring leaders who had been unable to reach their own targets. The same team could not complete the 1978-79 Budget. However, the actual deficit was consistent with the estimated one.
On October 28, 1980, Mr. Allan MacEachen announced the Budget for 1980-81; estimated deficit: $11,920 billions; actual deficit: $13,529 billion, a difference of $2.5 billion. On November 12, 1981, Mr. MacEachen brought down the 198182 budget with a projected deficit of $13.34 billion. The actual deficit was $14,752 billion. What do all these mistakes show about the competence or the honesty of the team which made up the Government of Canada at the time? On June 28, 1982, Mr. MacEachen announced the budget for 1982-83, with a projected deficit of $19.5 billion. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, as well the Members opposite and all Canadian men and women to listen carefully. Mr. MacEachen had projected in his budget a deficit of $19.5 billion, but 12 months later, he and his team ended up with a $27,689 billion deficit.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Jean-Guy Hudon: It is all their fault!


Gabriel Fontaine: It is shameful, Mr. Speaker! That was the team which led the destinies of Canada, and it made a mistake of $10 billion. Those are the some people who now question our proposals to restore acceptable economic conditions in Canada. Mr. Speaker, these people will certainly be able to continue to sit in isolation on the side of the Opposition for many years.


Fernand Robichaud: Not for long!


Gabriel Fontaine: On April 19, 1983, in the 1983-84 budget announced by Minister Lalonde, the projected deficit for a single year was $31.3 billion; in fact, it amounted to $32,423 billion. On February 15, 1984, Mr. Lalonde announced the 1984-85 budget, fortunately the last budget of the Liberal Government, which was made up of spendthrifts, image salesmen, socialists, unlimited borrowers, out-of-breath legislators and idealists, which budget projected a deficit of $29.6 billion; in fact, the deficit, which was supposed to buy the next elections, amounted to $38,246 billion, Mr. Speaker. The Canadians had enough evidence of this mismanagement. They asked us to reduce the deficit, they asked us to bring back a healthy economy, they sent us here, 211 strong, to put some order in the nation's house.
In the last two years, we have gradually got rid of the previous administration. The Canadian people should understand that, when we give a figure for our deficit in the budget, we are going to deliver and keep to the amount forecast. Our efforts to limit our deficit and promote economic renewal are
reflected by a new distribution of the taxation burden. We thought it very important and significant to provide at least partial exemption of the capital gains tax to encourage Canadian businessmen to get started and to expand.
In Wednesday's Budget we repealed a 12.5 per cent tax on dividends earned from small businesses. That tax had been put introduced by Minister MacEachen. It was in the process of strangling our business developers, because it prevented them from accumulating profits, the only incentive in our human society.
Our inroads to reduce the deficit, Mr. Speaker, are conclusive. This year, the deficit will be reduced to below $30 billion. To get that result, 70 per cent will come from savings in Government spendings and the balance from an increase in Government revenues. Canadian men and women will not lose. Deficit reduction in the first place fosters confidence in the economic community; in the second place it results in a decrease in total money demands, two items that will result in a gradual decrease in interest rates. Each and everyone of us will benefit sooner or later from that interest rate reduction. If we look for instance at average family mortgages in the vicinity of $50,000, a mere 3 per cent interest reduction amounts to a $1,500 saving per family, which means that all Canadians will gain financially, economically and socially from the fiscal measures put forward Wednesday by the Hon. Minister of Finance.
And, indeed, I am not alone in commending this Budget. I noted this morning the following in a Globe and Mail editorial:
Let us acknowledge what the Government has achieved in repairing Ottawa's finances less than two years after its election.
This is a most positive editorial in one of the more credible of Canadian dailies. It reflects satisfaction, confidence, recovery. In the editorial page of today's Le Devoir, Albert Juneau comments on the Wilson Budget, from which he draws the best of positive conclusions, after brushing a somber picture of the Liberal legacy inherited on September 4, 1984.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I conclude on a final quote, this time from Courant published by the Economic Council of Canada. This is a most credible scientific review, prepared by economists whom the previous administration should have been consulting. They should have consulted not just the review but its members, because they had appointed them, they were paying their salaries. But was it viable to listen to the members of the Economic Council of Canada? Was it consistent with the Laprade Fund wasting public money for purposes of Liberal patronage. In this VI-3 journal for 1986, Mr. Speaker, it is said how important it is to amend our tax system especially with respect to various legal means used to avoid taxation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 28, 1986


Gabriel Fontaine: Once again, Mr. Speaker, it would be in the interest of my Liberal colleagues to listen to me instead of making those unintelligible noises that should not be heard in the Parliament of Canada.
The Economic Council of Canada-people hired and paid by the Liberals-mentions that there is considerable confusion at the taxation level. These people are not politicians but experts whom you hired and who have stated that Canadians are too often tempted to invest in fiscally but uneconomically profitable investments. The taxation system of the Liberal Party, and I quote:
-promotes investment in activities providing the highest yields after tax rather than in more productive activities providing the highest yields before tax.
Finance Minister Wilson, with his Budget brought down on Wednesday, has had his first try at improving our taxation system. Mr. Speaker, our economy is in good hands. Only the Opposition is unhappy but for other reasons. During the weekend in Quebec, I hope that they will continue to reflect, while missing some of their former colleagues, on their past mistakes and that they will do so for many decades to come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and God bless them!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Hon. Member. How would he explain that since the Budget was introduced the Canadian dollar has been falling on the money exchange? The reason it has not fallen even further than it has is likely because the Government of Canada-


Mr. Dick:: Likely!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will say, then, the reason it has not fallen further is because the Government of Canada through the central bank has been out in the money markets purchasing literally hundreds of millions of dollars of our own currency, to give the impression that people have faith in it.
Does the Hon. Member believe that a person working in a sawmill or an office and receiving $10,000 per year should pay income tax at the rate of 20 per cent, whereas if that same person obtains $10,000 from selling land in Arizona or speculating on the Hong Kong stock exchange he pays no tax as a result of the capital gains tax exemption? Does he think that is fair?
[ Translation]


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), I should like to point out that Canadians have favourably reacted to our Budget. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business which is somewhat representative of small businesses, the locomotive of small businesses, as well as the major Canadian dailies, the Counseil du patronat du Quebec and
Borrowing Authority Act
other organizations have made some quite constructive comments. The business community speaks very highly of our Budget.
And when you tell us about the effects of some of those taxes in specific cases, I am pleased to reply that you have forgotten to mention that our Budget-and you are giving me the opportunity to do so and I will try to explain it to be understood-which is promoting economic renewal, and giving confidence to the business community, will decrease demand for Government loans and make more funds available to the private sector. More funds being available, interest rates will be reduced. And when money costs less, you and I, and Canadians generally, when we borrow, especially for home mortgages, we are looking at average loans of $50,000, and our mortgage loans will cost us perhaps 3 per cent, perhaps 4 per cent, less a month, and this means $1,500 to $2,000 less, as against the $300 to $400 in taxes that the Budget proposals will perhaps be costing us.
This means each and every Canadian benefits from our Budget proposals. This is what you forgot to figure out. You are always trying to figure out the smaller items you yourselves find objectionable, because of your socialist philosophy. But you can never give the people the actual measure.
This, Mr. Speaker, is my answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for a supplementary.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary question for the Hon. Member. Perhaps he did not understand my question. Why is the dollar falling so drastically? Why is it requiring central bank intervention? Why should people who make capital gains income from speculating on the Hong Kong stock exchange not pay tax on it?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question perfectly, but I do not suggest the Hon. Member understood my answer well. The Budget message is clear. It is a message of renewed confidence in the Canadian people. It is a message sent to the 750,000 small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. We are telling them: "Hire people, now you can keep a larger part of your profits, you can expand". We are putting back the spirit of entrepreneurship that had been chased away by the Liberals in some cases where you were in bed with them, you people of the socialist parties. Therefore our message is clear. It is a message of renewed confidence, with specific items. We will give business people, those who sign paychecks on Thursday night, an opportunity to hire more people. This is how we are going to solve the unemployment problem in Canada.
They will have confidence, they will be interested in developing businesses, they will be allowed to have dividends from their own businesses without being taxed, as it had been

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
proposed and implemented in the MacEachen Budget. This they will be able to do, they will be able to accumulate equity and gain up to $500,000 without the negative effects of taxation.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague about the refreshing figures he has quoted in the House today. I have a question to ask him. He said earlier that a certain Minister of Finance named MacEachen made a mistake of $10 billion, or 33W per cent, in his budget. I would like to ask this: Is that the same man who is now in the Senate and who, last year, refused to give us our borrowing authority pretexting that our request was not serious? Is it the same man who is now so cautious and who objects to the indexing of family allowances at 89 cents a week? This is a man who made a mistake of 33'A per cent. I would not even let him have my family allowance cheque, Mr. Speaker. Is it indeed the same man?


Gabriel Fontaine: According to my information and in view of the socialist philosophy and partisanship of his recent interventions in the Senate, I think that it might indeed be the same man, especially as I seem to recall that his appointment was rather compatible with the series of appointments made by former Prime Minister Trudeau when he left the Canadian Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I draw to the attention of Hon. Members that they should have respect for the other place. We do not discuss our colleagues who have gone to heaven, to the other place or whatever. We must have respect for the other place in this Chamber.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of very straightforward questions for the Hon. Member. First, could he tell the House to what he attributes the drop in the Canadian dollar on the international markets 48 hours after what he claims to be a very solid Budget was brought in? Second, does he think it is fair that those who earn their money by speculating on condominiums, racehorses and other luxuries should be allowed to get away with paying no tax at all on up to $500,000 of capital gains?


Gabriel Fontaine: I thank my colleague for these two questions. I believe that it would be a good idea for the socialist Members to get used to express their thought in theoretical terms and general principles instead of always making judgments on special cases. Otherwise, in 25, 50 or 75 years, they will find themselves still sitting on the side of the Opposition if they cannot show some intellectual discipline and judge issues on the basis of general concepts rather than special cases.
Second, when you ask questions, do not think about the next one you are going to ask. Think about listening and analysing our reply.
I think that this answer is self-explanatory. The rest of the House understands quite well.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure all the people watching the House and listening to the Hon. Member's answers will recognize that he did not answer my questions at all. Indeed, socialists are always accused of dealing with theories, not with specifics. I asked him very specific questions and he refused to answer them. The friends of the Tories operate on the money markets-the wealthy and the big money-bag capitalists. They are the ones who are responsible for the buck dropping. They are the Tories' friends. Why are they doing that to the Government, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. A very short answer to that question and then debate.


Gabriel Fontaine: As I recall, the Hon. Member was here, at least in body, during the question period. The highest authorities at the Department of Finance have already answered this question. The Hon. Member should have listened to the reply. He would now be able to draw his own conclusions and use it to help his constituents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today and comment on the requested borrowing authority of $22.6 billion.
However, I First have a few comments I would like to make with respect to my hon. colleague, the previous speaker, and I am referring to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine). While I was listening to him, Mr. Speaker, and this is no reflection on his performance as a Member of this House, 1 felt that he was like a round peg in a square hole. Perhaps I may explain that the Hon. Member is a darn good skater, and I really think he missed his vocation when he became a Member. He is a very good skater.


Gabriel Fontaine: You're not bad yourself!


Fernand Robichaud: Thanks!
As I was saying, 22.6 billion is a lot of money, and it is money we cannot afford to lose as a result of bad management. I say bad management, and I am referring to the Budget Speech we heard on Wednesday. A reduction of $4 billion was
February 28, 1986

announced in the Budget. Very impressive, you say. It may be impressive to those who won't have to pay for it or people who have yet to realize that this reduction is going to cost the average Canadian. And it is Mr. and Mrs. Average Canadian who are going to bear the brunt of paying for this deficit. But there are also a number of important economic sectors that are going to pay as well. I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the tourist industry which for some strange reason has been affected by this Budget. It is indeed strange and in the case of the Minister of State (Tourism) (Mr. Murta) inexcusable, that this Government keeps hitting, an industry that is regressing from Budget to Budget.
I shall, if I may, go back to November 1984, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) gave us his first economic message where we find several measures that were detrimental to the tourist industry. I am thinking for instance of the decision to stop financing of projects for the tourist industry under the Industrial Regional Development Program. This measure resulted in a loss of $26 million in 1984-85. That was only the beginning.
Then the Government slashed the national parks budget and raised entrance fees by 300 per cent, enough indeed to discourage visitors anxious to see our beautiful national parks.
Next came the CN Marine ferry services with a 15 per cent budget restraint which, sure enough, led to a fare increase.
Another transport company, VIA Rail, ended up with a $93 million budget cut-back. As you would expect, Mr. Speaker, remote areas where such services operate in the red had to cope with still fewer services.
Other similar devastating measures were announced in that same economic statement. The airport tax went up 1 per cent, from 8 to 9 per cent, and there was a 1 per cent sales tax increase on products such as alcohol and gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, all those measures were implemented barely two months after the new Government was sworn in, a Government which was supposed to give very special consideration to the tourist sector, or so we were told. Well, we are still waiting.
As you may have guessed, the second attack against the tourist industry came with the first Budget, on May 23, 1985. We would have thought-and industry representatives were hoping-that the Government would lay off the tourist sector. Not only was the industry unable to catch its breath but for the second time it was run out of breath. We might even say that it is being choked, Mr. Speaker.
Three new measures are announced and there simply will not be any changes. The Conservative Government chooses to undermine the tourist sector by slapping a 2 per cent federal excise tax increase on alcohol, beer and wine.
Borrowing Authority Act
A second measure was aimed once more at spirits and gas through the announcement of a one per cent increase in the sales tax, effective January 1, 1986.
A third measure, not the least, was the excise tax increase of two cents a litre of gas, effective September 3, 1985.
Of course, there was more. In the meantime, on June 21, 1985 the Government decided to remove the ceiling of $30 on the airport federal tax. Therefore, a higher airport tax became payable on all airplane tickets worth more than $333. For instance, on an airplane ticket costing $900, the airport tax is not $30, but $81. So since then, instead of paying his ticket $930, the air traveller pays $981 or $50 more.
And still in the spirit of assistance to the tourism industry, a few days after the removal of the airport tax ceiling was announced and following the uproar caused by the proposed deindexing of old-age security pensions, the Mulroney Government withdrew that proposal and re-established full indexation of pensions, but at the same time, to compensate for those payments, they announced another one-cent hike in the excise tax on gas.
There is therefore no breather for the tourist industry, none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, and this continues as though the series of tax increases had not been enough, which is a clear proof that tourism is the very least concern of this Conservative Government. Unfortunately, this second Wilson Budget is providing again for tax increases. That is terrible, really terrible!
First of all, there is the immediate 4 per cent federal excise tax on alcoholic beverages and 6 per cent on tobacco. Second, the sales taxe is increasing by 1 per cent from 11 to 12 per cent. As for alcohol, the increase means that the tax on alcohol has now reached the 15 per cent level, Mr. Speaker.
So far, I have said nothing of direct taxes. But let us turn now to the other taxes, including the 3 per cent increase in individual income tax which will directly affect the tourist industry.
This money which Canadians could spend travelling will now be used to pay for the Government's deficit. The Government, therefore, is still working against the tourist industry and, everything considered, the last Wilson Budget is truly an attack on the tourist industry.
Since the Fall of 1984, there have been dramatic tax increases which the industry representatives strongly opposed. As a matter of fact, over the past year and a half of this Conservative administration, the tax on gas has increased by 9 per cent, which means an increase of 4.5 cents a litre or, if you prefer, over 20 cents a gallon.
In the regions, these federal tax increases have a serious impact on consumers, more so than elsewhere, because in outlying areas, like the Maritimes, transportation by car or bus

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
is a necessity. Distances are long and the CAA estimates that 50 per cent of Canadians need a car to go to work. The 3 per cent surtax on personal income tax will have a direct impact on families in our area, especially the low and medium income families.
Wednesday, in his Budget, Minister Wilson talked about reducing the deficit by $4 billion but, Mr. Speaker, people quickly realized that they will be paying directly for that reduction, it will be done at the expense of ordinary Canadians and of low and medium income families. It is very unfair and really inexplicable to announced good sounding measures when they are, actually, going to cost an arm and a leg to Canadian consumers.
Not only will the Budget and the Estimates be costly for our people but they do not foresee anything encouraging as far as employment is concerned. Even though the Minister of Finance boasted a reduction in the unemployment rate, that reduction has not been felt in New Brunswick.
I wish they could tell me they created jobs in New Brunswick, and I also wish they could tell me where they created those jobs. But it just is not so. Listen to this: The unemployment rate in New Brunswick increased from 15 to 15.3 per cent last January. As far as employment goes, the Government does not have much to brag about. Especially since the Estimates include a reduction of $100 million in the Job Creation Program, compared with last year. One hundred million dollars less. Mr. Speaker, in my riding, the amounts available were already been cut this year. Last year the Canada Works Programs had $3 million and this has now been cut to $1.5 million, and we now have to share the money among three electoral districts. This is terrible!
As far as young people are concerned, components of the Challenge '86 Program were also cut this year. In New Brunswick, under the component "Summer Employment/ Experience Development", we received or we are about to receive $900,000 less. Almost a million dollars! And the Government says it doesn't matter. And in the same breath, it says it is going to create jobs for young people. They say it takes about $2,000 to create one job. Well, $900,000 means 450 summer jobs less next summer for us. And these cuts come after the Katimavik Program was cut and the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) had told us the money was going to be redeployed in other programs. If that is the way you redeploy this money, if you treat everybody like you treat them in New Brunswick, the young people of this country are not about to resolve their problems.
I am very disappointed that even the Budget failed to mention the very tenuous situation in which young people find themselves today. It contains no proposals for assisting them. There is no reference to them anywhere at all. It is a regrettable oversight that will cost us very dearly in the years to come. The young people, like everybody else in New Brunswick, expected a lot better from this Conservative Government. They hoped that the Government would reconsider its position making early retirees with pensions ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Again, the rule change in the case of early retirees has been viewed as a cheap shot. This was and still is indeed a cheap shot. Nowhere in the new Budget is there a mention of this rule change.
I can go on and talk about what the Government has done for Atlantic fishermen. Again, it has done absolutely nothing for them, except increase their cost burden for the next few years. It is even proposing users' fees. For instance, in its estimates, the funds made available to repair wharfs and dig chanels arount them are clearly inadequate. What is even worse is the Government's recommendation that the cost for the services should be paid by fishermen. They can hardly make ends meet and the Government would like them to incur additional costs. It is a shame!
The fishery industry in New Brunswick is very important, just as it is in any other Atlantic province.-I thank you for signaling that I only have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker.-If you allow me to continue, I should like to mention also that the boats subsidy program has been completely eliminated. The Minister used as an excuse that this program had become obsolete. Mr. Speaker, I should like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to come and explain to the fishermen in my riding that this program had entirely lost its usefulness.
As for regional economic development, the Estimates indicate a reduction of 11 per cent this year. A further drop of some 17 per cent is slated for 1987-88. Combined with the 15 per cent reduction we saw in 1985-86, these cumulative cutbacks mean that this department's budget will be cut by 44 per cent. In fact, the departmental estimates will be cut by $160 million in 1986-87 as compared with last year. And they have the audacity to tell us they want to help the regions, that they are concerned about the regions-
Given that loss for the economic development of our regions, the Government has decided to provide funds for a program called "Atlantic Enterprise".
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have many legends in the Atlantic. There are tales of ghost ships. Each area has its own legend. But here a brand new legend has just been created: a ghost ship for the whole Atlantic region.
Of course, I could not, in the few minutes allocated to me, speak about all the cutbacks provided in these Estimates, about all the ways in which the people of the Atlantic will be affected. But it is clear from all this, Mr. Speaker, that the tax burden is not distributed in an equitable fashion.
February 28, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. However, there is time for questions and comments.


Mr. Grise:: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for West-morland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) suggests that our Government's Budget will affect the tourist industry, an industry that he as well as our Government thinks highly of, and since a good many, if not all, Canadians contribute to the Canadian tourist industry, would he not agree that the creation of
600,000	new jobs in Canada has an important and direct impact on the tourist industry?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I Find it surprising that although we always hear about that creation of jobs-you mentioned 600,000 jobs-whenever I travel to New Brunswick, people ask me: "Well, what's happening with those jobs? We have not seen them yet".
Now, what impact could that have on the tourist industry? It could have a large impact if only those jobs were to materialize. What you decided to do, however-


Richard Grisé: 600,000.


Fernand Robichaud: -and you started in November and went on in May, and you have come up this week with yet another tax increase so that the price of gasoline go up all the time.


Richard Grisé: It went down.


Fernand Robichaud: Last fall, people from the tourist industry were invited to come and meet the Minister of State (Tourism) (Mr. Murta) here in Ottawa. The Minister said that it was part of his consultation process, and that he was expecting suggestions from the industry. Now ... how could that industry be helped?
The first recommendation of that meeting dealt with taxes. And indeed the industry was calling for and is of course more than ever calling for a restructuring of the taxes incurred by that industry. But at no time did anyone listen to them.
They just increased taxes on gasoline and spirits, two items contributing to the perception that Canada is an expensive country to travel to, especially for our southern neighbours. But the industry never got any help, and it is still going to have to survive in spite of the Government.


Mr. Clinch:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) told us about the mismanagement of this Government. The largest item of expenditure is the interest on the public debt which has been fast increasing. The Hon. Member knows about it, and very well too. Interest on the public debt
Borrowing Authority Act
has increased from $3.2 billion in 1974-75 to $22.5 billion in 1984-85. From 1980-81 to 1984-85, interest on the public debt has increased threefold-


An Hon. Member:: How awful!


An Hon. Member:: How terrible!


J. Roger Clinch: -from $6 to $18 billion.


An Hon. Member:: How shocking!


J. Roger Clinch: How can this Member talk about mismanagement when we look at the Figures of the former Government, Mr. Speaker?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I can talk about mismanagement, because nowhere in the estimates can 1 Find any programs for helping the people in the Atlantic Provinces. When we refer to regional development, that tool used to create jobs and assist industries, we only note that funds earmarked for those programs have been reduced and no other mechanism has been provided.
In the case of Fisheries, my colleague from Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) knows quite well that our Fisheries need Government assistance, that they are not self-sufficient because they have to cope with rather difficult conditions . . . Now what do we see? We merely see a reduction of all programs meant to give assistance in that sector and he will agree with me that it is one of the most important sectors in our area.


Mr. Jardine:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague because we are both from the same province and his riding abutts mine. One of the things we share in New Brunswick is the beautiful Kouchibouguac Park. So I was rather, I will not say disturbed so many as deeply surprised that during his presentation he mentioned at least five times the tax on alcohol. It was as though the big attraction in the picture Province of New Brunswick was cheap booze rather than the natural beauty we share through that particular Kouchibnouguac Park. He also said there was nothing in the Budget to help tourism. Therefore, I would ask him to comment on the Atlantic Enterprise Program which has set aside $1 billion to provide funding to the private sector in our province and others in Atlantic Canada. He did not say one word about that.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from the neighbouring constituency of Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine). In the First part of his question, he spoke about the price of alcoholic beverages. Naturally, as 1 have pointed out, the price of alcohol is one of the factors contributing to the perception of Canada as a costly place to visit. When the Americans come here and want to buy something to drink, they find our liquor extremely expensive.

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
As for the second part of his question about Atlantic Enterprise, perhaps he was not listening at the time, but I did refer to the program which was announced and which I described as a ghost-ship. I think that the Hon. Member understand quite well what I mean. In view of the limit set to qualify under this program, you would need a loan in excess of $250,000. Loans are only guaranteed up to 85 per cent. We would have needed a much more extensive program because our region is clearly disadvantaged compared with other regions in Canada.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment in order to correct the record. The cost of servicing the debt in the past 17 months has gone from $19 billion up to $26 billion under the Government. The total national debt, which is the accumulation of debt since Confederation, has jumped from $180 billion 17 months ago when the Government took over to $225 billion. Twenty-three per cent of the total national debt was accumulated by the Government in the last 17 months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to say that questions and comments have now terminated. Debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to comment on this Bill but Bill C-99 seems to have occurred at a very appropriate time. As the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said, it is appropriate that the borrowing Bill is introduced at the same time that the Budget is brought in. This enables us to get the whole picture.
After the Budget came down last Wednesday, I took the Budget home to bed. It was like reading a bedtime Tory. The Budget reads like a fairy story, with its only real substance being the taxes. I wondered what was the ambiance or the environment within which this Budget came down.
The Government consulted for months before the Budget was brought down. It is appropriate that the chairman of the board, a man who knows all about closing corporations, and his right-hand chief accountant are the two chief nabobs in the Government. One was president of a company that is noted for laying off workers, the Iron Ore Company of Canada in Schefferville and the other is a tax accountant. Who did they consult? They heard from Mr. Frazee, who I believe is President of the Royal Bank of Canada. They heard from John Bulloch of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, from Roger Hamel of the National Chamber of Commerce, Thomas D'Aquino of BCNI and from Mr. Mulholland of the Bank of Montreal. They are the ones whom the Government was consulting and they were all friends of the Tories. They all said in one chorus: "You have got to cut the deficit. You have got to bring the deficit down".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Their advice was to target the deficit and bring it down. David Lewis of the New Democratic Party
wrote a book entitled, The Louder Voices. Theirs were the louder voices and the ones to which the Government was listening.
Did the Government target unemployment? The issue of unemployment appears in the last sentence before the conclusion of the Budget. What does the Government say about unemployment?


Mrs. Mailly:: Six hundred thousand jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: The Government targets it to go from 9.6 per cent to 9 per cent over two years. There will still be well over one million people unemployed in this country when one considers the increase in the workforce. I do not know if those Tories opposite saw The Journal last night.


An Hon. Member:: And here.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, and to my left. I cannot imagine a Tory to my left, but there they are. If they saw The Journal last night they would have seen a soul wrenching and shocking documentary. I wonder if the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were able to push away their sirloin steaks and champagne to watch that program last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: They are the only ones who can afford those things these days. If they had watched they would have seen people who in other years would have had no problem finding and holding a job in this country. If they understood the moral sin of unemployment they would have turned their guns on unemployment. Yet they are openly telling Canadians that unemployment will remain at 9 per cent until the end of 1987. Talk about a heritage for our children; 9 per cent unemployment means that there will be well over a million people unemployed.
One can imagine the draw on social programs as a result of that unemployment, the lost productivity and more important, the lost human lives.
Last night on The Journal, one woman who was well qualified but unemployed said that she would rather go to prostitution than go on welfare. We are not talking about a Third World country or the Philippines or Mexico. We are talking about Canada where the Conservative Government brings in a Budget that reaches into the pockets of working men and women and removes billions of dollars and cuts back services without holding any hope or targeting the sin and scurge on the Canadian economic scene.


Claudy Mailly: We went beyond the target you suggested last time.


John R. Rodriguez: I hear voices over there, but you will get your chance to make a speech.
I suggest to Hon. Members opposite that words are not enough, that action must be taken. We have heard about all
February 28, 1986

the blue-blooded Tories who have given them advice. Having taken this advice, the Government takes a meat hook and makes it appear that it is cutting the deficit. The Government believes in a rainbow with a pot of $29.8 billion at the end.
Where are the Government's friends who advised it to cut the deficit below $30 billion? Where are they today? Why are the money markets not responding? It has been 48 hours. The most cynical comment I heard today is what the Minister of Finance said at the breakfast meeting. He said: "We have a strategy to remove the surtax before the next federal election". That is the height of cynicism.
I want to get into some detail now. I said that this Government has reached into the pockets of ordinary working people and removed a large amount of money from them. This is the third 1 per cent increase in federal sales tax and the Government has only been in office for 18 months. We had the Economic Statement in November, the Budget of May 1985 and now we have a third Budget which increases the federal sales tax. I am not talking about the extension of the sales tax. I hope the Government does not bring down another Budget in a hurry because the average Canadian family cannot afford it.
Perhaps the Government has come to a parting of the ways with its friends because every time the Government takes money from the pockets of ordinary Canadians, it reduces the surplus of large corporations. I would like to refer to page 42 of The Fiscal Plan. The Minister of Finance said we should refer to page 42, and when we do so, we find that in fact the Government in 1986-87, with a combination of a surtax and federal sales tax, will be taking $1.1 billion from ordinary taxpayers, but they are only taking $380 million from the corporations. They are taking four times as much from ordinary Canadians. We can now begin to understand the close relationship between Mr. Frazee and Mr. Mulholland and the whole gang of them. They are all birds of a feather. The Conservatives look after their friends. They are not interested in bringing down unemployment.


Mr. Stewart:: How about Stephen Lewis?


John R. Rodriguez: The Government has projected those figures to 1990-91. We see that the gap grows. In fact, the amount of money taken from individuals, and that is the cumulative effect as well, is $2.9 billion. From the corporations it goes down to $295 million. Ten times as much is being taken from working men and women as is being taken from the corporations and, God knows, the corporations are so heavily taxed already. It is a scandal. This Government is a Government of the rich and we saw that in the last Budget. It gave a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption to the rich.


Claudy Mailly: We gave it to the farmers.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member says they gave it to the farmers. Surely, farmers are not in the same category as those who are purchasing race horses in Kentucky, paintings in Europe and speculating on land.
Borrowing Authority Act


Claudy Mailly: Come off it, then.


John R. Rodriguez: Surely, the Government could have closed those loopholes and collected millions of dollars. Last August the Department of Finance tabled a document which showed all of the tax expenditures and tax opportunities which the Government did not collect, and that means billions upon billions of dollars.
Let us go now to the National Accounts, page 99. The Government is bare-faced about what it put into the document. For 1987-88 revenues from individuals will amount to $5.5 billion more than in 1986-87. But for the corporations it goes down. It is $75 million less on a National Accounts basis. On a percentage basis, in 1987-88, they will take 11.2 per cent more from individuals while they will take .6 per cent from corporations. What kind of system is this?


Claudy Mailly: Where do you want all those people to work?


John R. Rodriguez: In a democratic system if the Government is going to maintain the loyalty of citizens, the laws which govern them must be fair and they have to accept the fairness of those particular laws.


Mrs. McDougall:: Don't shout.


John R. Rodriguez: The Minister of State for Finance says not to shout. I know the banks which got bailed out did not have to shout. They needed only to whisper.


Claudy Mailly: It wasn't the banks that were bailed out, it was the depositors, and you know it.


John R. Rodriguez: Those Hon. Members opposite do not like the message.


Claudy Mailly: We don't like lies.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. We don't like it.


Claudy Mailly: We don't like lies.


John R. Rodriguez: I see you have some grey on the top there, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you remember that Tory times are tough times.


Mr. Gauthier:: Right on.


John R. Rodriguez: I had a call from one of my constituents who told me he has already gotten out the Bennett buggy. We have a Government which has brought in a Budget which is the height of unfairness. It does not treat the two major groups who pay taxes equally and fairly. It seems to me that when the Government ran for office in 1984, it talked "jobs, jobs, jobs".


Claudy Mailly: And we created them, and you know it. That is what's bothering you.


John R. Rodriguez: But all the Government has done is "taxed, taxed, taxed". Judith Maxwell, of the Economic Council of Canada, who appeared before the Committee on Finance,

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
stated clearly in the Minutes that for every 1 per cent that unemployment drops, the deficit comes down $2 billion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the bank bail-outs.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member says that that is one bank bail-out-or two banks, but what is $1 billion for a bank these days? This Government did not attack the unemployment problem. It should have targeted unemployment and set up a goal that by 1990 unemployment will be down to 4 per cent. If it had done that and then had worked on the economy, it could have in fact lowered the deficit. No one here blames the Conservatives for causing the deficit. In 1981, the Liberals projected a deficit of some $10.5 billion, but there was a deliberately engineered recession which blew the deficit right up to $24 billion. That was deliberate and we have all the quotes of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, who said: "If you think 6 per cent unemployment is high, just watch me". He said: "It's still possible to scare the hell out of people in this country with higher unemployment rates".


Paul Wyatt Dick: He did not say that.


John R. Rodriguez: We know it was deliberately engineered to fight inflation and whatever else, but having aggravated the deficit, the Government of the day also aggravated unemployment. I would expect that Conservative Members coming in with a new view would surely recognize that the real problem in society, the human problem, is unemployment and that they would have attacked unemployment levels. However, not only did they attack ordinary taxpayers, they proceeded to cut back expenditures in areas which are very important to certain regions of the country. They cut back expenditures in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, which affects areas such as northern Ontario, Atlantic Canada, northern British Columbia and parts of Quebec. Those areas of the country depend on the programs of that particular Department to diversify their economic bases. I know that because my region is involved in that type of process. The cut-backs in health and welfare programs and in transfer payments to the provinces will exacerbate the problems with medicare in our provinces. That means the provinces will have to go to their taxpayers for help, and they are the same taxpayers to which the federal Government goes when it needs help. It seems to me that this double-whammy with which ordinary Canadians are being hit in terms of tax increases and cut-backs in services is not the way to go about the process.
We have tried to give the Government advice, but it has not listened to us. Members of the Government did not attend the Dialogue 86 conference of the CLC at which they could have had some input. They did not ask for input from the working class people, not did they ask for input from members of the NDP. They have not listened to us when we have told them that unemployment has to be brought down and that that should be the focus of the Budget.
We have also told the Government that the tax system has to be overhauled. That is why we set up our Tax Probe 86 and sent an open letter to the Minister of Finance. In that letter we outlined some immediate steps which he could have taken which would have brought him a harvest of money with which to attack his deficit. However, the Government did not listen to us. It did not listen to the working class people. It listened to its friends in the boardrooms of the nation. This is a corporate Government and so it brings down a corporate Budget.
Yesterday, we saw the chickens departing the roost from the world money markets and from the stock exchanges. The monied friends of Government are deserting it. Perhaps we do not know what will happen next; but we do know that they still have to borrow money, which can only exacerbate the deficit.
In the one-half minute I have remaining I would like to say that the Budget as I read it that evening, this fairy-tale which I read, is based on some rather flimsy premises. One is that we will have average interest rates of 9.5 per cent in 1986. Another is that the price of oil will be $22 a barrel. The chances of that happening at this point in time are very slim.


Claudy Mailly: Remember the last time when you were wrong?


John R. Rodriguez: I said that the chances are very slim. The type of smoke and mirrors which we see in this Budget could very well disappear with the morning dew.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is always good for entertainment. We can always laugh and enjoy ourselves when he speaks. However, if people were to pay attention to the half truths, exaggerations and hyperbole which he uses in his speeches then there would be tragic results.
The Hon. Member makes a comparison between how much money is brought into the Treasury as a result of taxes paid by individuals versus taxes paid by corporations. He comes to the conclusion that, because the figure is higher for individuals as opposed to corporations, that is a result of some sort of heartlessness on the part of the Government. He knows very well that if there were no companies there would be no jobs. If there are no jobs then people would not have any money with which to buy food. They would not have any money for housing or for anything else. Why does he keep throwing around this simplistic socialist garbage which says that companies are bad and people are good when it does not work at all that way and he knows it? He is too intelligent a person to keep throwing out this stuff time after time after time.
He also knows full well that when we announced our last Budget his Party was talking in terms of targeting unemployment. In terms of job creation we went well beyond any targets suggested by members of the New Democratic Party. We have created 580,000 jobs since September, 1984. The target with which members of his Party came up was something in the
February 28, 1986

order of 150,000. Why did members of his Party charge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with a target of 150,000 jobs when we have created 580,000 jobs? We did it by giving a break to small business. That is where jobs are created. In fact, 80 per cent of all jobs are created by small business, not by the guys who have horses in Miami and yachts. Jobs are created by hard working people, families, men and women who run small businesses.
As a parting shot, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what his comment is with respect to the fact that under the National Energy Program, which was brought in by the Liberals and which was supported by his Party, any savings as a result of falling oil prices were not passed on to the consumer, while a result of the new energy agreement brought in by our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is that the consumer can take advantage of falling oil prices. Can the Hon. Member tell the House how he can put us in with that bunch which sits to his right? They are the ones who put us in the mess which we are now trying to clear up.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to address the Hon. Member's comment about entertainment. For entertainment I normally read about her relationship with her riding association. That is good entertainment.
[Translation)


Claudy Mailly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House has a Standing Order to the effect that the debate must be relevant. I now have a good riding association, but this gentleman cannot answer my questions and that is why he resorts to this approach, which is quite vulgar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have been here for 18 years and it is sometimes difficult to find anything relevant in some debates.
I am worried that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) may need some protection before four o'clock. I must help him along a bit so I would like to recognize him again. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can hand it out but she cannot take it. If she can't take the heat then she should get out of the kitchen. She's good at handing it out but she can't take it.


Claudy Mailly: Very cheap shot, John.


John R. Rodriguez: We in this Party are not talking about taxing corporations out of existence. In 1982 the Royal Bank made hundreds of millions of dollars and did not pay a cent in income tax. Tellers at the Royal Bank paid more tax than did the bank. At the Bank of Montreal it was the same thing. Bill
Borrowing Authority Act
James, the President of Falconbridge, said to me: "I want to tell you something, John. Falconbridge has not paid a penny of corporate income tax since I became president three years ago. And I don't intend to pay any either". He said to me yesterday: "What good is a surtax to me? A surtax is no good if you don't pay any tax at all".
John Bulloch said that the effective tax rate for large corporations in the country is 16 per cent while it is 19 per cent for small businesses. I wonder what the effective tax rate is for the average working man and woman. We are not talking about squeezing corporations. All we are asking them to do is to pay their fair share of taxes in order to support this fantastic country in which they make all their wealth. That is all we ask of this Government. We asked the same of the Liberals. But because Members opposite belong to the same fat cat clubs, they refuse to do it.
To answer the other question of the Hon. Member, we have not supported any Liberal Budget which was brought in over the last four years. We did not support the National Energy Program. I have just been informed by my colleagues that we did not.
The Hon. Member asks me how I can lump her in with the Liberals over here. I can do so because members of her Party are cut from the same cloth. The two Parties are the Bobbsey Twins of Bay Street, that is what they are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. At this point, I think questions and comments are now terminated.


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Jourdenais:: Put some cool in it.


William Lesick: I will have to put some cool into this debate and put some sense into the words that have been spoken previously. It is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority of only $22,600 million since we have done so well this past year.
I cannot help but comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The Conservatives formed a very good Government that lasted only nine months and it was brought down by the combined efforts of the Liberals and the NDP who went to bed with the Liberals. At that time, the net debt was $84 billion, and after the NDP and Liberals finished with us and the people of Canada, the debt had risen to $191,448 million. That is what our friends in the NDP helped to cause.
It is a pleasure for me to speak, particularly when you are in the chair, Mr. Speaker. We both come from the same fine city and I feel the warmth that emanates from you to every Member in the House including me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Lesick: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has responded to the commitments we made to the Canadian

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
people in 1984. Quite frankly, I am deeply saddened by what 1 have been hearing from the Liberals as well as the NDP. Let us deal with the Liberals. It is important that we should know what happened before. We should know our history and learn from it so that we are wiser today. Our friends in the Opposition never seem to have learned enough.
I am saddened to see the great weakness of the Liberal Party and particularly the recent loss of one Member. If Liberal Members had an ounce of conscience or indeed courage, they would be rising in their places to cheer the Conservatives for taking strong action on the deficit, something which the Liberals have ignored and denied for a decade. It is interesting to see Liberals disregard the growing debt. Frankly, I am not surprised by this. Why should Liberals talk about a debt which they were primarily responsible for creating?
When Mr. Trudeau became Prime Minister in 1968, the debt was $18 billion. When he left us 15 years later, the debt was $190 billion, a fantastic sum of money. That is responsibility? That is governing? That is meant to help the Canadian people? That is meant to provide jobs? Our country went down the tubes, and we are here to rescue the Canadian people.
To understand the present, I suggest again that we must know and understand the past. The Government recognized at the very beginning of its mandate that the financial mess had to be cleaned up. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) campaigned across Canada and I was campaigning in Edmonton East, there was a recognition that the Government had to clean up its act, and we did.
What do Canadians want? First and foremost, Canadians wanted a Government to implement policies which contribute to the creation of a sound environment for a stable and secure future. Why not? Every country want that and we have offered that. That meant putting our financial house in order. In the 17 and a half months we have been in power, that is exactly what we have done. It also meant creating jobs. We recall the Prime Minister, on the hustings, saying that we are going to give Canadian people jobs, jobs, jobs, up to 580,000 jobs. We did it. It also meant lower interest rates, and they dipped. Interest rates rose a little but they will be dropping again. It also meant lower inflation rates and lower and stable prices. We have been instrumental in doing that. We have restored the confidence of not only the Canadian business and labour representatives but as well of the people of all of Canada in how effectively and caringly we can govern.
There has been renewed federalism. We have not pointed our middle finger up in the air and said: "West, goodbye; East, we do not hear you". The Prime Minister said that the most important thing is reconciliation and he went across the country, talked to all the Premiers and asked them to come to Regina, a beautiful, warm city in the summertime. There is peace and harmony in our country, the better to govern, to understand and to get along.
Above all, the Government has reversed the catastrophic fiscal policies of the past. Let us remember past history. What have Liberal Members been talking about for the last year and
a half since we have been in power and what did they do previously? Let me remind the House.
When the Economic Statement of November 1984 was presented, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said that this would mean a loss of up to 200,000 jobs. How wrong he was. During the same time, we created
480.000	jobs. That is a difference of 680,000 jobs, and he was a Minister. If he was wrong about that, was he wrong when he was a Minister? We have to question that. How effective was he?
The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said that the May Budget would fuel and spur inflation, but inflation went down. He too was a Minister and he made those comments. He said that our Budgets are of no value. He was wrong again. If he was wrong about that, how right was he when he was a Minister? When he and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry were Ministers, our country went down the drain with them. This obviously shows the bad and inefficient management there must have been.
There is now a stable inflation rate of 4.4 per cent. What did the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) have to say? He said that there would be a loss of between 50,000 and
100.000	jobs. He is the financial critic for the NDP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about Alberta? Look at Alberta. You know Alberta.


William Lesick: He said that that would happen but the opposite happened. We could ask how credible are the NDP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Andre:: That's not fair.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, it was quite an appropriate and fair comment. I do not think that the Hon. Member was intentionally trying to mislead the House. In fact, being an honourable colleague, 1 am sure he was not. However, he talked about jobs loss, and there was significant job loss in Alberta, British Columbia and other provinces in the intervening months. There was significant job loss in his province as well as my own-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying but that is debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) has the floor.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I stand behind what I have just said.
The former NDP leader in Ontario, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), said that in Quebec there would be a loss of 40,000 jobs. How right was he, a former Leader and now prominent back-bencher for the NDP? He was out by
220.000	jobs. How credible is the Opposition?
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that there would be significant loss of jobs in Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and certain regions of western Canada. What happened was the opposite of that. He is a former Minister and a former Prime Minister and he was wrong.
February 28, 1986

I believe that when the people of Canada listen to opposition Members, they have to realize that there is a credibility gap between what they say and believe and what actually happens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE HULL IN NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 29, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Isabelle that Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada), be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Gauthier (p. 1801).
John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-207, aimed at changing the boundaries of the national capital of our country to conform with the limits of the National Capital Region. Such a step would clearly extend the boundaries beyond the geographic limits of the City of Ottawa to embrace the City of Hull and other cities, town and municipalities in the area immediately surrounding Parliament Hill. While this is a substantial area, it is not unreasonable in a country the size of Canada, and it would include parts of two provinces which in turn reflect the bilingual and bicultural nature of the country.
It is not entirely clear in the Bill just how the area surrounding the Cities of Ottawa and Hull would be defined. However, the present limits of the National Capital Region are specified in the schedule to the National Capital Act, 1958. It is assumed that this area of 1,800 squares miles, or some 4,600 square kilometres more or less, is intended as the basis until such time as Parliament may decide otherwise.
The question of the boundaries of the capital city of Canada has never been in doubt to the extent that Ottawa has been legislated as the national capital since the British North America Act became the constitutional foundation of the country in 1867. However, there has been an ongoing discussion of possible change since 1969, when the Constitutional Conference of Canadian First Ministers, in its conclusions concerning the reform of institutions linked with federalism, agreed to the following:
The cities of Ottawa and Hull and their surrounding areas shall be the Canadian capital area.
Constitution Act, 1867
It continued:
Steps must be taken so that the two official languages and the cultural values common to all Canadians are recognized by all Governments concerned in these two cities and in the capital region in general, so that all Canadians may have a feeling of pride and participation in, and attachment to, their capital.
There have been a number of statements over the years dealing with the emphasis on the national significance of the National Capital Region as a symbol of identity for all Canadians. The more clearly the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada is established, the clearer it will be to establish its national significance for Canadians and for those looking at Canada from elsewhere in the world. Many attempts have been made to find inspiring words to describe the national significance of the capital. Jacques Greber, for example, had the following comment in his 1950 report:
A capital is also a legislative and administrative meeting place for legislators from every constituency in the country. It is important that a capital offer a satisfactory working environment within which the business of Government may be conducted: to the extent that it does not. the results will be a loss of efficiency and morale.
In 1972, the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada made the following statement in its final report:
A country's capital is an essential instrument of national pride. In a federal, bilingual and multicultural country, it must also be an essential instrument of national unity. It must reflect equitably all aspects of the country's character, and each citizen should have a true sense of ownership in the capital of his country regardless of the distance which separates him from the seat of Government.
Statements such as these on the nature and character of Canada's capital, and other similar commentaries, reflect generally on and elaborate further upon the essential functions or building blocks of the capital. The status of our capital is of vital importance to all of us as Canadians, and it is most appropriate to consider for a few minutes its role as a symbol of identity and unity and as a source of pride and inspiration for all Canadians.
A capital is the reflection, the symbol of the whole nation. The capital of Canada, as in all federal states, has special importance-it is the city which, to every Canadian and to all foreigners, must be representative of all 10 confederated provinces without, however, prejudicing the attributes and prerogatives of their respective capitals.
In 1965, in his landmark judgment on the Munrocase which confirmed that the federal Government had the power to plan for the national capital region and to expropriate land for its purposes, Mr. Justice Gibson of the Exchequer Court quoted Greber and concluded as follows:
In the result, therefore, I am of the opinion that the words "national significance" are meaningful and are apt in describing the goal sought to be attained for the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada.
In 1966, in upholding the decision of the Exchequer Court, Mr. Justice Cartwright of the Supreme Court of Canada made the following statement:
I find it difficult to suggest a subject matter of legislation which more clearly goes beyond local or provincial interests and is the concern of Canada as a whole than the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital

February 28, 1986
Constitution Act, 1867
region in accordance with a coherent plan in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance. Adopting the words of the learned trial judge, it is my view that the Act deals with a single matter of national concern.
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in its report on the federal capital recommended that the federal Government should assume a direct role in promoting equal partnership between French-speaking and Englishspeaking Canadians in the capital. The commission also made the following general statement about the significance of capital cities:
A capital is a symbol of the country as a whole. It should express, in the best way possible, the values of the country as a whole, its way of life, its cultural richness and diversity, its social outlook, its aspirations for the future. This symbolism has both an internal and an external dimension. Citizens from across the country who visit their capital should find in it a fuller understanding of their country's traditions and a pride in personal identification with it. Similarly, visitors from other countries should be able just as readily to find tangible expression of the values of a country with which they may be unfamiliar.
The question of a change in boundaries for the national capital raised in the Bill emphasizes that the capital of any country is more than a location for the seat of Government and its primary institutions. It probes the depths of a nation's conscience and provides a national focus for institutional and cultural values and aspirations for the future. It calls into question the best means of enhancing those national institutions and associated symbolic and ceremonial functions, activities and events which are unique to a national seat of Government in its widest sense.
The specific proposal to expand the limits of Canada's capital as recognized in a constitutional sense is a sound one. It expands the narrow geographic boundaries which were quite adequate in 1967 but may not necessarily represent the situation which exists today. It is most appropriate to recognize territory in both Ontario and Quebec within the boundaries of the national capital which in turn recognize the lands of the two founding cultures. To go beyond the city limits of Ottawa and Hull raises questions concerning just how much of the surrounding area should also be included. For this reason, the limits of the National Capital Region, as expressed by Parliament since 1958 through the National Capital Act, are most appropriate if we are to move in this direction.
In making reference to the National Capital Act, I should like to refer to the legislative mandate of the National Capital Commission which operates under the authority of the Act and is required "to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance". The work of the National Capital Commission is recognized and well known to all of us who live in the local area.
It works hard to contribute to and enhance the capital as a national focus for Canada and to provide a truly national dimension to its planning and development. It works to create an inspiring urban and regional setting to instil a sense of pride
and attachment, particularly for visiting Canadians. Also, it works to maintain and improve the economic health and urban and rural vitality of the community.
I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to commend the National Capital Commission for its work on behalf of the people of Canada and, in particular, my friend, the vivacious, idea-oriented and hard working chairlady, Jean Pigott. The National Capital Commission is to be commended for its efforts in enhancing the quality of life and services to visitors within both the urban and rural areas of the National Capital Region. It is only the planning authority that carries out urban and regional planning and development from a federal perspective rather than considering primarily provincial and municipal interests. It is worth reminding the House that the commission is our agent in the planning, development and improvement of what we may call our national capital.
In the final analysis, the question facing the House is whether or not there is a need for a change at this time. I am sure many are in favour of a change to expand the boundaries, while many are opposed. It is an important question for all of us here and for all Canadians, and I am sure it will be resolved.


Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on a Friday afternoon at this hour before a nearly full House and in particular, Sir, when you are in the Chair, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) said a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, in my contribution to the debate on the Bill before the House today, I intend to concentrate on two things: first of all, I would like to put the objective pursued by Bill C-207 into a realistic perspective and I would also like to shed some light on the tremendous and almost insurmountable problems that would result from the premature creation of a National Capital district. The reasoning underlying the Bill certainly contains a number of elements that are not entirely without merit, and these elements may in turn help us produce some valid concepts for developing and expanding a national capital that would be a genuine and proud symbol of this country beyond the year 2000.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that Bill C-207 faces a number of geopolitical and especially historical givens we cannot possibly ignore in the circumstances. I think it would be useful to go back in time so as to understand the constitutional ramifications of this matter.
At the time of Confederation, Mr. Speaker, in 1867, the tensions between Upper and Lower Canada had hardly subsided when Queen Victoria had to designate a city as the capital of her new Dominion. At the time, she had a choice between Montreal, Quebec City of course, Kingston in Ontario-I am very sorry for my colleague from Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) but Valleyfield was not in the running-and the third option was a town that looked much like a construction site at
February 28, 1986

the time, located amid considerable scenic splendours and with a very bright future, and which was called Bytown at the time. Anxious to avoid any rivalry between Kingston and Montreal and between the two language groups, Her Majesty decided to opt for the scenic splendours of the small town with the bright future, and that is how Bytown became Ottawa, the capital of Canada. However wise, the great Queen, Mr. Speaker, did not have a clear, sharp and exact idea of the implications of such a choice. The new capital was on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River, at a stone's throw.


An Hon. Member:: Lapierre.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Not Mr. Lapierre, no. At a stone's throw, Mr. Speaker, facing that other entity, Quebec. For close to a century, Ottawa grew, mainly English-speaking and unilingual. The nation's capital took form and was embellished constantly over the years, but on the other side of the river, Hull and its neighbouring communities derived little benefit from their immediate proximity to the country's core. To all intents and purposes, that part of the Province of Quebec was but a poor relative to its big sister across the river.
If I emphasize those historical data, Mr. Speaker, it is because they are the background of the relationship between the two founding peoples, up to the fifties. I hasten to add, however, and thank God for that, that a marvelous change has occurred since. Canadians of both languages initiated 25 years ago a huge effort of mutual understanding and equal sharing of the national heritage.
This is how, by mutual consent, we came to agree that the Canadian Capital should reflect this country's duality, and that in a nation whose two senior components were Quebec and Ontario, it was normal that Quebec be included in the concept of a National Capital. This is why, as early as 1969, a conference of Canadian Premiers held in Toronto agreed to the concept of a National Capital Region that included all of the Ottawa-Hull area. For that reason also, large-sized federal buildings have sprung up in Hull for some 15 years now and a number of developments made on the Quebec side by the federal Government.
All this is very well, and the present Government has the firm intention of maintaining and even enhancing the capital's development. We intend to respect fully the mandate given the NCC by the National Capital Act, passed in 1958, being, and 1 quote, Mr. Speaker: to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.
But that mandate, Mr. Speaker, which we have seen fulfilled over the years and by the various administrations, is subject to the unescapable constitutional reality. We know what constitutional problems are. Three different Governments are involved: the Government of Canada, of course, the Gov-
Constitution Act, 1867
ernment of Ontario, and, obviously, the Government of Quebec. And not only must constitutional authority and jurisdiction be preserved, but in the fulfilling of its mandate, the National Capital Commission has no absolute authority over the area as such. It must compromise with the rights, prerogatives, privileges and legitimate aspirations of the two regional Governments and 27 municipalities which also exercise their jurisdictions within the area of the National Capital.
It is in this multiple and varied context that we must approach Bill C-207. How could the House dictate its will to so many other authorities without jeopardizing the constitutional make-up, creating new tensions or provoking new confrontations at every level? No, Canadians have witnessed too many differences and confrontations between Ottawa and the provinces over the past two decades without our risking new frictions which could imperil the reconciliation efforts made over the past 16 months! Let us not give up what we have for some fanciful alernative. First, let us consolidate our strength and help our economy recover. After that, Mr. Speaker, we could address the issue of territorial authority over our National Capital. Let us have our priorities straight!
The amendment we are considering today is an old tune close to the heart of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) who serves it to us regularly each year, regular as Old Faithful, together with his project of a federal district more or less copied on the American federal district of Columbia. A similar formula has existed for quite a long time elsewhere, Mr. Speaker. After the United States, there has been the federal Canberra district in Australia. But has the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) ever wondered whether the creation of such federal districts in these two countries had raised linguistic and cultural problems? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not here to answer this question. But has he ever pondered the problems which the creation a federal district would create here in the areas of education, social affairs, justice and urban Government, with 27 municipalities, two regional Governments, and three major Governments, including Ottawa, Ontario, and Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, it is an undeniable fact that, if only on the basis of our linguistic and cultural duality and of the jurisdictions guaranteed to the provinces by the Constitution, Bill C-207 reflects an utopia and even an aberration in this day and age. It would be unthinkable to start such a costly and riskly adventure and one which is even contrary to the characteristics of each of the entities involved in this issue.
Who would give up what and for whose benefit, Mr. Speaker? We are all well aware that, human nature being what it is, each party involved would want to hang on to his vested interests and to protect his own advantage, because, as the saying goes, charity begins at home. Is it logical to expect an authority at whatever level to jeopardize its own identity when.

February 28, 1986
Constitution Act, 1867
in relation with the free trade talks with the United States, concerns are being expressed on all sides about the loss of identity or the loss of such or such a market?
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in dreaming or in improvising, especially when major national decisions are involved, and in this case, I think that we are discussing a project which does not seem to have produced any consensus.
Mr. Speaker, this consensus does not exist among the many parties involved nor among the Canadian population as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, the entire issue of what is and what is not part of the National Capital raises the problem of national symbols. This is therefore a very sensitive issue.
While it is a fact that, in the last 25 years, Canada has acquired symbols to establish its own identity, it should also be noted that these changes did not come by easily. A gesture can acquire a symbolic value only to the extent that those to whom it is addressed view it as legitimate. A symbol is essentially the result of a consensus, Mr. Speaker.
In this context, who could state today that the proposal to amend Section 16 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 finds such a consensus among the population? On the contrary, an overview of possible reactions at the local, provincial and national levels seems to indicate that there are good reasons to justify strong resistance.
On the local level, we are aware of the neighbourly relationships between Hull and Gatineau trying to decide which is the metropolitan centre of Western Quebec.


Claudy Mailly: Gatineau.


Pierre H. Cadieux: 1 did not expect anything else from my colleague, Mr. Speaker, and I would probably agree to some extent. However, Mr. Speaker, this is not what we are discussing today and I do not wish to get involved in regional hassles that might develop between those two cities.
But that is just one example of the problem that would probably crop up.
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine in that context what the debate on the question of the National Capital might look like here in the House, with my colleague possibly putting forward her specific interests, and I could not blame her for doing so!
At the provincial level, who knows how the province of Quebec would react, Mr. Speaker? In the late sixties, when the federal Government kept buying lots here and there, the Quebec Government set up the Dorion Commission to review the whole issue of territorial integrity. There is no indication that the Quebec Government has changed its mind, Mr. Speaker. For all we know, the Communaute regionale de I'Outaouais, which was created following the recommanda-tions of that Commission, is still in existence. Would Ontario itself be willing to give up the whole area of Ottawa, Vanier
and Kanata and neighbouring rural areas for the sake of creating a federal district? I have very strong doubts about that. I am sure in fact that Quebec and Ontario would never be willing to give up a fragment of their municipalities. And supposing they did, what would be the tax status of the people living in that new federal district?
Would the federal Government have to compensate provincial governments for the loss of existing infrastructure? Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, trying to assess the present cost of that infrastructure? and the per capita debt that this new federal district would incur from the provinces and municipalities involved? At the national level, Mr. Speaker, did we consult with all the people and provincial governments of Canada? Do we know how they view such an amendment? I do not believe that we can assess, or even assume that it would be accepted; quite the contrary!
Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress that building a national capital is one thing, but forcing in a premature way a complex patriotic chore and a difficult constitutional challenge upon the people of Canada is another. Canada has just begun recovering from the constitutional upheaval brought about by the previous Government. For goodness sake, let us give it a break.
Victor Hugo wrote that you cannot decree peace more than you can decree sunrise. In a small way, Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of wisdom which could be applied to this debate. History has its own way of doing things, it proceeds with great slowness and man should not force issues, even though he sometimes does by resorting to brutal and useless wars. Everything should be left to happen in its own sweet time.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we will have to study carefully and seriously the tremendous political and economical difficulties that such a project could bring to bear on Canadians. Thus, I feel that it would be reasonable that such a bill- [English]
-be looked at a lot more because, as I just said in the other official language, I do not think this is the time, nor are we in circumstances right now which permit us to enter into such a debate. We have economic concerns which must be dealt with right away. As a matter of fact, the budget debate is presently taking place. After what we heard today and yesterday we know that Canada must be put back on track economically.
I do not think we ought to spend too much time trying to recreate a constitutional debate which has already taken too much time in the House and perhaps contributed to the huge deficit which we inherited because the Government at that time did not ensure that the economy was going well and that jobs were being created. Right now our role is to work on the economy and to create the jobs which Canadians need so badly. Although the Constitution is an interesting topic, we must now put this motion aside because the time is not right for it, notwithstanding the repeated efforts of the Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) to bring this subject forward. It might be a very good idea in theory, but when you put theory
February 28, 1986

into practice you have to live with the consequences. Do we know what kind of consequences we will have economically given the various parties directly interested in this project? As I said before, there are 27 municipalities, two regional Governments and three major Governments involved.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I think, as I already said, that this problem should really be studied and, consequently, I propose that the Bill be withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Justice and Solicitor General Committee.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. As you may know, I am the only Member on the Government side whose riding is located entirely within the boundaries of the City of Ottawa, so I feel obliged to rise in defence of this great city once more. As you may recall, I spoke in debate when this issue was raised the first time, I believe just over a year ago. I do not wish to repeat what I said then but I do want to take a few minutes to outline some of my concerns once more. I trust that you, Mr. Speaker, as a resident of the City of Ottawa since first being elected in 1968, and as a person wise and fortunate enough to marry a girl from a distinguished Ottawa family, will have some interest in what I have to say.
I would first congratulate both my colleagues on their speeches and say that I agree entirely with their remarks. As the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux) stated, Ottawa was chosen by Queen Victoria because it offered many advantages, which it continues to offer today. Its people and its culture were a hybrid of our two founding peoples. It was located on the border of Upper and Lower Canada. It had and still has great natural beauty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I appreciate the very kind words from the Hon. Member, but I must tell him that he did speak on the amendment and therefore it is very difficult for me to recognize him again.


David Bruce Daubney: I stand to be corrected, but I believe I spoke on the main motion and not the amendment. I will take your direction in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that I have Hansard here of Tuesday, January 29, and he spoke on the amendment to Bill C-207. I was looking forward to a great speech and I want to thank the Hon. Member for his very kind words, but I must recognize the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine).


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to carry on from where my hon. friend left off. This Bill addresses the desirability of changing the boundaries of the national capital of Canada to include the City of Hull and any additional area which the Canadian
Constitution Act, 1867
Parliament might designate in future. More specifically, this proposed amendment would authorize Parliament to make the boundary of the nation's capital identical with that of the boundary of the National Capital Region as currently defined in the National Capital Act. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight for my colleagues several thoughts on this matter. I would like to consider an historical perspective to this question which will provide my friends here with a better appreciation of the issue. I trust this will enable us to move forward into the future with a greater understanding of the ramifications of this proposed legislation.
We are all aware of the extraordinary beauty of our capital, both as a city and in its regional environmental context. Herbert Holt, who chaired the 1915 Federal Plan Commission studying the future prospects for the capital, noted the following in his report:
In some respects Ottawa was happily chosen for its role. It lies on the banks of a great and beautiful river, the Ottawa, and has direct communication by water with the mighty St. Lawrence, which discharges the waters of the Great Lakes. Two subsidiary rivers flow into the Ottawa near the site of the capital; the Gatineau, which comes through a picturesque valley from the North, and the Rideau which reaches the Ottawa from the South. Two striking waterfalls, the Chaudiere and the Rideau lie within the borders of Ottawa.
A canal of the dimensions of a river passes through the heart of the city, and is available not merely for commerce but for recreation. Parliament Hill is a high bluff rising 150 feet from the Ottawa River. Looking northward across this river, the observer has in view the Laurentian Mountains stretching away into the distance and still covered, in part, by the primeval forest. London, Paris, and Washington are all great capitals, each of them situated on the banks of a river, but none of them has the natural beauty of Ottawa. Nature, indeed, offers a direct invitation to make this northern capital one of the most beautiful in the world.
Holt goes on to demonstrate a clear concern for the future growth of the capital and the regional context:
-looking to the future growth and development of the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull, and their environs, and particularly providing, for the location, laying out and beautification of parks and connecting boulevards, the location and architectural character of public buildings and adequate and convenient arrangements for traffic and transportation within the area in question.
The person who left the most enduring legacy in the creation of our capital is, of course, Jacques Greber. This noted French architect was called on by Prime Minister Mackenzie King to develop the plan which, by and large, has laid the foundation for our capital and the development of the National Capital Region to date. Greber was very conscious of the mission of a capital city and, as he noted, the capital is a very special place, of special importance, it reflects and must respond to a unique mission which is at once constitutional, national and international. He said:
A capital is the reflection, the symbol of the whole nation.
With this observation he encapsulated the ideas of heritage and the expression of the capital as a manifestation and symbolic representation of the original frontiers of the country; the initial link between the two major cultures which settled our country, and the thought that the capital is the unique representative of the confederated provinces and forms the heart of the nation.
Today, times have changed. The people and Government of Canada have evolved. However, these messages from the past

February 28, 1986
Constitution Act, 1867
still ring true. When one thinks of a national capital, the image goes far beyond that of any other well-designed functioning urban settlement. The words "seat of Government", and "national repository of arts", and "centre of national culture" begin to express these ideas. The capital of any nation is a very special city which symbolizes in one entity the expression of that nation and its people as a whole. Ideally, this is accomplished through its special functions as well as its physical form and make-up which serve as a reflection of the social and cultural diversity and characteristics of the inhabitants of the nation. The capital city is a place to experience many facets of the nation at firsthand, to learn of its history and its future potential. The capital is the place to become truly one with the nation, its Government, people, culture, heritage and, perhaps most important, its future.
In this context my colleagues may recall that in the very recent past we took significant steps to recognize the bilingual and multicultural nature not only of the capital itself but of the region as well. We have witnessed throughout the capital area, for example, the strengthening of the nature and beauty of the capital through physical development of parks, parkways and governmental accommodation. We are witnessing the evolution of a series of cultural activities, ranging from the Canada Day celebrations to heritage festivals and, of course, our special winter festival, focused in the heart of the capital, Winterlude.
All of these efforts which derive from the ideas of the past are bringing together today the foundation on which the capital can securely build its evolution into the years to come.
What of this future? What provides the impetus to move our capital forward into the years to come? I would propose to you that this impetus is found in the definition of an image for the national capital which represents the multitude of beliefs, values, ideologies and aspirations of all the peoples of Canada. At the same time it is consistent with and supportive of the national capital functions, both as a capital and as a thriving urban community. As well as being a reflection of the heritage of the Canadian nation, it must also be an image looking to the short and long term future as an inspiration to all the world to take note of the capital of Canada.
In this context, we must recognize our assets of multicultur-alism, our bilingual nature and the constantly evolving nature of the organization and functioning of the nation's capital, and build on these assets over the years to come.
Earlier I mentioned the natural beauty of the capital and noted the impact it has had on the thoughts of those people of the time who helped shape our present environment. This natural asset was recognized as having very much a regional as well as local aspect. The rivers, Gatineau and the Ottawa, formed a natural crossroads for trade and commerce, linking into the St. Lawrence system. From the high bluffs overlooking this crossroads, one could survey the whole of the Gatineau Hills for great distances both east and west along the Ottawa River. In its time, the crossroads developed into a centre for
the lumbering industry due to the rich forestry resources in the region, the availability of rivers for transport and the growing population developing around the communications node. The river, while physically separating the original Upper and Lower Canada, acted at the same time as a linking element, being the common means of travel and centre of the working environment.
This nucleus of original settlers, traders and lumbermen has now grown to fill some 13 municipalities and 2 provincial regions in the area. While the numbers of people have greatly increased and, with time, the complexity of all aspects of the area has increased, the heritage remains. It is a heritage which will always speak out for the recognition of a multicultural bilingual people in an area of the country of very great natural beauty and drama.
If the cultural and environmental elements which make up our capital region today have not changed that greatly over the years, the complexities of society and government have. We live in an era where the strength and expression of the national capital and Government have grown considerably. To house the functions of Government and to provide for the maintenance and efficient working of this region, a complex system of multi-governmental infrastructures has evolved to supply services to the residents of, and visitors to, the nation's capital. With this growth in the complexity of Government and regional infrastructure, the problems of conveying the common identity and heritage of the capital to the public beyond its limits becomes very cumbersome. The problem becomes one of expressing within the context of past and present the ideas, symbols and aspirations of the very diverse elements which make up the various provinces in the federation-that multitude of elements which binds the provinces together into one unified nation.
As alluded to earlier, we are living in a time of communication and the use of multicultural activities to create a sense of belonging together within the framework of the nation. This direction, or pulling together, is currently manifested in some of our more sophisticated advertising campaigns bringing to the people of Canada a new focus on the heritage and cultural aspects of the capital.
In and around the capital area we are seeing a strong direction being taken to highlight the bilingual and multicultural nature, not just of the immediate region, but of the nation as a whole. Examples of this phenomenon are numerous but several of particular interest come to mind. Clearly, Canada Day is a day for celebrating our common roots and cultural assets. We have seen this celebration expand from Parliament Hill and throughout the National Capital Region to the nation as a whole, all being linked together through an advanced telecommunications network.
In a like manner, we have witnessed the Winterlude Festival grow from an insignificant local effort to one of national and international importance. This project has probably contributed more to the perceived cultural and recreational consolidation of the region and nation than anything, excepting our Canada Day celebrations. It is these types of publicly oriented
February 28, 1986

programs which contribute tremendously to the national and international image of our nation and capital. At the same time they also act on a more local level to bring together the varied regional populations in a consolidated recognition of the role and importance which they play in the ongoing evolution of this capital called Ottawa.
We are left today, with a greater sensitivity to reaching out to the nation and the world to identify the capital of Canada as a special and unique place. We stand at a point in time where this great nation has opened before it a future of much potential, nationally, internationally and locally within the capital region.
The Canadarm is an expression of great national effort. My colleagues are no doubt aware of the growing national and international recognition of this area as a source of high technology research and advancement. If one thinks back to my introductory note that this era began as a communication node at the confluence of the major regional rivers, one might easily foresee that this growing region which cradles the capital will become a new communication centre: one focused on the electronic age of information handling, research and development.
This perspective becomes particularly interesting when one considers that the capital, as the seat of Government, houses our cultural institutions and is generally acknowledged as the centre of diplomatic and related international functions. As the heart of the nation, it is generally felt to be the repository of the nation's history, the place where one goes on pilgrimages to absorb the nation's past and see its evolution into the present. It is also, perhaps most important in Canada's case, the vantage point from which one might hope to catch a glimpse of the elusive construct called the future, a demonstration of testing ground of future ideas and development.
It is only fitting, in the context of these thoughts concerning the evolving nature of the capital, that we turn to the question of the physical boundary of the capital. I have noted that we are now living in a period of complex intergovernmental jurisdictions. These structures are attempting to provide a physical context and service infrastructure for our national capital to highlight its importance as a focus for the Canadian people from coast to coast. As the capital continues to grow and expand in complexity, one must surely bring into question the appropriateness of the originally defined boundary unique to this City of Ottawa. Culturally speaking, one has but to consider the evolution of public activities throughout the region originating in both the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario to understand that the cultural interface is becoming even more interconnected.
In closing these remarks, I will say that these facts provide a very clear indication that this question is not only timely but also important to consider for the future of Canada's capital, our City of Ottawa.
Constitution Act, 1867


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on this Bill-I already spoke on the main motion, but not on this amendment-I would like to point out that during the whole debate, we have seen in the House neither the mover of the motion, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), nor the seconder of the motion, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) that television has long since been invented, that viewers can hear her comments and see Members in the House, but she should know-and she often does this-that comments on the presence or absence of Members are out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not quite hear the Hon. Member but she knows, as an Hon. Member who has been here for the past year or so, that she should not reflect on the presence or absence of Hon. Members in this Chamber. I am sure she realizes that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Of course, she does.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: I was getting bored, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see that my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier came into the House instead of hanging around in the lobby and watching television.
Now then, this Bill is very important. Unfortunately it still contains the shortcomings which were pointed out by my colleagues today and on earlier occasions when it came up for debate.
It does not seem to take into consideration the evolution of the National Capital territory. For instance, it has been suggested that what is considered to be the heart of the capital should be expanded to cover Hull and that perhaps others sectors might be added in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding whose main municipality is called Gatineau. It now has 20,000 more residents than the City of Hull, yet apparently it might be included only in what I would call a rather distant future.
Mr. Speaker, it goes to show that the Bill was drafted to focus attention on the riding of the Member for Hull-Aylmer. It is not likely to change our capital into a centre properly reflecting the bonds which unite all Canadians, as might be expected in a Bill on the matter under consideration today.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, all the funds allocated to the national capital area and all the efforts of the federal govern-

February 28, 1986
Constitution Act, 1867
ment are being contributed by all Canadian taxpayers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to adequately reflect the feeling of pride and belonging, the vision and wishes of all our countrymen.
Thus, if we were to promote this vision which seems to me to be quite narrow, and simply include the City of Hull in the National Capital which is Ottawa, without its outskirts where the actual population really feels that it is already part of the national capital-
If we fail to enlarge our vision, then we would not fulfill the expectations of the Canadian people. I therefore believe that as the National Capital Commission which is responsible for enhancing the buildings, the parks and the life of our national capital, under the Department of Public Works, is currently very seriously addressing the issue, we are in fact considering projects which could truly reflect a true vision of our national capital, we should go beyond this Bill.
Not only that but this plan of Mrs. Jean Pigott, the present chairman of the National Capital Commission, and of the Department of Public Works, whose Minister is Mr. Roch La Salle tells us for instance about administrative sectors of the Government which would be scattered throughout the Capital area, a much larger area which reflects at last what has happened to the National Capital in the last ten years. For instance, in my constituency, there are 17,000 civil servants who work either in Hull or in Ottawa, the main city; in the constituency of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), there are also many civil servants who work in the heart of the capital, some of them may even have the chance to work a little closer to home, in federal Government facilities. We see that this need for administrative sectors to be scattered throughout the National Capital area is really, in its wide vision, an objective to be pursued now. When we consider the legislation introduced by Dr Isabelle, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, we see that it may not have been brought up to date for ... I think it is the sixth year he has brought back this Bill; if he had a look at that enlarged vision of a National Capital which should reflect the aspirations of all the population of that area, I might say of the region
defined as the area of the National Capital Commission, which extends to Buckingham-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is repeating the speech she made on last December 7. She rose on the main motion and now she is speaking on the amendment, that is the motion I moved to refer the whole matter to a committee for consideration. The Hon. Member for Gatineau should know that a speech is made only once in the House, not twice. The one she is making now is a repetition of the one she made on December 7.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my comprehension of the Hon. Member's speech, I find there is a difference. I went through it with the Table Officers, I read the Hon. Member's speech, and I find it to have been relevant, as were her remarks today. They were not quite the same. I think I will allow the Hon. Member to carry on.


Claudy Mailly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My colleague objects and says I am repeating the same speech, but it is not the same speech at all, because we have things to say now we did not have the last time we discussed the matter, in December 1985, I think. Mrs. Pigott now has devised an overall plan for the National Capital territory. So I fail to see why we should refer such a narrow issue that is not relevant to the present situation, which represents a narrow point of view and does not convey a sense of fairness to a committee. When we have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday, at 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT 34-35 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 13, 1986


Jean-Claude Malépart: When this Government and particularly this Prime Minister and this Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) come up with policies to help the rich, the word is: Good show, they are all right! But when the same Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government try to do something for the poor they come up with unfair policies, and the word is zilch! Here is why. Last year this Government decided that $23,500 would be the maximum income under which families would qualify for the child tax credit. This year, in an attempt to dissuade poor families from signing their child tax credit over to discounters, the Government has chosen to prepay part of the child tax credit, but only to families whose income does not exceed $15,000. Mr. Speaker, this Government and this Minister of Finance have just decided that there are two categories of poor families.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Rodney Edward Murphy: In Wednesday night's Budget the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) provided a new income tax regime for many northern residents. 1 had hoped that this tax reduction for northern benefits would help people in remote areas. However, after checking with Revenue Canada officials, I found that what will happen is that many northerners will pay more in taxes.
For example, in the community of Churchill, CMHC is attempting to set the level of a unit up to $1,600 per month, despite the fact that residents in that community and the provincial Government object.
In checking with workers in that community I found that a janitor who works for the federal Government with the Harbours Board could be paid $16,500 a year. A clerk working for the federal Government could earn as little as $15,500 a year. What that means is that under the new regime, people who are going to earn $16,000 or $15,000 in real salaries will be paying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition criticizes the Government's initiative of returning federally-owned or controlled corporate entities to the private sector. It turns a blind eye to all of the studies which confirm that public sector enterprises tend toward inefficiency for there is no absolute necessity for them to compete. If things go sour, they just turn to the Government for more money. Those Opposition Members should talk to their Socialist soul mates in France and Spain. Those Governments have realized that state ownership is inefficient and expensive. France has sold more than 100 state-owned subsidiaries and is in the process of selling more. Spain has returned car, truck, and industrial companies to the private sector, with great success.
I believe that Canadians can run their businesses and companies without having to compete with their own Government.



THE ECONOMY


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced a Budget which confirmed to Canadians that we have stayed on the best course for Canada. This Budget places the deficit firmly on a declining trend, from $33.8 billion this year to $29.8 billion next year, and it will decline still further to $22 billion in 1990-91. With this year's reduction the Minister of Finance was right on target. I challenge any Hon. Member of the House to tell us the last time a Minister of Finance was so accurate with a forecast in deficit reduction.
Jobs, not tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands, some 580,000 jobs, have been created over the past 18 months. The facts speak for themselves. By solving the problems of the past, we are creating a future filled with prosperity and promise for all Canadians.

February 28, 1986



THE BUDGET


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, once again this Government has described a Budget as tough but fair. That is what it said about the last Budget. It sure as hell is tough but it is certainly far away from fair.
If we consider that because of the last Budget, which was introduced in May, a wage earner earning $15,000 paid an accumulative tax increase of some 36 per cent, we can compare that with the person who earned $200,000 and who faced an accumulative tax increase in the same period of only 2 per cent.
Last May Canadians were asking themselves what kind of fairness that Budget and that tax offered the average working Canadian. This week that problem has simply been compounded with the pressure of a new tax burden on middle-class Canadians.
In a year end poll last Christmas by Decima and Mcleans's magazine, a very specific analysis showed that this country is perceived to be between the haves and the have-nots-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.




Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Budget is marked by unfairness and incompetence. Let me just deal with the economic projections given on page 26 of the Minister's own document. The Budget will give us huge increases in corporate profits in 1986 and 1987 while both personal incomes and consumer expenditures decline in growth. Talk about unfairness of results.
What is tragic is that this is a slow growth Budget which shows our economic growth rate declining in 1986 and 1987 while the U.S. growth rate is increasing. What an incompetent development strategy. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) should realize that we cannot take billions of dollars from the pockets of average families and expect dramatic growth. This Budget is a bust. In my economic grading, it deserves an F for failure-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



EMPLOYMENT


Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) demonstrated clearly that this Government is spending better and smarter. Canadians will recall that after both the November economic statement and our May Budget, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), the merchants of gloom and doom predicted hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and a depressed economy.
The same doom and gloom campaign has already begun as we are hearing today, but the people of Canada will not be fooled by their cheap political rhetoric. Look at our record. There have been 580,000 jobs created in just 18 months, a deficit reduction of $4 billion, and economic growth equalled only by Japan.
I am proud to stand in my place today to offer a hearty congratulation to the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) for bringing sanity, common sense, and good management back to our nation's affairs.



INCOME TAX


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, in fulfillment of yet another election promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Budget contained a long-awaited announcement with respect to the taxation of northern benefits. All northerners will be pleased with the replacement of year-to-year remission orders by permanent changes to the Income Tax Act which take cognizance of the much higher costs of living in northern and remote areas.
In contrast to former remission orders, which tended to favour a select segment of the population, the new system, devised as a result of widespread consultations, will be as fair and equitable as possible and extend benefits to pensioners, federal employees, the self-employed, and employees of small business, people who had previously been neglected.
On behalf of all Canadians who live in the far reaches of the country might I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for an extremely well received Budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



THE BUDGET


Fernand Robichaud: Once again this week, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the Government has completely forgotten all about the tourist industry.
February 28, 1986

Instead, I will comment a little bit on what the Budget did for farmers.
As a western Canadian who grew up working on cattle ranches and farms for a good portion of his life, and recognizing the value of agriculture to our country, I know, as do we all, that the farming community is hard-pressed. In your Province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, farmers find themselves in a real crisis situation. The last best estimate that I have seen is that about 50,000 farmers across the country today are in a financial crisis situation. They are simply unable to pay off their debts. What has the Government done? Fundamentally, very little. If you are a farmer who happens to be doing business with the Farm Credit Corporation, and the President of the National Farmers Union said this morning that accounts for about 25 per cent of the troubled farmers, there is a possibility of renegotiating your debts. However, if you are part of the other 75 per cent who happen to be dealing with provincial financial institutions or the chartered banks and others, forget it. The Government of Canada has literally turned its back on you. Well, that is not true. The Government said it will help you get out of farming. It will find ways and means of making it easier for people to leave their farms. I am not certain that is the kind of support the farmers of Canada thought they would get from Mr. Mulroney during the election campaign in 1984.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Point of order, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). I know what she is going to say. The Hon. Member will please refer to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my inconsiderate use of the words "Mr. Mulroney". I was referring to the Prime Minister of Canada, obviously, in his previous role as Leader of the Opposition. When he was campaigning he said: "We are concerned about farmers, we are going to do something to them." I think they thought, rather than "to them", he would help farmers and not help them get out of farming. I do not think that was the kind of help people thought the Prime Minister was promising. However, when you look at all these documents, that is what you find. That is what is in the Budget for farmers.
I listened with interest to the Premier of the Province of Alberta this morning on the radio. He was very angry, upset and disturbed. He was saying there is nothing in this Budget for the Province of Alberta. He was very dismayed at that. I know the news media were trying to find Mr. Filmon of Manitoba to get an idea of what he was thinking. Unfortunately they could not find him in order to find out how the Leader of the Conservative Party in Manitoba reacted to the Budget. However, when the Premier of Alberta stands up and says there is nothing in it for Albertans, just you wait. Next I think it will be the Premier of Saskatchewan, not to mention the Premier of British Columbia.
Again, what is there in this Budget for farmers and ranchers? Very little. What is in it for the jobless of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Are you kidding? Jobs, jobs, jobs.
Borrowing Authority Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, taxes, taxes, taxes. You have that mixed up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Five hundred and eighty thousand new jobs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We have an initiative, the validity of which some of us question. Nevertheless, let us recognize the initiative by the Government called the Canadian Jobs Strategy. That is the Government's initiative to create jobs, to help business and community and non-profit groups to hire people. But what did this Budget do? It cut it.


Jean-Guy Hudon: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes. The amount of funding in the Canadian Jobs Strategy this year was $900 million. Next year it is going to be $800 million. Using my simple arithmetic that means it has been cut, not totally, but cut in revenue. This is done at a time when there are 1.25 million unemployed people in Canada. The Government's own statistics tell us that this is not going to change much in the next couple of years. We are told that at the moment we have 9.8 per cent unemployment and with any luck it will get down to 9.6 per cent this year. That is hardly what one would think of as an optimistic forecast.
Why did the Government not set targets for the years ahead? Why did it not say, for example, that within two years it wants to move the unemployment rate down to 3 per cent, and in the next two years by another 3 per cent? Why did it not set some goal to shoot for so it could put in place strategies to accomplish that goal? I gather from reading the Budget documents that the Government is saying it knows we have a little more than one million people out of work, about 10 per cent of the labour force, but that is the way it is, that is the price we pay. I do not think that was the kind of initiative the people of Canada were expecting to find in this Budget. What was in the Budget for the unemployed other than cuts?
Something that troubles me greatly as a Parliamentarian from western Canada is that I notice one of the areas which will experience major cuts in the years ahead will be the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Which areas of the country does the Department of Regional Economic Expansion help? Does it do much for downtown Toronto or the city of Ottawa? It was by and large put into place to assist the Atlantic provinces and western and northern Canada, provinces like British Columbia. But the Government is making massive cuts in this Department. That sends to me a very clear message. The Government is saying to the regions of the country: "Forget it. We are abandoning you. We know times are tough but we are going to make them tougher. We are going to cut our support systems back and reduce job creation funds". That is what Government is saying.
I would like to speak about young people. I believe that if there is a disgrace in Canada today it is that so many of our young people are out of work and so many of them cannot afford to go to post-secondary institutions. Too many of our young people are collecting unemployment insurance and wel-

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
fare because there is nothing for them to do. We should declare this a national catastrophe. We should recognize the serious level of youth unemployment as a national crisis. There should have been an extraordinary set of programs put in place to alleviate this situation. But what does one find in the Budget for young people when one pours overe all of these pages? Zilch. There is virtually nothing here which addresses the plight of young people.
1 could be asked why 1 seem to be just concerned about young people. But I am not, 1 am also concerned about the older workers, those people who have reached the age of 55 years or 58 years who have lost their jobs, particularly in those regions where they are going to have difficulty finding employment. What was in the Budget for them? The Government cut programs which helped older workers. The Government removed actually more than 50 per cent of its support for those older workers.
What was in the Budget to assist single mothers and their children? Nothing. You can bet, Mr. Speaker, that the National Council on the Status of Women and all sorts of other groups which represent the interests of women will analyse this Budget word for word to see what the Government has done to enhance the status of women in the workplace in terms of providing equal pay for work of equal value. They will come up with a blank. I have looked through these Budget documents page by page and there is virtually nothing in there which will be of assistance to women and children.
Who did benefit from the Budget? Surely, when there are hundreds of pages in the Budget someone must have benefited. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, who it is. It is very clear. The corporate sector and the upper income earners benefited. The corporate sector will be paying less cumulative taxes next year, and I ask Hon. Members to turn to page 99 if they are in doubt. We find that corporate taxes will go down next year while personal taxes will go up to the tune of $5.5 billion, plus sales tax, and plus gasoline taxes on top of that. Selected segments of the corporate sector were the winners.
What about the wealthy in Canada? What about those people whose incomes are $150,000 to $200,000 a year? They will receive a tax break. Their rates do not go up, they go down. Just to clarify this point, in the last Budget the Government placed a surtax on upper income earners by adding 5 per cent to their tax rate. It comes off at the end of this year and it will be replaced with a 3 per cent increase from that base. We can say then that the wealthiest people in Canada will have their marginal tax rates reduced as a result of this Budget and the ordinary Canadian citizen will have his or her taxes increased by 3 per cent. It is perfectly clear who are the beneficiaries and who are the losers.
I would like to ask a question today, Mr. Speaker. I know my hon. friends in the Conservative Party will be speaking shortly to the Budget. I would like to ask them to tell us, in a sense of fairness, why it was that the Government left unchanged the fact that someone making money on a foreign stock exchange, selling land in a foreign country or selling paintings and jewellery in a foreign country, pays no tax at all
on those captial gains? People selling their yachts down in Barbados, selling their paintings in Honolulu, and those doing business on the Hong Kong stock exchange do not pay any income tax at all. Their income is tax free.


An Hon. Member:: How many?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not know how many but the point is that if there is a single person doing that it is unfair, not how many. The principle is unfair. When people make money on the Hong Kong stock exchange and do not pay any income tax at all on that income, I say that is unfair, unjust and absolutely wrong. The Government is absolutely wrong when it says it is fair in its dealings with the people of Canada. I do hope that Hon. Members opposite will stand up and explain why the Government allows people whose income is from capital gains based in a foreign country to pay no income tax either in that country or in this country? I hope those Hon. Members can explain that to the people of Canada?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am sure my friend would want to correct something he said. He seemed to be referring to income tax and I am sure he will agree that those people would pay income tax, but if there were any capital gains they would be free of capital gains tax up to $500,000, after which they would pay capital gains tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Well, that is debate. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), clarified that. Yes, if you obtain capital gains from the transactions which gave you income on the Hong Kong stock exchange, that is what would be tax exempt. On the income gained from the income from capital gains on the Hong Kong stock exchange or from selling yachts in Barbados, or paintings in Honolulu, or dealing in jewellery in the Sudan, you would pay tax, but not on the capital gains.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired. If there are no other questions or comments, I will recognize the next speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify the situation, during my presentation a number of my colleagues raised points of order. Does the time which those points of order took to be made come off my time allotment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I gave the Hon. Member at least an additional three or four minutes before we recessed for lunch. I gave him another couple of minutes just now. Thus I have taken note of the situation.
The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) on debate. [Translation]


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-99, an Act to
February 28, 1986

provide borrowing authority. As you know, this year Canadians or rather our public administration will spend $27 billion on servicing the national debt. The cumulative debt is around $230 billion and would be increasing in geometric progression if we had not acted responsibly as a Government and taken radical steps to bring the situation under control. We should realize that during the financial year ending March 31, our national debt increased $34 billion.
This means that during the year starting April 1, 1986, according to the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on Wednesday, we will have to provide for additional monies to pay the interest alone on the additional $34 billion. Every year, this amount would increase even more if we had not been able to propose a number of difficult but sensible measures to Canadians in this Budget. In fact, the national debt would have doubled before the end of our mandate. However, this will not happen, Mr. Speaker, because the team heading this Government is not a bunch of amateurs or a bunch of socialists. Our team knows that Canadians will understand the difficult situation our country is in, and that they are all prepared to make sacrifices so that we can look forward to better days in the not too distant future.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House and of all Canadians to the fact that our Minister of Finance had predicted a deficit of 33.8 billion for 1985-86, and that for the first time in twenty years, these predictions were accurate. This is the first time a Minister of Finance, making his own budgetary projections with his own team, has been proved right. This performance is reassuring for all Canadians and for our economy, because now people realize we have a team that is able to make its predictions come true, and because we are firmly resolved to make the decisions that are necessary to attain our objectives and deliver the goods to Canadians, that is, to give them a renewed and expanding economy.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to give a quick overview of the Budgets of previous Ministers of Finance, to see to what extent they were able to achieve their budgetary goals.
Twenty years ago, in 1966-67 under Mr. Sharp, the Government predicted a Budget surplus of $615 million, and we had a deficit of $188 million, so that Mr. Sharp was out $803 million in his Budget of March 29, 1966.
On June 1 Mr. Mitchell Sharp announced a $288 million deficit for 1967-68, but the real deficit turned out to be $712 million, a difference of $584 million.
On October 22 1968 Mr. Edgar J. Benson forecast a $435 million deficit in his 1968-69 Budget, and it was one of the rare instances when the prediction proved to be just about right.
June 3, 1969, date of the 1969-70 Benson Budget, he called for a $375 million surplus but again fell short by $30 million.
Borrowing Authority Act
On March 12, 1970 Mr. Benson announced a $250 million surplus on his 1970-71 Budget. Result: a $779 million deficit, a difference of $1,029 billion. The billion-dollar merry-go-round began under the socialist Liberals.
On June 18, 1971 Mr. Benson tabled his 1971-72 Budget, and it was the day he chose to introduce his infamous capital gains tax legislation, the one we amended recently. The Budget deficit was to be $650 million, but in fact it amounted to $1,543 billion-again the billion-dollar merry-go-round under the Liberals.
In 1972 the Hon. John Turner, on May 8, tabled the 1972-73 Budget. Now Leader of the Official Opposition, he then forecast a $450 million deficit, but it turned out to be double, nearly triple that amount: $1,676 billion, a gap of $1.2 billion in the forecast of the present Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, it is that Minister of Finance who is now the leader of the few remaining Liberal Members-there are some leaving every day-who is now the Leader of our Official Opposition.
On February 19, 1973, Mr. Turner announced a second Budget for 1973-74. The estimated deficit was to be $975 million. The actual deficit was $2.2 billion, or a difference of 250 per cent. As Leader of the Official Opposition, he is now criticizing us for trifles. At the time, he could not even hit his own targets.
On May 6, 1974, Minister Turner announced his third Budget for 1974-75. The estimated deficit was to be $450 million. The actual deficit was $2,016 billion, a difference or mistake of 400 per cent.
On June 23, 1975, Mr. Turner announced still another Budget for 1975-76 which, fortunately, was to be his last. The estimated deficit was to be $3,175 billion. The actual deficit was $5,749 billion, a difference of $2 billion.
Mr. Turner, as Minister of Finance, disappeared and was replaced by Donald S. Macdonald who, on May 25, 1976, tabled his first Budget for 1976-77. The estimated deficit was to be $5 billion. The actual deficit was $6.3 billion: this skyrocketting increase in the deficit was the result of mismanagement and collective recklessness on the part of Canada's administrators.
The following March 31st, Mr. Macdonald announced the Budget for 1977-78. The estimated deficit was to be $7,160 billion. The actual deficit was $10,445 billion, a difference of $3 billion.
We realize from year to year the carelessness and lack of foresight of the previous Governments. On April 10, 1978, another Minister-and not the least, according to the Liberals-Mr. Jean Chretien, presented his Budget for 1978-79: estimated deficit: $9,250 billion; real deficit: $12,636 billion.

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, neither of these two Liberal bigwigs should have taken part in their recent party leadership race. The Liberal party membership should have checked the records of their two aspiring leaders who had been unable to reach their own targets. The same team could not complete the 1978-79 Budget. However, the actual deficit was consistent with the estimated one.
On October 28, 1980, Mr. Allan MacEachen announced the Budget for 1980-81; estimated deficit: $11,920 billions; actual deficit: $13,529 billion, a difference of $2.5 billion. On November 12, 1981, Mr. MacEachen brought down the 198182 budget with a projected deficit of $13.34 billion. The actual deficit was $14,752 billion. What do all these mistakes show about the competence or the honesty of the team which made up the Government of Canada at the time? On June 28, 1982, Mr. MacEachen announced the budget for 1982-83, with a projected deficit of $19.5 billion. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, as well the Members opposite and all Canadian men and women to listen carefully. Mr. MacEachen had projected in his budget a deficit of $19.5 billion, but 12 months later, he and his team ended up with a $27,689 billion deficit.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Jean-Guy Hudon: It is all their fault!


Gabriel Fontaine: It is shameful, Mr. Speaker! That was the team which led the destinies of Canada, and it made a mistake of $10 billion. Those are the some people who now question our proposals to restore acceptable economic conditions in Canada. Mr. Speaker, these people will certainly be able to continue to sit in isolation on the side of the Opposition for many years.


Fernand Robichaud: Not for long!


Gabriel Fontaine: On April 19, 1983, in the 1983-84 budget announced by Minister Lalonde, the projected deficit for a single year was $31.3 billion; in fact, it amounted to $32,423 billion. On February 15, 1984, Mr. Lalonde announced the 1984-85 budget, fortunately the last budget of the Liberal Government, which was made up of spendthrifts, image salesmen, socialists, unlimited borrowers, out-of-breath legislators and idealists, which budget projected a deficit of $29.6 billion; in fact, the deficit, which was supposed to buy the next elections, amounted to $38,246 billion, Mr. Speaker. The Canadians had enough evidence of this mismanagement. They asked us to reduce the deficit, they asked us to bring back a healthy economy, they sent us here, 211 strong, to put some order in the nation's house.
In the last two years, we have gradually got rid of the previous administration. The Canadian people should understand that, when we give a figure for our deficit in the budget, we are going to deliver and keep to the amount forecast. Our efforts to limit our deficit and promote economic renewal are
reflected by a new distribution of the taxation burden. We thought it very important and significant to provide at least partial exemption of the capital gains tax to encourage Canadian businessmen to get started and to expand.
In Wednesday's Budget we repealed a 12.5 per cent tax on dividends earned from small businesses. That tax had been put introduced by Minister MacEachen. It was in the process of strangling our business developers, because it prevented them from accumulating profits, the only incentive in our human society.
Our inroads to reduce the deficit, Mr. Speaker, are conclusive. This year, the deficit will be reduced to below $30 billion. To get that result, 70 per cent will come from savings in Government spendings and the balance from an increase in Government revenues. Canadian men and women will not lose. Deficit reduction in the first place fosters confidence in the economic community; in the second place it results in a decrease in total money demands, two items that will result in a gradual decrease in interest rates. Each and everyone of us will benefit sooner or later from that interest rate reduction. If we look for instance at average family mortgages in the vicinity of $50,000, a mere 3 per cent interest reduction amounts to a $1,500 saving per family, which means that all Canadians will gain financially, economically and socially from the fiscal measures put forward Wednesday by the Hon. Minister of Finance.
And, indeed, I am not alone in commending this Budget. I noted this morning the following in a Globe and Mail editorial:
Let us acknowledge what the Government has achieved in repairing Ottawa's finances less than two years after its election.
This is a most positive editorial in one of the more credible of Canadian dailies. It reflects satisfaction, confidence, recovery. In the editorial page of today's Le Devoir, Albert Juneau comments on the Wilson Budget, from which he draws the best of positive conclusions, after brushing a somber picture of the Liberal legacy inherited on September 4, 1984.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I conclude on a final quote, this time from Courant published by the Economic Council of Canada. This is a most credible scientific review, prepared by economists whom the previous administration should have been consulting. They should have consulted not just the review but its members, because they had appointed them, they were paying their salaries. But was it viable to listen to the members of the Economic Council of Canada? Was it consistent with the Laprade Fund wasting public money for purposes of Liberal patronage. In this VI-3 journal for 1986, Mr. Speaker, it is said how important it is to amend our tax system especially with respect to various legal means used to avoid taxation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 28, 1986


Gabriel Fontaine: Once again, Mr. Speaker, it would be in the interest of my Liberal colleagues to listen to me instead of making those unintelligible noises that should not be heard in the Parliament of Canada.
The Economic Council of Canada-people hired and paid by the Liberals-mentions that there is considerable confusion at the taxation level. These people are not politicians but experts whom you hired and who have stated that Canadians are too often tempted to invest in fiscally but uneconomically profitable investments. The taxation system of the Liberal Party, and I quote:
-promotes investment in activities providing the highest yields after tax rather than in more productive activities providing the highest yields before tax.
Finance Minister Wilson, with his Budget brought down on Wednesday, has had his first try at improving our taxation system. Mr. Speaker, our economy is in good hands. Only the Opposition is unhappy but for other reasons. During the weekend in Quebec, I hope that they will continue to reflect, while missing some of their former colleagues, on their past mistakes and that they will do so for many decades to come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and God bless them!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Hon. Member. How would he explain that since the Budget was introduced the Canadian dollar has been falling on the money exchange? The reason it has not fallen even further than it has is likely because the Government of Canada-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Likely!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will say, then, the reason it has not fallen further is because the Government of Canada through the central bank has been out in the money markets purchasing literally hundreds of millions of dollars of our own currency, to give the impression that people have faith in it.
Does the Hon. Member believe that a person working in a sawmill or an office and receiving $10,000 per year should pay income tax at the rate of 20 per cent, whereas if that same person obtains $10,000 from selling land in Arizona or speculating on the Hong Kong stock exchange he pays no tax as a result of the capital gains tax exemption? Does he think that is fair?
[ Translation]


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), I should like to point out that Canadians have favourably reacted to our Budget. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business which is somewhat representative of small businesses, the locomotive of small businesses, as well as the major Canadian dailies, the Counseil du patronat du Quebec and
Borrowing Authority Act
other organizations have made some quite constructive comments. The business community speaks very highly of our Budget.
And when you tell us about the effects of some of those taxes in specific cases, I am pleased to reply that you have forgotten to mention that our Budget-and you are giving me the opportunity to do so and I will try to explain it to be understood-which is promoting economic renewal, and giving confidence to the business community, will decrease demand for Government loans and make more funds available to the private sector. More funds being available, interest rates will be reduced. And when money costs less, you and I, and Canadians generally, when we borrow, especially for home mortgages, we are looking at average loans of $50,000, and our mortgage loans will cost us perhaps 3 per cent, perhaps 4 per cent, less a month, and this means $1,500 to $2,000 less, as against the $300 to $400 in taxes that the Budget proposals will perhaps be costing us.
This means each and every Canadian benefits from our Budget proposals. This is what you forgot to figure out. You are always trying to figure out the smaller items you yourselves find objectionable, because of your socialist philosophy. But you can never give the people the actual measure.
This, Mr. Speaker, is my answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for a supplementary.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short supplementary question for the Hon. Member. Perhaps he did not understand my question. Why is the dollar falling so drastically? Why is it requiring central bank intervention? Why should people who make capital gains income from speculating on the Hong Kong stock exchange not pay tax on it?


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question perfectly, but I do not suggest the Hon. Member understood my answer well. The Budget message is clear. It is a message of renewed confidence in the Canadian people. It is a message sent to the 750,000 small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. We are telling them: "Hire people, now you can keep a larger part of your profits, you can expand". We are putting back the spirit of entrepreneurship that had been chased away by the Liberals in some cases where you were in bed with them, you people of the socialist parties. Therefore our message is clear. It is a message of renewed confidence, with specific items. We will give business people, those who sign paychecks on Thursday night, an opportunity to hire more people. This is how we are going to solve the unemployment problem in Canada.
They will have confidence, they will be interested in developing businesses, they will be allowed to have dividends from their own businesses without being taxed, as it had been

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
proposed and implemented in the MacEachen Budget. This they will be able to do, they will be able to accumulate equity and gain up to $500,000 without the negative effects of taxation.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague about the refreshing figures he has quoted in the House today. I have a question to ask him. He said earlier that a certain Minister of Finance named MacEachen made a mistake of $10 billion, or 33W per cent, in his budget. I would like to ask this: Is that the same man who is now in the Senate and who, last year, refused to give us our borrowing authority pretexting that our request was not serious? Is it the same man who is now so cautious and who objects to the indexing of family allowances at 89 cents a week? This is a man who made a mistake of 33'A per cent. I would not even let him have my family allowance cheque, Mr. Speaker. Is it indeed the same man?


Gabriel Fontaine: According to my information and in view of the socialist philosophy and partisanship of his recent interventions in the Senate, I think that it might indeed be the same man, especially as I seem to recall that his appointment was rather compatible with the series of appointments made by former Prime Minister Trudeau when he left the Canadian Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I draw to the attention of Hon. Members that they should have respect for the other place. We do not discuss our colleagues who have gone to heaven, to the other place or whatever. We must have respect for the other place in this Chamber.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of very straightforward questions for the Hon. Member. First, could he tell the House to what he attributes the drop in the Canadian dollar on the international markets 48 hours after what he claims to be a very solid Budget was brought in? Second, does he think it is fair that those who earn their money by speculating on condominiums, racehorses and other luxuries should be allowed to get away with paying no tax at all on up to $500,000 of capital gains?


Gabriel Fontaine: I thank my colleague for these two questions. I believe that it would be a good idea for the socialist Members to get used to express their thought in theoretical terms and general principles instead of always making judgments on special cases. Otherwise, in 25, 50 or 75 years, they will find themselves still sitting on the side of the Opposition if they cannot show some intellectual discipline and judge issues on the basis of general concepts rather than special cases.
Second, when you ask questions, do not think about the next one you are going to ask. Think about listening and analysing our reply.
I think that this answer is self-explanatory. The rest of the House understands quite well.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure all the people watching the House and listening to the Hon. Member's answers will recognize that he did not answer my questions at all. Indeed, socialists are always accused of dealing with theories, not with specifics. I asked him very specific questions and he refused to answer them. The friends of the Tories operate on the money markets-the wealthy and the big money-bag capitalists. They are the ones who are responsible for the buck dropping. They are the Tories' friends. Why are they doing that to the Government, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. A very short answer to that question and then debate.


Gabriel Fontaine: As I recall, the Hon. Member was here, at least in body, during the question period. The highest authorities at the Department of Finance have already answered this question. The Hon. Member should have listened to the reply. He would now be able to draw his own conclusions and use it to help his constituents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today and comment on the requested borrowing authority of $22.6 billion.
However, I First have a few comments I would like to make with respect to my hon. colleague, the previous speaker, and I am referring to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine). While I was listening to him, Mr. Speaker, and this is no reflection on his performance as a Member of this House, 1 felt that he was like a round peg in a square hole. Perhaps I may explain that the Hon. Member is a darn good skater, and I really think he missed his vocation when he became a Member. He is a very good skater.


Gabriel Fontaine: You're not bad yourself!


Fernand Robichaud: Thanks!
As I was saying, 22.6 billion is a lot of money, and it is money we cannot afford to lose as a result of bad management. I say bad management, and I am referring to the Budget Speech we heard on Wednesday. A reduction of $4 billion was
February 28, 1986

announced in the Budget. Very impressive, you say. It may be impressive to those who won't have to pay for it or people who have yet to realize that this reduction is going to cost the average Canadian. And it is Mr. and Mrs. Average Canadian who are going to bear the brunt of paying for this deficit. But there are also a number of important economic sectors that are going to pay as well. I am referring, Mr. Speaker, to the tourist industry which for some strange reason has been affected by this Budget. It is indeed strange and in the case of the Minister of State (Tourism) (Mr. Murta) inexcusable, that this Government keeps hitting, an industry that is regressing from Budget to Budget.
I shall, if I may, go back to November 1984, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) gave us his first economic message where we find several measures that were detrimental to the tourist industry. I am thinking for instance of the decision to stop financing of projects for the tourist industry under the Industrial Regional Development Program. This measure resulted in a loss of $26 million in 1984-85. That was only the beginning.
Then the Government slashed the national parks budget and raised entrance fees by 300 per cent, enough indeed to discourage visitors anxious to see our beautiful national parks.
Next came the CN Marine ferry services with a 15 per cent budget restraint which, sure enough, led to a fare increase.
Another transport company, VIA Rail, ended up with a $93 million budget cut-back. As you would expect, Mr. Speaker, remote areas where such services operate in the red had to cope with still fewer services.
Other similar devastating measures were announced in that same economic statement. The airport tax went up 1 per cent, from 8 to 9 per cent, and there was a 1 per cent sales tax increase on products such as alcohol and gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, all those measures were implemented barely two months after the new Government was sworn in, a Government which was supposed to give very special consideration to the tourist sector, or so we were told. Well, we are still waiting.
As you may have guessed, the second attack against the tourist industry came with the first Budget, on May 23, 1985. We would have thought-and industry representatives were hoping-that the Government would lay off the tourist sector. Not only was the industry unable to catch its breath but for the second time it was run out of breath. We might even say that it is being choked, Mr. Speaker.
Three new measures are announced and there simply will not be any changes. The Conservative Government chooses to undermine the tourist sector by slapping a 2 per cent federal excise tax increase on alcohol, beer and wine.
Borrowing Authority Act
A second measure was aimed once more at spirits and gas through the announcement of a one per cent increase in the sales tax, effective January 1, 1986.
A third measure, not the least, was the excise tax increase of two cents a litre of gas, effective September 3, 1985.
Of course, there was more. In the meantime, on June 21, 1985 the Government decided to remove the ceiling of $30 on the airport federal tax. Therefore, a higher airport tax became payable on all airplane tickets worth more than $333. For instance, on an airplane ticket costing $900, the airport tax is not $30, but $81. So since then, instead of paying his ticket $930, the air traveller pays $981 or $50 more.
And still in the spirit of assistance to the tourism industry, a few days after the removal of the airport tax ceiling was announced and following the uproar caused by the proposed deindexing of old-age security pensions, the Mulroney Government withdrew that proposal and re-established full indexation of pensions, but at the same time, to compensate for those payments, they announced another one-cent hike in the excise tax on gas.
There is therefore no breather for the tourist industry, none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, and this continues as though the series of tax increases had not been enough, which is a clear proof that tourism is the very least concern of this Conservative Government. Unfortunately, this second Wilson Budget is providing again for tax increases. That is terrible, really terrible!
First of all, there is the immediate 4 per cent federal excise tax on alcoholic beverages and 6 per cent on tobacco. Second, the sales taxe is increasing by 1 per cent from 11 to 12 per cent. As for alcohol, the increase means that the tax on alcohol has now reached the 15 per cent level, Mr. Speaker.
So far, I have said nothing of direct taxes. But let us turn now to the other taxes, including the 3 per cent increase in individual income tax which will directly affect the tourist industry.
This money which Canadians could spend travelling will now be used to pay for the Government's deficit. The Government, therefore, is still working against the tourist industry and, everything considered, the last Wilson Budget is truly an attack on the tourist industry.
Since the Fall of 1984, there have been dramatic tax increases which the industry representatives strongly opposed. As a matter of fact, over the past year and a half of this Conservative administration, the tax on gas has increased by 9 per cent, which means an increase of 4.5 cents a litre or, if you prefer, over 20 cents a gallon.
In the regions, these federal tax increases have a serious impact on consumers, more so than elsewhere, because in outlying areas, like the Maritimes, transportation by car or bus

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
is a necessity. Distances are long and the CAA estimates that 50 per cent of Canadians need a car to go to work. The 3 per cent surtax on personal income tax will have a direct impact on families in our area, especially the low and medium income families.
Wednesday, in his Budget, Minister Wilson talked about reducing the deficit by $4 billion but, Mr. Speaker, people quickly realized that they will be paying directly for that reduction, it will be done at the expense of ordinary Canadians and of low and medium income families. It is very unfair and really inexplicable to announced good sounding measures when they are, actually, going to cost an arm and a leg to Canadian consumers.
Not only will the Budget and the Estimates be costly for our people but they do not foresee anything encouraging as far as employment is concerned. Even though the Minister of Finance boasted a reduction in the unemployment rate, that reduction has not been felt in New Brunswick.
I wish they could tell me they created jobs in New Brunswick, and I also wish they could tell me where they created those jobs. But it just is not so. Listen to this: The unemployment rate in New Brunswick increased from 15 to 15.3 per cent last January. As far as employment goes, the Government does not have much to brag about. Especially since the Estimates include a reduction of $100 million in the Job Creation Program, compared with last year. One hundred million dollars less. Mr. Speaker, in my riding, the amounts available were already been cut this year. Last year the Canada Works Programs had $3 million and this has now been cut to $1.5 million, and we now have to share the money among three electoral districts. This is terrible!
As far as young people are concerned, components of the Challenge '86 Program were also cut this year. In New Brunswick, under the component "Summer Employment/ Experience Development", we received or we are about to receive $900,000 less. Almost a million dollars! And the Government says it doesn't matter. And in the same breath, it says it is going to create jobs for young people. They say it takes about $2,000 to create one job. Well, $900,000 means 450 summer jobs less next summer for us. And these cuts come after the Katimavik Program was cut and the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) had told us the money was going to be redeployed in other programs. If that is the way you redeploy this money, if you treat everybody like you treat them in New Brunswick, the young people of this country are not about to resolve their problems.
I am very disappointed that even the Budget failed to mention the very tenuous situation in which young people find themselves today. It contains no proposals for assisting them. There is no reference to them anywhere at all. It is a regrettable oversight that will cost us very dearly in the years to come. The young people, like everybody else in New Brunswick, expected a lot better from this Conservative Government. They hoped that the Government would reconsider its position making early retirees with pensions ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Again, the rule change in the case of early retirees has been viewed as a cheap shot. This was and still is indeed a cheap shot. Nowhere in the new Budget is there a mention of this rule change.
I can go on and talk about what the Government has done for Atlantic fishermen. Again, it has done absolutely nothing for them, except increase their cost burden for the next few years. It is even proposing users' fees. For instance, in its estimates, the funds made available to repair wharfs and dig chanels arount them are clearly inadequate. What is even worse is the Government's recommendation that the cost for the services should be paid by fishermen. They can hardly make ends meet and the Government would like them to incur additional costs. It is a shame!
The fishery industry in New Brunswick is very important, just as it is in any other Atlantic province.-I thank you for signaling that I only have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker.-If you allow me to continue, I should like to mention also that the boats subsidy program has been completely eliminated. The Minister used as an excuse that this program had become obsolete. Mr. Speaker, I should like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to come and explain to the fishermen in my riding that this program had entirely lost its usefulness.
As for regional economic development, the Estimates indicate a reduction of 11 per cent this year. A further drop of some 17 per cent is slated for 1987-88. Combined with the 15 per cent reduction we saw in 1985-86, these cumulative cutbacks mean that this department's budget will be cut by 44 per cent. In fact, the departmental estimates will be cut by $160 million in 1986-87 as compared with last year. And they have the audacity to tell us they want to help the regions, that they are concerned about the regions-
Given that loss for the economic development of our regions, the Government has decided to provide funds for a program called "Atlantic Enterprise".
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have many legends in the Atlantic. There are tales of ghost ships. Each area has its own legend. But here a brand new legend has just been created: a ghost ship for the whole Atlantic region.
Of course, I could not, in the few minutes allocated to me, speak about all the cutbacks provided in these Estimates, about all the ways in which the people of the Atlantic will be affected. But it is clear from all this, Mr. Speaker, that the tax burden is not distributed in an equitable fashion.
February 28, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. However, there is time for questions and comments.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for West-morland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) suggests that our Government's Budget will affect the tourist industry, an industry that he as well as our Government thinks highly of, and since a good many, if not all, Canadians contribute to the Canadian tourist industry, would he not agree that the creation of
600,000	new jobs in Canada has an important and direct impact on the tourist industry?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I Find it surprising that although we always hear about that creation of jobs-you mentioned 600,000 jobs-whenever I travel to New Brunswick, people ask me: "Well, what's happening with those jobs? We have not seen them yet".
Now, what impact could that have on the tourist industry? It could have a large impact if only those jobs were to materialize. What you decided to do, however-


Richard Grisé: 600,000.


Fernand Robichaud: -and you started in November and went on in May, and you have come up this week with yet another tax increase so that the price of gasoline go up all the time.


Richard Grisé: It went down.


Fernand Robichaud: Last fall, people from the tourist industry were invited to come and meet the Minister of State (Tourism) (Mr. Murta) here in Ottawa. The Minister said that it was part of his consultation process, and that he was expecting suggestions from the industry. Now ... how could that industry be helped?
The first recommendation of that meeting dealt with taxes. And indeed the industry was calling for and is of course more than ever calling for a restructuring of the taxes incurred by that industry. But at no time did anyone listen to them.
They just increased taxes on gasoline and spirits, two items contributing to the perception that Canada is an expensive country to travel to, especially for our southern neighbours. But the industry never got any help, and it is still going to have to survive in spite of the Government.


J. Roger Clinch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) told us about the mismanagement of this Government. The largest item of expenditure is the interest on the public debt which has been fast increasing. The Hon. Member knows about it, and very well too. Interest on the public debt
Borrowing Authority Act
has increased from $3.2 billion in 1974-75 to $22.5 billion in 1984-85. From 1980-81 to 1984-85, interest on the public debt has increased threefold-


An Hon. Member:: How awful!


An Hon. Member:: How terrible!


J. Roger Clinch: -from $6 to $18 billion.


An Hon. Member:: How shocking!


J. Roger Clinch: How can this Member talk about mismanagement when we look at the Figures of the former Government, Mr. Speaker?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I can talk about mismanagement, because nowhere in the estimates can 1 Find any programs for helping the people in the Atlantic Provinces. When we refer to regional development, that tool used to create jobs and assist industries, we only note that funds earmarked for those programs have been reduced and no other mechanism has been provided.
In the case of Fisheries, my colleague from Gloucester (Mr. Clinch) knows quite well that our Fisheries need Government assistance, that they are not self-sufficient because they have to cope with rather difficult conditions . . . Now what do we see? We merely see a reduction of all programs meant to give assistance in that sector and he will agree with me that it is one of the most important sectors in our area.


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague because we are both from the same province and his riding abutts mine. One of the things we share in New Brunswick is the beautiful Kouchibouguac Park. So I was rather, I will not say disturbed so many as deeply surprised that during his presentation he mentioned at least five times the tax on alcohol. It was as though the big attraction in the picture Province of New Brunswick was cheap booze rather than the natural beauty we share through that particular Kouchibnouguac Park. He also said there was nothing in the Budget to help tourism. Therefore, I would ask him to comment on the Atlantic Enterprise Program which has set aside $1 billion to provide funding to the private sector in our province and others in Atlantic Canada. He did not say one word about that.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from the neighbouring constituency of Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine). In the First part of his question, he spoke about the price of alcoholic beverages. Naturally, as 1 have pointed out, the price of alcohol is one of the factors contributing to the perception of Canada as a costly place to visit. When the Americans come here and want to buy something to drink, they find our liquor extremely expensive.

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
As for the second part of his question about Atlantic Enterprise, perhaps he was not listening at the time, but I did refer to the program which was announced and which I described as a ghost-ship. I think that the Hon. Member understand quite well what I mean. In view of the limit set to qualify under this program, you would need a loan in excess of $250,000. Loans are only guaranteed up to 85 per cent. We would have needed a much more extensive program because our region is clearly disadvantaged compared with other regions in Canada.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment in order to correct the record. The cost of servicing the debt in the past 17 months has gone from $19 billion up to $26 billion under the Government. The total national debt, which is the accumulation of debt since Confederation, has jumped from $180 billion 17 months ago when the Government took over to $225 billion. Twenty-three per cent of the total national debt was accumulated by the Government in the last 17 months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to say that questions and comments have now terminated. Debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to comment on this Bill but Bill C-99 seems to have occurred at a very appropriate time. As the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said, it is appropriate that the borrowing Bill is introduced at the same time that the Budget is brought in. This enables us to get the whole picture.
After the Budget came down last Wednesday, I took the Budget home to bed. It was like reading a bedtime Tory. The Budget reads like a fairy story, with its only real substance being the taxes. I wondered what was the ambiance or the environment within which this Budget came down.
The Government consulted for months before the Budget was brought down. It is appropriate that the chairman of the board, a man who knows all about closing corporations, and his right-hand chief accountant are the two chief nabobs in the Government. One was president of a company that is noted for laying off workers, the Iron Ore Company of Canada in Schefferville and the other is a tax accountant. Who did they consult? They heard from Mr. Frazee, who I believe is President of the Royal Bank of Canada. They heard from John Bulloch of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, from Roger Hamel of the National Chamber of Commerce, Thomas D'Aquino of BCNI and from Mr. Mulholland of the Bank of Montreal. They are the ones whom the Government was consulting and they were all friends of the Tories. They all said in one chorus: "You have got to cut the deficit. You have got to bring the deficit down".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Their advice was to target the deficit and bring it down. David Lewis of the New Democratic Party
wrote a book entitled, The Louder Voices. Theirs were the louder voices and the ones to which the Government was listening.
Did the Government target unemployment? The issue of unemployment appears in the last sentence before the conclusion of the Budget. What does the Government say about unemployment?


Claudy Mailly: Six hundred thousand jobs.


John R. Rodriguez: The Government targets it to go from 9.6 per cent to 9 per cent over two years. There will still be well over one million people unemployed in this country when one considers the increase in the workforce. I do not know if those Tories opposite saw The Journal last night.


An Hon. Member:: And here.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, and to my left. I cannot imagine a Tory to my left, but there they are. If they saw The Journal last night they would have seen a soul wrenching and shocking documentary. I wonder if the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were able to push away their sirloin steaks and champagne to watch that program last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: They are the only ones who can afford those things these days. If they had watched they would have seen people who in other years would have had no problem finding and holding a job in this country. If they understood the moral sin of unemployment they would have turned their guns on unemployment. Yet they are openly telling Canadians that unemployment will remain at 9 per cent until the end of 1987. Talk about a heritage for our children; 9 per cent unemployment means that there will be well over a million people unemployed.
One can imagine the draw on social programs as a result of that unemployment, the lost productivity and more important, the lost human lives.
Last night on The Journal, one woman who was well qualified but unemployed said that she would rather go to prostitution than go on welfare. We are not talking about a Third World country or the Philippines or Mexico. We are talking about Canada where the Conservative Government brings in a Budget that reaches into the pockets of working men and women and removes billions of dollars and cuts back services without holding any hope or targeting the sin and scurge on the Canadian economic scene.


Claudy Mailly: We went beyond the target you suggested last time.


John R. Rodriguez: I hear voices over there, but you will get your chance to make a speech.
I suggest to Hon. Members opposite that words are not enough, that action must be taken. We have heard about all
February 28, 1986

the blue-blooded Tories who have given them advice. Having taken this advice, the Government takes a meat hook and makes it appear that it is cutting the deficit. The Government believes in a rainbow with a pot of $29.8 billion at the end.
Where are the Government's friends who advised it to cut the deficit below $30 billion? Where are they today? Why are the money markets not responding? It has been 48 hours. The most cynical comment I heard today is what the Minister of Finance said at the breakfast meeting. He said: "We have a strategy to remove the surtax before the next federal election". That is the height of cynicism.
I want to get into some detail now. I said that this Government has reached into the pockets of ordinary working people and removed a large amount of money from them. This is the third 1 per cent increase in federal sales tax and the Government has only been in office for 18 months. We had the Economic Statement in November, the Budget of May 1985 and now we have a third Budget which increases the federal sales tax. I am not talking about the extension of the sales tax. I hope the Government does not bring down another Budget in a hurry because the average Canadian family cannot afford it.
Perhaps the Government has come to a parting of the ways with its friends because every time the Government takes money from the pockets of ordinary Canadians, it reduces the surplus of large corporations. I would like to refer to page 42 of The Fiscal Plan. The Minister of Finance said we should refer to page 42, and when we do so, we find that in fact the Government in 1986-87, with a combination of a surtax and federal sales tax, will be taking $1.1 billion from ordinary taxpayers, but they are only taking $380 million from the corporations. They are taking four times as much from ordinary Canadians. We can now begin to understand the close relationship between Mr. Frazee and Mr. Mulholland and the whole gang of them. They are all birds of a feather. The Conservatives look after their friends. They are not interested in bringing down unemployment.


John B. Stewart: How about Stephen Lewis?


John R. Rodriguez: The Government has projected those figures to 1990-91. We see that the gap grows. In fact, the amount of money taken from individuals, and that is the cumulative effect as well, is $2.9 billion. From the corporations it goes down to $295 million. Ten times as much is being taken from working men and women as is being taken from the corporations and, God knows, the corporations are so heavily taxed already. It is a scandal. This Government is a Government of the rich and we saw that in the last Budget. It gave a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption to the rich.


Claudy Mailly: We gave it to the farmers.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member says they gave it to the farmers. Surely, farmers are not in the same category as those who are purchasing race horses in Kentucky, paintings in Europe and speculating on land.
Borrowing Authority Act


Claudy Mailly: Come off it, then.


John R. Rodriguez: Surely, the Government could have closed those loopholes and collected millions of dollars. Last August the Department of Finance tabled a document which showed all of the tax expenditures and tax opportunities which the Government did not collect, and that means billions upon billions of dollars.
Let us go now to the National Accounts, page 99. The Government is bare-faced about what it put into the document. For 1987-88 revenues from individuals will amount to $5.5 billion more than in 1986-87. But for the corporations it goes down. It is $75 million less on a National Accounts basis. On a percentage basis, in 1987-88, they will take 11.2 per cent more from individuals while they will take .6 per cent from corporations. What kind of system is this?


Claudy Mailly: Where do you want all those people to work?


John R. Rodriguez: In a democratic system if the Government is going to maintain the loyalty of citizens, the laws which govern them must be fair and they have to accept the fairness of those particular laws.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Don't shout.


John R. Rodriguez: The Minister of State for Finance says not to shout. I know the banks which got bailed out did not have to shout. They needed only to whisper.


Claudy Mailly: It wasn't the banks that were bailed out, it was the depositors, and you know it.


John R. Rodriguez: Those Hon. Members opposite do not like the message.


Claudy Mailly: We don't like lies.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. We don't like it.


Claudy Mailly: We don't like lies.


John R. Rodriguez: I see you have some grey on the top there, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you remember that Tory times are tough times.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Right on.


John R. Rodriguez: I had a call from one of my constituents who told me he has already gotten out the Bennett buggy. We have a Government which has brought in a Budget which is the height of unfairness. It does not treat the two major groups who pay taxes equally and fairly. It seems to me that when the Government ran for office in 1984, it talked "jobs, jobs, jobs".


Claudy Mailly: And we created them, and you know it. That is what's bothering you.


John R. Rodriguez: But all the Government has done is "taxed, taxed, taxed". Judith Maxwell, of the Economic Council of Canada, who appeared before the Committee on Finance,

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
stated clearly in the Minutes that for every 1 per cent that unemployment drops, the deficit comes down $2 billion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the bank bail-outs.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member says that that is one bank bail-out-or two banks, but what is $1 billion for a bank these days? This Government did not attack the unemployment problem. It should have targeted unemployment and set up a goal that by 1990 unemployment will be down to 4 per cent. If it had done that and then had worked on the economy, it could have in fact lowered the deficit. No one here blames the Conservatives for causing the deficit. In 1981, the Liberals projected a deficit of some $10.5 billion, but there was a deliberately engineered recession which blew the deficit right up to $24 billion. That was deliberate and we have all the quotes of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, who said: "If you think 6 per cent unemployment is high, just watch me". He said: "It's still possible to scare the hell out of people in this country with higher unemployment rates".


Paul Wyatt Dick: He did not say that.


John R. Rodriguez: We know it was deliberately engineered to fight inflation and whatever else, but having aggravated the deficit, the Government of the day also aggravated unemployment. I would expect that Conservative Members coming in with a new view would surely recognize that the real problem in society, the human problem, is unemployment and that they would have attacked unemployment levels. However, not only did they attack ordinary taxpayers, they proceeded to cut back expenditures in areas which are very important to certain regions of the country. They cut back expenditures in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, which affects areas such as northern Ontario, Atlantic Canada, northern British Columbia and parts of Quebec. Those areas of the country depend on the programs of that particular Department to diversify their economic bases. I know that because my region is involved in that type of process. The cut-backs in health and welfare programs and in transfer payments to the provinces will exacerbate the problems with medicare in our provinces. That means the provinces will have to go to their taxpayers for help, and they are the same taxpayers to which the federal Government goes when it needs help. It seems to me that this double-whammy with which ordinary Canadians are being hit in terms of tax increases and cut-backs in services is not the way to go about the process.
We have tried to give the Government advice, but it has not listened to us. Members of the Government did not attend the Dialogue 86 conference of the CLC at which they could have had some input. They did not ask for input from the working class people, not did they ask for input from members of the NDP. They have not listened to us when we have told them that unemployment has to be brought down and that that should be the focus of the Budget.
We have also told the Government that the tax system has to be overhauled. That is why we set up our Tax Probe 86 and sent an open letter to the Minister of Finance. In that letter we outlined some immediate steps which he could have taken which would have brought him a harvest of money with which to attack his deficit. However, the Government did not listen to us. It did not listen to the working class people. It listened to its friends in the boardrooms of the nation. This is a corporate Government and so it brings down a corporate Budget.
Yesterday, we saw the chickens departing the roost from the world money markets and from the stock exchanges. The monied friends of Government are deserting it. Perhaps we do not know what will happen next; but we do know that they still have to borrow money, which can only exacerbate the deficit.
In the one-half minute I have remaining I would like to say that the Budget as I read it that evening, this fairy-tale which I read, is based on some rather flimsy premises. One is that we will have average interest rates of 9.5 per cent in 1986. Another is that the price of oil will be $22 a barrel. The chances of that happening at this point in time are very slim.


Claudy Mailly: Remember the last time when you were wrong?


John R. Rodriguez: I said that the chances are very slim. The type of smoke and mirrors which we see in this Budget could very well disappear with the morning dew.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly).


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is always good for entertainment. We can always laugh and enjoy ourselves when he speaks. However, if people were to pay attention to the half truths, exaggerations and hyperbole which he uses in his speeches then there would be tragic results.
The Hon. Member makes a comparison between how much money is brought into the Treasury as a result of taxes paid by individuals versus taxes paid by corporations. He comes to the conclusion that, because the figure is higher for individuals as opposed to corporations, that is a result of some sort of heartlessness on the part of the Government. He knows very well that if there were no companies there would be no jobs. If there are no jobs then people would not have any money with which to buy food. They would not have any money for housing or for anything else. Why does he keep throwing around this simplistic socialist garbage which says that companies are bad and people are good when it does not work at all that way and he knows it? He is too intelligent a person to keep throwing out this stuff time after time after time.
He also knows full well that when we announced our last Budget his Party was talking in terms of targeting unemployment. In terms of job creation we went well beyond any targets suggested by members of the New Democratic Party. We have created 580,000 jobs since September, 1984. The target with which members of his Party came up was something in the
February 28, 1986

order of 150,000. Why did members of his Party charge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) with a target of 150,000 jobs when we have created 580,000 jobs? We did it by giving a break to small business. That is where jobs are created. In fact, 80 per cent of all jobs are created by small business, not by the guys who have horses in Miami and yachts. Jobs are created by hard working people, families, men and women who run small businesses.
As a parting shot, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what his comment is with respect to the fact that under the National Energy Program, which was brought in by the Liberals and which was supported by his Party, any savings as a result of falling oil prices were not passed on to the consumer, while a result of the new energy agreement brought in by our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is that the consumer can take advantage of falling oil prices. Can the Hon. Member tell the House how he can put us in with that bunch which sits to his right? They are the ones who put us in the mess which we are now trying to clear up.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to address the Hon. Member's comment about entertainment. For entertainment I normally read about her relationship with her riding association. That is good entertainment.
[Translation)


Claudy Mailly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House has a Standing Order to the effect that the debate must be relevant. I now have a good riding association, but this gentleman cannot answer my questions and that is why he resorts to this approach, which is quite vulgar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have been here for 18 years and it is sometimes difficult to find anything relevant in some debates.
I am worried that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) may need some protection before four o'clock. I must help him along a bit so I would like to recognize him again. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can hand it out but she cannot take it. If she can't take the heat then she should get out of the kitchen. She's good at handing it out but she can't take it.


Claudy Mailly: Very cheap shot, John.


John R. Rodriguez: We in this Party are not talking about taxing corporations out of existence. In 1982 the Royal Bank made hundreds of millions of dollars and did not pay a cent in income tax. Tellers at the Royal Bank paid more tax than did the bank. At the Bank of Montreal it was the same thing. Bill
Borrowing Authority Act
James, the President of Falconbridge, said to me: "I want to tell you something, John. Falconbridge has not paid a penny of corporate income tax since I became president three years ago. And I don't intend to pay any either". He said to me yesterday: "What good is a surtax to me? A surtax is no good if you don't pay any tax at all".
John Bulloch said that the effective tax rate for large corporations in the country is 16 per cent while it is 19 per cent for small businesses. I wonder what the effective tax rate is for the average working man and woman. We are not talking about squeezing corporations. All we are asking them to do is to pay their fair share of taxes in order to support this fantastic country in which they make all their wealth. That is all we ask of this Government. We asked the same of the Liberals. But because Members opposite belong to the same fat cat clubs, they refuse to do it.
To answer the other question of the Hon. Member, we have not supported any Liberal Budget which was brought in over the last four years. We did not support the National Energy Program. I have just been informed by my colleagues that we did not.
The Hon. Member asks me how I can lump her in with the Liberals over here. I can do so because members of her Party are cut from the same cloth. The two Parties are the Bobbsey Twins of Bay Street, that is what they are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. At this point, I think questions and comments are now terminated.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker-


Fernand Jourdenais: Put some cool in it.


William Lesick: I will have to put some cool into this debate and put some sense into the words that have been spoken previously. It is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority of only $22,600 million since we have done so well this past year.
I cannot help but comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The Conservatives formed a very good Government that lasted only nine months and it was brought down by the combined efforts of the Liberals and the NDP who went to bed with the Liberals. At that time, the net debt was $84 billion, and after the NDP and Liberals finished with us and the people of Canada, the debt had risen to $191,448 million. That is what our friends in the NDP helped to cause.
It is a pleasure for me to speak, particularly when you are in the chair, Mr. Speaker. We both come from the same fine city and I feel the warmth that emanates from you to every Member in the House including me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Lesick: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has responded to the commitments we made to the Canadian

February 28, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
people in 1984. Quite frankly, I am deeply saddened by what 1 have been hearing from the Liberals as well as the NDP. Let us deal with the Liberals. It is important that we should know what happened before. We should know our history and learn from it so that we are wiser today. Our friends in the Opposition never seem to have learned enough.
I am saddened to see the great weakness of the Liberal Party and particularly the recent loss of one Member. If Liberal Members had an ounce of conscience or indeed courage, they would be rising in their places to cheer the Conservatives for taking strong action on the deficit, something which the Liberals have ignored and denied for a decade. It is interesting to see Liberals disregard the growing debt. Frankly, I am not surprised by this. Why should Liberals talk about a debt which they were primarily responsible for creating?
When Mr. Trudeau became Prime Minister in 1968, the debt was $18 billion. When he left us 15 years later, the debt was $190 billion, a fantastic sum of money. That is responsibility? That is governing? That is meant to help the Canadian people? That is meant to provide jobs? Our country went down the tubes, and we are here to rescue the Canadian people.
To understand the present, I suggest again that we must know and understand the past. The Government recognized at the very beginning of its mandate that the financial mess had to be cleaned up. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) campaigned across Canada and I was campaigning in Edmonton East, there was a recognition that the Government had to clean up its act, and we did.
What do Canadians want? First and foremost, Canadians wanted a Government to implement policies which contribute to the creation of a sound environment for a stable and secure future. Why not? Every country want that and we have offered that. That meant putting our financial house in order. In the 17 and a half months we have been in power, that is exactly what we have done. It also meant creating jobs. We recall the Prime Minister, on the hustings, saying that we are going to give Canadian people jobs, jobs, jobs, up to 580,000 jobs. We did it. It also meant lower interest rates, and they dipped. Interest rates rose a little but they will be dropping again. It also meant lower inflation rates and lower and stable prices. We have been instrumental in doing that. We have restored the confidence of not only the Canadian business and labour representatives but as well of the people of all of Canada in how effectively and caringly we can govern.
There has been renewed federalism. We have not pointed our middle finger up in the air and said: "West, goodbye; East, we do not hear you". The Prime Minister said that the most important thing is reconciliation and he went across the country, talked to all the Premiers and asked them to come to Regina, a beautiful, warm city in the summertime. There is peace and harmony in our country, the better to govern, to understand and to get along.
Above all, the Government has reversed the catastrophic fiscal policies of the past. Let us remember past history. What have Liberal Members been talking about for the last year and
a half since we have been in power and what did they do previously? Let me remind the House.
When the Economic Statement of November 1984 was presented, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said that this would mean a loss of up to 200,000 jobs. How wrong he was. During the same time, we created
480.000	jobs. That is a difference of 680,000 jobs, and he was a Minister. If he was wrong about that, was he wrong when he was a Minister? We have to question that. How effective was he?
The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said that the May Budget would fuel and spur inflation, but inflation went down. He too was a Minister and he made those comments. He said that our Budgets are of no value. He was wrong again. If he was wrong about that, how right was he when he was a Minister? When he and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry were Ministers, our country went down the drain with them. This obviously shows the bad and inefficient management there must have been.
There is now a stable inflation rate of 4.4 per cent. What did the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) have to say? He said that there would be a loss of between 50,000 and
100.000	jobs. He is the financial critic for the NDP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about Alberta? Look at Alberta. You know Alberta.


William Lesick: He said that that would happen but the opposite happened. We could ask how credible are the NDP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Harvie Andre: That's not fair.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, it was quite an appropriate and fair comment. I do not think that the Hon. Member was intentionally trying to mislead the House. In fact, being an honourable colleague, 1 am sure he was not. However, he talked about jobs loss, and there was significant job loss in Alberta, British Columbia and other provinces in the intervening months. There was significant job loss in his province as well as my own-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying but that is debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) has the floor.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I stand behind what I have just said.
The former NDP leader in Ontario, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), said that in Quebec there would be a loss of 40,000 jobs. How right was he, a former Leader and now prominent back-bencher for the NDP? He was out by
220.000	jobs. How credible is the Opposition?
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that there would be significant loss of jobs in Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and certain regions of western Canada. What happened was the opposite of that. He is a former Minister and a former Prime Minister and he was wrong.
February 28, 1986

I believe that when the people of Canada listen to opposition Members, they have to realize that there is a credibility gap between what they say and believe and what actually happens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE HULL IN NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 29, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Isabelle that Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada), be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Gauthier (p. 1801).
John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-207, aimed at changing the boundaries of the national capital of our country to conform with the limits of the National Capital Region. Such a step would clearly extend the boundaries beyond the geographic limits of the City of Ottawa to embrace the City of Hull and other cities, town and municipalities in the area immediately surrounding Parliament Hill. While this is a substantial area, it is not unreasonable in a country the size of Canada, and it would include parts of two provinces which in turn reflect the bilingual and bicultural nature of the country.
It is not entirely clear in the Bill just how the area surrounding the Cities of Ottawa and Hull would be defined. However, the present limits of the National Capital Region are specified in the schedule to the National Capital Act, 1958. It is assumed that this area of 1,800 squares miles, or some 4,600 square kilometres more or less, is intended as the basis until such time as Parliament may decide otherwise.
The question of the boundaries of the capital city of Canada has never been in doubt to the extent that Ottawa has been legislated as the national capital since the British North America Act became the constitutional foundation of the country in 1867. However, there has been an ongoing discussion of possible change since 1969, when the Constitutional Conference of Canadian First Ministers, in its conclusions concerning the reform of institutions linked with federalism, agreed to the following:
The cities of Ottawa and Hull and their surrounding areas shall be the Canadian capital area.
Constitution Act, 1867
It continued:
Steps must be taken so that the two official languages and the cultural values common to all Canadians are recognized by all Governments concerned in these two cities and in the capital region in general, so that all Canadians may have a feeling of pride and participation in, and attachment to, their capital.
There have been a number of statements over the years dealing with the emphasis on the national significance of the National Capital Region as a symbol of identity for all Canadians. The more clearly the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada is established, the clearer it will be to establish its national significance for Canadians and for those looking at Canada from elsewhere in the world. Many attempts have been made to find inspiring words to describe the national significance of the capital. Jacques Greber, for example, had the following comment in his 1950 report:
A capital is also a legislative and administrative meeting place for legislators from every constituency in the country. It is important that a capital offer a satisfactory working environment within which the business of Government may be conducted: to the extent that it does not. the results will be a loss of efficiency and morale.
In 1972, the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada made the following statement in its final report:
A country's capital is an essential instrument of national pride. In a federal, bilingual and multicultural country, it must also be an essential instrument of national unity. It must reflect equitably all aspects of the country's character, and each citizen should have a true sense of ownership in the capital of his country regardless of the distance which separates him from the seat of Government.
Statements such as these on the nature and character of Canada's capital, and other similar commentaries, reflect generally on and elaborate further upon the essential functions or building blocks of the capital. The status of our capital is of vital importance to all of us as Canadians, and it is most appropriate to consider for a few minutes its role as a symbol of identity and unity and as a source of pride and inspiration for all Canadians.
A capital is the reflection, the symbol of the whole nation. The capital of Canada, as in all federal states, has special importance-it is the city which, to every Canadian and to all foreigners, must be representative of all 10 confederated provinces without, however, prejudicing the attributes and prerogatives of their respective capitals.
In 1965, in his landmark judgment on the Munrocase which confirmed that the federal Government had the power to plan for the national capital region and to expropriate land for its purposes, Mr. Justice Gibson of the Exchequer Court quoted Greber and concluded as follows:
In the result, therefore, I am of the opinion that the words "national significance" are meaningful and are apt in describing the goal sought to be attained for the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada.
In 1966, in upholding the decision of the Exchequer Court, Mr. Justice Cartwright of the Supreme Court of Canada made the following statement:
I find it difficult to suggest a subject matter of legislation which more clearly goes beyond local or provincial interests and is the concern of Canada as a whole than the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital

February 28, 1986
Constitution Act, 1867
region in accordance with a coherent plan in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance. Adopting the words of the learned trial judge, it is my view that the Act deals with a single matter of national concern.
The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in its report on the federal capital recommended that the federal Government should assume a direct role in promoting equal partnership between French-speaking and Englishspeaking Canadians in the capital. The commission also made the following general statement about the significance of capital cities:
A capital is a symbol of the country as a whole. It should express, in the best way possible, the values of the country as a whole, its way of life, its cultural richness and diversity, its social outlook, its aspirations for the future. This symbolism has both an internal and an external dimension. Citizens from across the country who visit their capital should find in it a fuller understanding of their country's traditions and a pride in personal identification with it. Similarly, visitors from other countries should be able just as readily to find tangible expression of the values of a country with which they may be unfamiliar.
The question of a change in boundaries for the national capital raised in the Bill emphasizes that the capital of any country is more than a location for the seat of Government and its primary institutions. It probes the depths of a nation's conscience and provides a national focus for institutional and cultural values and aspirations for the future. It calls into question the best means of enhancing those national institutions and associated symbolic and ceremonial functions, activities and events which are unique to a national seat of Government in its widest sense.
The specific proposal to expand the limits of Canada's capital as recognized in a constitutional sense is a sound one. It expands the narrow geographic boundaries which were quite adequate in 1967 but may not necessarily represent the situation which exists today. It is most appropriate to recognize territory in both Ontario and Quebec within the boundaries of the national capital which in turn recognize the lands of the two founding cultures. To go beyond the city limits of Ottawa and Hull raises questions concerning just how much of the surrounding area should also be included. For this reason, the limits of the National Capital Region, as expressed by Parliament since 1958 through the National Capital Act, are most appropriate if we are to move in this direction.
In making reference to the National Capital Act, I should like to refer to the legislative mandate of the National Capital Commission which operates under the authority of the Act and is required "to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance". The work of the National Capital Commission is recognized and well known to all of us who live in the local area.
It works hard to contribute to and enhance the capital as a national focus for Canada and to provide a truly national dimension to its planning and development. It works to create an inspiring urban and regional setting to instil a sense of pride
and attachment, particularly for visiting Canadians. Also, it works to maintain and improve the economic health and urban and rural vitality of the community.
I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to commend the National Capital Commission for its work on behalf of the people of Canada and, in particular, my friend, the vivacious, idea-oriented and hard working chairlady, Jean Pigott. The National Capital Commission is to be commended for its efforts in enhancing the quality of life and services to visitors within both the urban and rural areas of the National Capital Region. It is only the planning authority that carries out urban and regional planning and development from a federal perspective rather than considering primarily provincial and municipal interests. It is worth reminding the House that the commission is our agent in the planning, development and improvement of what we may call our national capital.
In the final analysis, the question facing the House is whether or not there is a need for a change at this time. I am sure many are in favour of a change to expand the boundaries, while many are opposed. It is an important question for all of us here and for all Canadians, and I am sure it will be resolved.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on a Friday afternoon at this hour before a nearly full House and in particular, Sir, when you are in the Chair, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) said a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, in my contribution to the debate on the Bill before the House today, I intend to concentrate on two things: first of all, I would like to put the objective pursued by Bill C-207 into a realistic perspective and I would also like to shed some light on the tremendous and almost insurmountable problems that would result from the premature creation of a National Capital district. The reasoning underlying the Bill certainly contains a number of elements that are not entirely without merit, and these elements may in turn help us produce some valid concepts for developing and expanding a national capital that would be a genuine and proud symbol of this country beyond the year 2000.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that Bill C-207 faces a number of geopolitical and especially historical givens we cannot possibly ignore in the circumstances. I think it would be useful to go back in time so as to understand the constitutional ramifications of this matter.
At the time of Confederation, Mr. Speaker, in 1867, the tensions between Upper and Lower Canada had hardly subsided when Queen Victoria had to designate a city as the capital of her new Dominion. At the time, she had a choice between Montreal, Quebec City of course, Kingston in Ontario-I am very sorry for my colleague from Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) but Valleyfield was not in the running-and the third option was a town that looked much like a construction site at
February 28, 1986

the time, located amid considerable scenic splendours and with a very bright future, and which was called Bytown at the time. Anxious to avoid any rivalry between Kingston and Montreal and between the two language groups, Her Majesty decided to opt for the scenic splendours of the small town with the bright future, and that is how Bytown became Ottawa, the capital of Canada. However wise, the great Queen, Mr. Speaker, did not have a clear, sharp and exact idea of the implications of such a choice. The new capital was on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River, at a stone's throw.


An Hon. Member:: Lapierre.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Not Mr. Lapierre, no. At a stone's throw, Mr. Speaker, facing that other entity, Quebec. For close to a century, Ottawa grew, mainly English-speaking and unilingual. The nation's capital took form and was embellished constantly over the years, but on the other side of the river, Hull and its neighbouring communities derived little benefit from their immediate proximity to the country's core. To all intents and purposes, that part of the Province of Quebec was but a poor relative to its big sister across the river.
If I emphasize those historical data, Mr. Speaker, it is because they are the background of the relationship between the two founding peoples, up to the fifties. I hasten to add, however, and thank God for that, that a marvelous change has occurred since. Canadians of both languages initiated 25 years ago a huge effort of mutual understanding and equal sharing of the national heritage.
This is how, by mutual consent, we came to agree that the Canadian Capital should reflect this country's duality, and that in a nation whose two senior components were Quebec and Ontario, it was normal that Quebec be included in the concept of a National Capital. This is why, as early as 1969, a conference of Canadian Premiers held in Toronto agreed to the concept of a National Capital Region that included all of the Ottawa-Hull area. For that reason also, large-sized federal buildings have sprung up in Hull for some 15 years now and a number of developments made on the Quebec side by the federal Government.
All this is very well, and the present Government has the firm intention of maintaining and even enhancing the capital's development. We intend to respect fully the mandate given the NCC by the National Capital Act, passed in 1958, being, and 1 quote, Mr. Speaker: to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.
But that mandate, Mr. Speaker, which we have seen fulfilled over the years and by the various administrations, is subject to the unescapable constitutional reality. We know what constitutional problems are. Three different Governments are involved: the Government of Canada, of course, the Gov-
Constitution Act, 1867
ernment of Ontario, and, obviously, the Government of Quebec. And not only must constitutional authority and jurisdiction be preserved, but in the fulfilling of its mandate, the National Capital Commission has no absolute authority over the area as such. It must compromise with the rights, prerogatives, privileges and legitimate aspirations of the two regional Governments and 27 municipalities which also exercise their jurisdictions within the area of the National Capital.
It is in this multiple and varied context that we must approach Bill C-207. How could the House dictate its will to so many other authorities without jeopardizing the constitutional make-up, creating new tensions or provoking new confrontations at every level? No, Canadians have witnessed too many differences and confrontations between Ottawa and the provinces over the past two decades without our risking new frictions which could imperil the reconciliation efforts made over the past 16 months! Let us not give up what we have for some fanciful alernative. First, let us consolidate our strength and help our economy recover. After that, Mr. Speaker, we could address the issue of territorial authority over our National Capital. Let us have our priorities straight!
The amendment we are considering today is an old tune close to the heart of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) who serves it to us regularly each year, regular as Old Faithful, together with his project of a federal district more or less copied on the American federal district of Columbia. A similar formula has existed for quite a long time elsewhere, Mr. Speaker. After the United States, there has been the federal Canberra district in Australia. But has the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) ever wondered whether the creation of such federal districts in these two countries had raised linguistic and cultural problems? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not here to answer this question. But has he ever pondered the problems which the creation a federal district would create here in the areas of education, social affairs, justice and urban Government, with 27 municipalities, two regional Governments, and three major Governments, including Ottawa, Ontario, and Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, it is an undeniable fact that, if only on the basis of our linguistic and cultural duality and of the jurisdictions guaranteed to the provinces by the Constitution, Bill C-207 reflects an utopia and even an aberration in this day and age. It would be unthinkable to start such a costly and riskly adventure and one which is even contrary to the characteristics of each of the entities involved in this issue.
Who would give up what and for whose benefit, Mr. Speaker? We are all well aware that, human nature being what it is, each party involved would want to hang on to his vested interests and to protect his own advantage, because, as the saying goes, charity begins at home. Is it logical to expect an authority at whatever level to jeopardize its own identity when.

February 28, 1986
Constitution Act, 1867
in relation with the free trade talks with the United States, concerns are being expressed on all sides about the loss of identity or the loss of such or such a market?
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in dreaming or in improvising, especially when major national decisions are involved, and in this case, I think that we are discussing a project which does not seem to have produced any consensus.
Mr. Speaker, this consensus does not exist among the many parties involved nor among the Canadian population as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, the entire issue of what is and what is not part of the National Capital raises the problem of national symbols. This is therefore a very sensitive issue.
While it is a fact that, in the last 25 years, Canada has acquired symbols to establish its own identity, it should also be noted that these changes did not come by easily. A gesture can acquire a symbolic value only to the extent that those to whom it is addressed view it as legitimate. A symbol is essentially the result of a consensus, Mr. Speaker.
In this context, who could state today that the proposal to amend Section 16 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 finds such a consensus among the population? On the contrary, an overview of possible reactions at the local, provincial and national levels seems to indicate that there are good reasons to justify strong resistance.
On the local level, we are aware of the neighbourly relationships between Hull and Gatineau trying to decide which is the metropolitan centre of Western Quebec.


Claudy Mailly: Gatineau.


Pierre H. Cadieux: 1 did not expect anything else from my colleague, Mr. Speaker, and I would probably agree to some extent. However, Mr. Speaker, this is not what we are discussing today and I do not wish to get involved in regional hassles that might develop between those two cities.
But that is just one example of the problem that would probably crop up.
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine in that context what the debate on the question of the National Capital might look like here in the House, with my colleague possibly putting forward her specific interests, and I could not blame her for doing so!
At the provincial level, who knows how the province of Quebec would react, Mr. Speaker? In the late sixties, when the federal Government kept buying lots here and there, the Quebec Government set up the Dorion Commission to review the whole issue of territorial integrity. There is no indication that the Quebec Government has changed its mind, Mr. Speaker. For all we know, the Communaute regionale de I'Outaouais, which was created following the recommanda-tions of that Commission, is still in existence. Would Ontario itself be willing to give up the whole area of Ottawa, Vanier
and Kanata and neighbouring rural areas for the sake of creating a federal district? I have very strong doubts about that. I am sure in fact that Quebec and Ontario would never be willing to give up a fragment of their municipalities. And supposing they did, what would be the tax status of the people living in that new federal district?
Would the federal Government have to compensate provincial governments for the loss of existing infrastructure? Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, trying to assess the present cost of that infrastructure? and the per capita debt that this new federal district would incur from the provinces and municipalities involved? At the national level, Mr. Speaker, did we consult with all the people and provincial governments of Canada? Do we know how they view such an amendment? I do not believe that we can assess, or even assume that it would be accepted; quite the contrary!
Mr. Speaker, I wish to stress that building a national capital is one thing, but forcing in a premature way a complex patriotic chore and a difficult constitutional challenge upon the people of Canada is another. Canada has just begun recovering from the constitutional upheaval brought about by the previous Government. For goodness sake, let us give it a break.
Victor Hugo wrote that you cannot decree peace more than you can decree sunrise. In a small way, Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of wisdom which could be applied to this debate. History has its own way of doing things, it proceeds with great slowness and man should not force issues, even though he sometimes does by resorting to brutal and useless wars. Everything should be left to happen in its own sweet time.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we will have to study carefully and seriously the tremendous political and economical difficulties that such a project could bring to bear on Canadians. Thus, I feel that it would be reasonable that such a bill- [English]
-be looked at a lot more because, as I just said in the other official language, I do not think this is the time, nor are we in circumstances right now which permit us to enter into such a debate. We have economic concerns which must be dealt with right away. As a matter of fact, the budget debate is presently taking place. After what we heard today and yesterday we know that Canada must be put back on track economically.
I do not think we ought to spend too much time trying to recreate a constitutional debate which has already taken too much time in the House and perhaps contributed to the huge deficit which we inherited because the Government at that time did not ensure that the economy was going well and that jobs were being created. Right now our role is to work on the economy and to create the jobs which Canadians need so badly. Although the Constitution is an interesting topic, we must now put this motion aside because the time is not right for it, notwithstanding the repeated efforts of the Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) to bring this subject forward. It might be a very good idea in theory, but when you put theory
February 28, 1986

into practice you have to live with the consequences. Do we know what kind of consequences we will have economically given the various parties directly interested in this project? As I said before, there are 27 municipalities, two regional Governments and three major Governments involved.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I think, as I already said, that this problem should really be studied and, consequently, I propose that the Bill be withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Justice and Solicitor General Committee.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. As you may know, I am the only Member on the Government side whose riding is located entirely within the boundaries of the City of Ottawa, so I feel obliged to rise in defence of this great city once more. As you may recall, I spoke in debate when this issue was raised the first time, I believe just over a year ago. I do not wish to repeat what I said then but I do want to take a few minutes to outline some of my concerns once more. I trust that you, Mr. Speaker, as a resident of the City of Ottawa since first being elected in 1968, and as a person wise and fortunate enough to marry a girl from a distinguished Ottawa family, will have some interest in what I have to say.
I would first congratulate both my colleagues on their speeches and say that I agree entirely with their remarks. As the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux) stated, Ottawa was chosen by Queen Victoria because it offered many advantages, which it continues to offer today. Its people and its culture were a hybrid of our two founding peoples. It was located on the border of Upper and Lower Canada. It had and still has great natural beauty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I appreciate the very kind words from the Hon. Member, but I must tell him that he did speak on the amendment and therefore it is very difficult for me to recognize him again.


David Bruce Daubney: I stand to be corrected, but I believe I spoke on the main motion and not the amendment. I will take your direction in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that I have Hansard here of Tuesday, January 29, and he spoke on the amendment to Bill C-207. I was looking forward to a great speech and I want to thank the Hon. Member for his very kind words, but I must recognize the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine).


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to carry on from where my hon. friend left off. This Bill addresses the desirability of changing the boundaries of the national capital of Canada to include the City of Hull and any additional area which the Canadian
Constitution Act, 1867
Parliament might designate in future. More specifically, this proposed amendment would authorize Parliament to make the boundary of the nation's capital identical with that of the boundary of the National Capital Region as currently defined in the National Capital Act. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight for my colleagues several thoughts on this matter. I would like to consider an historical perspective to this question which will provide my friends here with a better appreciation of the issue. I trust this will enable us to move forward into the future with a greater understanding of the ramifications of this proposed legislation.
We are all aware of the extraordinary beauty of our capital, both as a city and in its regional environmental context. Herbert Holt, who chaired the 1915 Federal Plan Commission studying the future prospects for the capital, noted the following in his report:
In some respects Ottawa was happily chosen for its role. It lies on the banks of a great and beautiful river, the Ottawa, and has direct communication by water with the mighty St. Lawrence, which discharges the waters of the Great Lakes. Two subsidiary rivers flow into the Ottawa near the site of the capital; the Gatineau, which comes through a picturesque valley from the North, and the Rideau which reaches the Ottawa from the South. Two striking waterfalls, the Chaudiere and the Rideau lie within the borders of Ottawa.
A canal of the dimensions of a river passes through the heart of the city, and is available not merely for commerce but for recreation. Parliament Hill is a high bluff rising 150 feet from the Ottawa River. Looking northward across this river, the observer has in view the Laurentian Mountains stretching away into the distance and still covered, in part, by the primeval forest. London, Paris, and Washington are all great capitals, each of them situated on the banks of a river, but none of them has the natural beauty of Ottawa. Nature, indeed, offers a direct invitation to make this northern capital one of the most beautiful in the world.
Holt goes on to demonstrate a clear concern for the future growth of the capital and the regional context:
-looking to the future growth and development of the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull, and their environs, and particularly providing, for the location, laying out and beautification of parks and connecting boulevards, the location and architectural character of public buildings and adequate and convenient arrangements for traffic and transportation within the area in question.
The person who left the most enduring legacy in the creation of our capital is, of course, Jacques Greber. This noted French architect was called on by Prime Minister Mackenzie King to develop the plan which, by and large, has laid the foundation for our capital and the development of the National Capital Region to date. Greber was very conscious of the mission of a capital city and, as he noted, the capital is a very special place, of special importance, it reflects and must respond to a unique mission which is at once constitutional, national and international. He said:
A capital is the reflection, the symbol of the whole nation.
With this observation he encapsulated the ideas of heritage and the expression of the capital as a manifestation and symbolic representation of the original frontiers of the country; the initial link between the two major cultures which settled our country, and the thought that the capital is the unique representative of the confederated provinces and forms the heart of the nation.
Today, times have changed. The people and Government of Canada have evolved. However, these messages from the past

February 28, 1986
Constitution Act, 1867
still ring true. When one thinks of a national capital, the image goes far beyond that of any other well-designed functioning urban settlement. The words "seat of Government", and "national repository of arts", and "centre of national culture" begin to express these ideas. The capital of any nation is a very special city which symbolizes in one entity the expression of that nation and its people as a whole. Ideally, this is accomplished through its special functions as well as its physical form and make-up which serve as a reflection of the social and cultural diversity and characteristics of the inhabitants of the nation. The capital city is a place to experience many facets of the nation at firsthand, to learn of its history and its future potential. The capital is the place to become truly one with the nation, its Government, people, culture, heritage and, perhaps most important, its future.
In this context my colleagues may recall that in the very recent past we took significant steps to recognize the bilingual and multicultural nature not only of the capital itself but of the region as well. We have witnessed throughout the capital area, for example, the strengthening of the nature and beauty of the capital through physical development of parks, parkways and governmental accommodation. We are witnessing the evolution of a series of cultural activities, ranging from the Canada Day celebrations to heritage festivals and, of course, our special winter festival, focused in the heart of the capital, Winterlude.
All of these efforts which derive from the ideas of the past are bringing together today the foundation on which the capital can securely build its evolution into the years to come.
What of this future? What provides the impetus to move our capital forward into the years to come? I would propose to you that this impetus is found in the definition of an image for the national capital which represents the multitude of beliefs, values, ideologies and aspirations of all the peoples of Canada. At the same time it is consistent with and supportive of the national capital functions, both as a capital and as a thriving urban community. As well as being a reflection of the heritage of the Canadian nation, it must also be an image looking to the short and long term future as an inspiration to all the world to take note of the capital of Canada.
In this context, we must recognize our assets of multicultur-alism, our bilingual nature and the constantly evolving nature of the organization and functioning of the nation's capital, and build on these assets over the years to come.
Earlier I mentioned the natural beauty of the capital and noted the impact it has had on the thoughts of those people of the time who helped shape our present environment. This natural asset was recognized as having very much a regional as well as local aspect. The rivers, Gatineau and the Ottawa, formed a natural crossroads for trade and commerce, linking into the St. Lawrence system. From the high bluffs overlooking this crossroads, one could survey the whole of the Gatineau Hills for great distances both east and west along the Ottawa River. In its time, the crossroads developed into a centre for
the lumbering industry due to the rich forestry resources in the region, the availability of rivers for transport and the growing population developing around the communications node. The river, while physically separating the original Upper and Lower Canada, acted at the same time as a linking element, being the common means of travel and centre of the working environment.
This nucleus of original settlers, traders and lumbermen has now grown to fill some 13 municipalities and 2 provincial regions in the area. While the numbers of people have greatly increased and, with time, the complexity of all aspects of the area has increased, the heritage remains. It is a heritage which will always speak out for the recognition of a multicultural bilingual people in an area of the country of very great natural beauty and drama.
If the cultural and environmental elements which make up our capital region today have not changed that greatly over the years, the complexities of society and government have. We live in an era where the strength and expression of the national capital and Government have grown considerably. To house the functions of Government and to provide for the maintenance and efficient working of this region, a complex system of multi-governmental infrastructures has evolved to supply services to the residents of, and visitors to, the nation's capital. With this growth in the complexity of Government and regional infrastructure, the problems of conveying the common identity and heritage of the capital to the public beyond its limits becomes very cumbersome. The problem becomes one of expressing within the context of past and present the ideas, symbols and aspirations of the very diverse elements which make up the various provinces in the federation-that multitude of elements which binds the provinces together into one unified nation.
As alluded to earlier, we are living in a time of communication and the use of multicultural activities to create a sense of belonging together within the framework of the nation. This direction, or pulling together, is currently manifested in some of our more sophisticated advertising campaigns bringing to the people of Canada a new focus on the heritage and cultural aspects of the capital.
In and around the capital area we are seeing a strong direction being taken to highlight the bilingual and multicultural nature, not just of the immediate region, but of the nation as a whole. Examples of this phenomenon are numerous but several of particular interest come to mind. Clearly, Canada Day is a day for celebrating our common roots and cultural assets. We have seen this celebration expand from Parliament Hill and throughout the National Capital Region to the nation as a whole, all being linked together through an advanced telecommunications network.
In a like manner, we have witnessed the Winterlude Festival grow from an insignificant local effort to one of national and international importance. This project has probably contributed more to the perceived cultural and recreational consolidation of the region and nation than anything, excepting our Canada Day celebrations. It is these types of publicly oriented
February 28, 1986

programs which contribute tremendously to the national and international image of our nation and capital. At the same time they also act on a more local level to bring together the varied regional populations in a consolidated recognition of the role and importance which they play in the ongoing evolution of this capital called Ottawa.
We are left today, with a greater sensitivity to reaching out to the nation and the world to identify the capital of Canada as a special and unique place. We stand at a point in time where this great nation has opened before it a future of much potential, nationally, internationally and locally within the capital region.
The Canadarm is an expression of great national effort. My colleagues are no doubt aware of the growing national and international recognition of this area as a source of high technology research and advancement. If one thinks back to my introductory note that this era began as a communication node at the confluence of the major regional rivers, one might easily foresee that this growing region which cradles the capital will become a new communication centre: one focused on the electronic age of information handling, research and development.
This perspective becomes particularly interesting when one considers that the capital, as the seat of Government, houses our cultural institutions and is generally acknowledged as the centre of diplomatic and related international functions. As the heart of the nation, it is generally felt to be the repository of the nation's history, the place where one goes on pilgrimages to absorb the nation's past and see its evolution into the present. It is also, perhaps most important in Canada's case, the vantage point from which one might hope to catch a glimpse of the elusive construct called the future, a demonstration of testing ground of future ideas and development.
It is only fitting, in the context of these thoughts concerning the evolving nature of the capital, that we turn to the question of the physical boundary of the capital. I have noted that we are now living in a period of complex intergovernmental jurisdictions. These structures are attempting to provide a physical context and service infrastructure for our national capital to highlight its importance as a focus for the Canadian people from coast to coast. As the capital continues to grow and expand in complexity, one must surely bring into question the appropriateness of the originally defined boundary unique to this City of Ottawa. Culturally speaking, one has but to consider the evolution of public activities throughout the region originating in both the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario to understand that the cultural interface is becoming even more interconnected.
In closing these remarks, I will say that these facts provide a very clear indication that this question is not only timely but also important to consider for the future of Canada's capital, our City of Ottawa.
Constitution Act, 1867


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on this Bill-I already spoke on the main motion, but not on this amendment-I would like to point out that during the whole debate, we have seen in the House neither the mover of the motion, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), nor the seconder of the motion, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) that television has long since been invented, that viewers can hear her comments and see Members in the House, but she should know-and she often does this-that comments on the presence or absence of Members are out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not quite hear the Hon. Member but she knows, as an Hon. Member who has been here for the past year or so, that she should not reflect on the presence or absence of Hon. Members in this Chamber. I am sure she realizes that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Of course, she does.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: I was getting bored, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see that my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier came into the House instead of hanging around in the lobby and watching television.
Now then, this Bill is very important. Unfortunately it still contains the shortcomings which were pointed out by my colleagues today and on earlier occasions when it came up for debate.
It does not seem to take into consideration the evolution of the National Capital territory. For instance, it has been suggested that what is considered to be the heart of the capital should be expanded to cover Hull and that perhaps others sectors might be added in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding whose main municipality is called Gatineau. It now has 20,000 more residents than the City of Hull, yet apparently it might be included only in what I would call a rather distant future.
Mr. Speaker, it goes to show that the Bill was drafted to focus attention on the riding of the Member for Hull-Aylmer. It is not likely to change our capital into a centre properly reflecting the bonds which unite all Canadians, as might be expected in a Bill on the matter under consideration today.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, all the funds allocated to the national capital area and all the efforts of the federal govern-

February 28, 1986
Constitution Act, 1867
ment are being contributed by all Canadian taxpayers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to adequately reflect the feeling of pride and belonging, the vision and wishes of all our countrymen.
Thus, if we were to promote this vision which seems to me to be quite narrow, and simply include the City of Hull in the National Capital which is Ottawa, without its outskirts where the actual population really feels that it is already part of the national capital-
If we fail to enlarge our vision, then we would not fulfill the expectations of the Canadian people. I therefore believe that as the National Capital Commission which is responsible for enhancing the buildings, the parks and the life of our national capital, under the Department of Public Works, is currently very seriously addressing the issue, we are in fact considering projects which could truly reflect a true vision of our national capital, we should go beyond this Bill.
Not only that but this plan of Mrs. Jean Pigott, the present chairman of the National Capital Commission, and of the Department of Public Works, whose Minister is Mr. Roch La Salle tells us for instance about administrative sectors of the Government which would be scattered throughout the Capital area, a much larger area which reflects at last what has happened to the National Capital in the last ten years. For instance, in my constituency, there are 17,000 civil servants who work either in Hull or in Ottawa, the main city; in the constituency of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), there are also many civil servants who work in the heart of the capital, some of them may even have the chance to work a little closer to home, in federal Government facilities. We see that this need for administrative sectors to be scattered throughout the National Capital area is really, in its wide vision, an objective to be pursued now. When we consider the legislation introduced by Dr Isabelle, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer, we see that it may not have been brought up to date for ... I think it is the sixth year he has brought back this Bill; if he had a look at that enlarged vision of a National Capital which should reflect the aspirations of all the population of that area, I might say of the region
defined as the area of the National Capital Commission, which extends to Buckingham-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) is repeating the speech she made on last December 7. She rose on the main motion and now she is speaking on the amendment, that is the motion I moved to refer the whole matter to a committee for consideration. The Hon. Member for Gatineau should know that a speech is made only once in the House, not twice. The one she is making now is a repetition of the one she made on December 7.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my comprehension of the Hon. Member's speech, I find there is a difference. I went through it with the Table Officers, I read the Hon. Member's speech, and I find it to have been relevant, as were her remarks today. They were not quite the same. I think I will allow the Hon. Member to carry on.


Claudy Mailly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My colleague objects and says I am repeating the same speech, but it is not the same speech at all, because we have things to say now we did not have the last time we discussed the matter, in December 1985, I think. Mrs. Pigott now has devised an overall plan for the National Capital territory. So I fail to see why we should refer such a narrow issue that is not relevant to the present situation, which represents a narrow point of view and does not convey a sense of fairness to a committee. When we have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday, at 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.