Stephen Harper

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period I think that most Canadians would have been appalled to see the Prime Minister defending some of the things going on at DND by wrapping himself in the name of the peacekeepers and the job they are doing, putting their lives in danger, trying to defend the country.

Does the Prime Minister really think that when we read about the stonewalling of police investigations, about the cover-up of criminal activity, and about the falsifying of documents this in any way does any service to the men on the ground who are defending Canada and trying to keep peace in foreign countries?

[Petitions, October 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the House a petition containing the signatures of 7,953 people, part of a larger petition of nearly 10,000 signatures, mainly from people in the city of Calgary.

These residents are opposed to the closing of CFB Calgary and are increasingly concerned as they learn that the move of CFB Calgary to Edmonton will not save taxpayer dollars. The move is not designed to do so.

[The Economy, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should not display to us his lack of knowledge of the beef industry.

It is domestic spending that has not recovered since 1991 because federal and provincial government tax increases have pulled more than $12 billion out of the pockets of consumers, an additional $155 for every Canadian every single year.

Will the government admit that it has increased taxes because it has only rolling deficit targets instead of a firm date for deficit elimination?

[The Economy, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I left the Conservative Party in 1986 because of economic policies such as this minister's. It is surprising that it has taken him ten years to figure it out.

Yesterday investment dealer Wood Gundy released a scathing indictment of the government's policies on jobs and growth. According to the report, we have "experienced the weakest recovery in domestic spending in the post-war period because of high taxes and tax increases".

Would the Minister of Finance agree the country needs fiscal policies that allow for tax relief in the next budget?

[The Economy, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign the government ran on a policy of creating jobs and growth. This year there have been absolutely no new jobs and today's GDP figures confirm there has been no economic growth this year.

Since the Minister of Finance has failed to deliver on his promised financial and economic statement what is it exactly that he intends to do?

[Alliance Quebec, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before the quiet revolution, there were people in Quebec saying: "Keep quiet, stay there, and speak English". We do not hear that line in Quebec any more, but thanks to Alliance Quebec, it can now be heard in Alberta. Yesterday, in Calgary, Alliance Quebec warned the Reform Party to keep quiet during the referendum campaign.

The people of Alberta are aware that Alliance Quebec is an organization without public support, a front funded by the federal government to fuel misunderstandings between francophones and anglophones in Quebec and elsewhere, for partisan purposes.

The message from the Reform Party that Alliance Quebec does not want people to hear is that a No vote is a vote against separation while saying No to the status quo means no more subsidies for groups like Alliance Quebec.

If Alliance Quebec really wants the No side to win the referendum, they should keep quiet and remain in Alberta, where they could speak English all day long, like in the days before the quiet revolution.

[Quebec Referendum, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Prime Minister.

Did the government explain that its statements regarding a political and economic union are not a threat but represent the best interests of the rest of Canada; that Canada will never allow a foreign country to become involved in this Parliament, in its monetary policy, in its equalization payments; and that, if Quebec votes No, it will become a foreign country like any other?

[Quebec Referendum, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the government said that a yes vote was a one-way ticket to separation. Last week the government refused to say that yes means yes and accused the Reform Party of being disloyal for suggesting the government make the consequences of a yes vote clear.

Today the finance minister said in Quebec that a yes vote would mean "the certain destruction of Quebec's economic and political partnership with Canada".

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government now prepared to be clear to Quebecers that this referendum is a yes or a no to separation and that the no side must win for Quebecers to enjoy the benefits of Confederation?

[Quebec Referendum, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.

We still demand that the government show transparency. Did the minister explain to Quebecers that, if the Yes side wins, and especially if it does by a narrow margin, the Government of Quebec, the PQ government, will be negotiating separation from a position where Quebecers will be divided, weakened and isolated?

[Quebec Referendum, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the unity minister.

Reformers had agreed with and supported the government when it said that a yes vote was a one-way ticket to separation and that it

would be respected. Without explanation that strategy was changed on us and we have been wondering why.

We have obtained a letter written by the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. It indicates categorically that the federal government will not honour a yes vote. It states: "The results of the referendum will not be binding and have no legal consequences. The federal government has no obligation to respond".

Does this represent the real position of the federal government?