The ministers are shouting, because the truth always hurts.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
The ministers are shouting, because the truth always hurts.
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
When the federal government buys elsewhere using the money of Quebec and the federal government invests elsewhere with Quebecers' money, does it not realize that Quebec now knows that federalism is making Quebec poor, and underinvestment-
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, amazingly, the Prime Minister fails to understand that the federal government collects taxes from Quebec, year after year, but Quebec gets far less in return in the form of procurement of goods and services.
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just admitted quite frankly something we have reproached him with for a long time. The money is invested on the Ontario side, leaving Quebec with transfer payments, unemployment insurance and transfers for social assistance. That is the government's policy.
Will the Prime Minister admit that by concentrating federal investment in Ontario and paying unemployment insurance and making social assistance transfers to Quebec, he is practising a policy of pauperization, which is the kind of policy we do not want any more in Quebec?
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the federal government's investment policy discriminates against Quebec and has done so since 1981. The fact remains that the federal government does not invest enough in Quebec, considering its demographic numbers.
The figures are there to prove it. Thousands of jobs have been lost in Quebec because the federal government does not distribute its investments equitably. Over a period of 15 years, , Quebec has obtained only 16 per cent of federal investment and 14 per cent of investments by Crown corporations.
How can the Prime Minister blithely insist that all is well, when his own government refuses to deal fairly with Quebec in the matter of structural spending that creates jobs?
The Constitution October 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that the circus is over now. He is no longer in the Liberal three-ring circus, but back in front of the House of Commons. People want answers, not dissertations on the meaning of the federation and of Canada and of continuation of the opposition's project. For heaven's sake. Let us have an answer then.
The Prime Minister has once again tried to get the rest of Canada to swallow the idea that the Quebec question can be solved with a spoonful of sugar. Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that the Prime Minister's commitments of this weekend on the question of the distinct society within the Constitution are merely an illusion, an illusion which serves to mask the emptiness of their constitutional position?
The Constitution October 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, before the minister starts calling for suggestions from anyone, I have one to make to him: let him just meet the commitments the Prime Minister has made to people. If the government met its commitments, this would already represent huge progress, in everybody's eyes. That is my suggestion to the minister.
The Prime Minister has said that, now the referendum is a thing of the past, it is no longer necessary to always be on the same wavelength, with the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party in particular. How, then, can the minister explain to us what he means in this statement, other than that, now that the promises have had their desired effect-winning-it is no longer important to follow up on them?
The Constitution October 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will not comment. The Liberal convention was pretty rough this weekend. I will not go further than that, in order to stay within the rules.
The Prime Minister has spent the past few days applauding his own performance as Prime Minister. He even said that he had done enough for Quebec, as far as his referendum promises were concerned.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How can he explain the Prime Minister's statement about having done enough as far as his referendum commitments are concerned, when the majority of Quebecers are dissatisfied with his job, a majority which includes the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, the leader of the Conservative Party, and some of those who backed the Prime Minister in his referendum promises and now admit he has not delivered the goods?
Employment October 24th, 1996
Do not worry, Mr. Speaker, he will eventually learn.
The former teacher in me would mark his oral presentation as follows: "A" for the number of words, "Z" for the number of ideas.
The red book, which will be discussed this weekend, contains these words: "Whose job will go next? For the first time in decades, Canadians are seriously concerned that children will be less well off than their parents". That is what the Liberal Party wrote in its red book in 1993.
What can the Minister of Employment say to young Canadians without jobs, when Statistics Canada shows that the Liberal regime brought a decrease of 25,000 jobs for 15 to 24 year-olds? What does he have to say now?
Employment October 24th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, one more who feels everything is just going fine. This government is totally clueless.
The new Minister of Employment-I do not know if the former one has clued him in completely-must know that we would need more than 870,000 jobs to get the economy back to the way it was in 1989. He tells us everything is fine, yet we are 870,000 jobs short of the way things used to be. Clueless.
In the red book, in 1993, the Prime Minister said, and I quote-and I hope the other side is listening properly, for it is their Prime Minister speaking: "Today, after nine years of Conservative government, Canadians are facing hardship: 1.6 million unemployed, millions more on welfare, a million children living below the poverty line, record numbers of bankruptcies and plant closings".
Does the Prime Minister realize that three years later, he could write that same thing again, exactly, for their next campaign platform?