Monte Solberg

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Calgary Southwest.

In the House today and over the last couple of days the Reform Party has criticized the government for its approach to the Canada pension plan. I think when an opposition party comes to Ottawa it has an obligation not just to criticize but also to offer an alternative.

I wonder if the member for Calgary Southwest, the leader of the Reform Party, would care to inform the House and Canadians what exactly is the plan of the Reform Party with respect to reforming the Canada pension plan.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if there is job creation in this country, that is news to the 1.5 million people who are still unemployed, the same number as when the government came to power.

The last Tory government and the present Liberal government have left this country with a legacy of joblessness that has not been paralleled since the Great Depression. Seventy-six months in a row of unemployment over 9 per cent is a disgraceful record and the minister should be ashamed.

The Liberals have broken their promise to create jobs. When will the minister realize that high taxes are killing jobs in this country?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, the government campaigned on the issue of jobs, jobs, jobs.

In the budget yesterday there was not a word about jobs. There was nothing for jobless Canadians. There was just 80 minutes of self-congratulations.

The finance minister did not even mention the 9.7 per cent unemployment rate, the 1.5 million unemployed, the one in four people underemployed or who are worried about losing their jobs.

When will the finance minister come down from his mansion on the hill and realize that by relentlessly driving up taxes he is killing jobs in this country?

[Pensions, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is trying to brush the question off, but it is a fair question. People want to know why the double standard. We have the member for Beaver River who voluntarily gave up a pension worth $1.5 million because she believes in leadership by example.

Maybe the finance minister is well off and maybe it is not an issue for him, but ordinary Canadians do not think there should be a double standard between what Liberal government MPs give themselves and what they do for the rest of the country.

Why the double standard?

[Pensions, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the finance minister said that payroll taxes kill jobs. Now he is saying they create jobs. A lot of us are wondering just what illness the minister was suffering from last week.

Two years ago Liberals voted themselves the best pension plan that taxpayer money could buy, a gold plated MP pension plan. Under the plan the Conservative leader would receive $53,000 a year for his 9.9 per cent premium; the Deputy Prime Minister, $49,000 a year. Meanwhile regular Canadians would get $9,000 a year for their 9.9 per cent premium.

To be consistent, to be fair, will the minister announce an immediate 70 per cent increase in the premiums for the MP pension plan?

[The Prime Minister, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister decided today he would deliver what his own people billed as a state of the country speech.

So did we hear the speech in the people's House, in Parliament, where the opposition might hear him and ask to respond? Did he give his speech in a public forum where regular people might ask him regular questions, à la the CBC town hall meeting? No, the bubble boy spoke to us from a hotel ballroom filled with staff from the Prime Minister's office and the Ottawa elite.

So what did Canadians hear in the bubble boy's speech? Did he say anything about integrity or accountability, Somalia, Airbus, Krever, the broken GST promise? What about the $3.5 billion he cut from medicare while promising to save it? How about the 1.5 billion unemployed, the 600,000 jobless youth, the 35 tax increases and $25 billion in new money his government has taken from taxpayers?

No. We got what we would usually expect from the bubble boy, a whole lot of nothing, showing once again this Prime Minister's disconnection with the real concerns of the real people.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Perhaps the request really should come from the people of Canada who are being denied the chance to hear from the Prime Minister on the state of the nation.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to put the question to the House I believe we could bring this matter to a conclusion.

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the question has often been raised of whether parliamentary privilege imposes on ministers an obligation to deliver ministerial statements, to make announcements and communications to the public through the House of Commons, or to make those announcements or statements in the House rather than outside the Chamber.

Unfortunately we as parliamentarians have no such rights. Although we have no such right there was a Speaker who on February 9, 1982 suggested that it was a matter of personal ethics-

[Supply, February 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Statements by Members. Before I put that question, it is important to inform the House why I am making this request.

I note that the Prime Minister will be making a state of the nation address at an invitation only luncheon at the Chateau Laurier Hotel at noon today. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker-