Monte Solberg

[Federal Budget, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec has announced it will balance its budget by the year 2000, joining the chorus of responsible provincial governments which have either balanced their budgets or announced a plan to do so.

Why is the federal government conspicuously absent from the Team Canada initiative?

If Canadians judge the strength of their governments and their finance ministers by their ability to stop going further into debt, this government and finance minister must be regarded as the most weak-kneed of the bunch.

After two and a half years the federal government has failed to balance its budget as have provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick. It has not even announced a plan to eliminate the deficit, as have all the remaining provinces.

On this basis it is now clear the federal government is the only distinct society in Canada. Even more leadership threatens the financial security of ordinary Canadians, other levels of government and future generations that will inherit a staggering debt.

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely inconsistent with the document the minister has acknowledged has been distributed around, certainly in the Liberal backbenches, and which has found its way into the media now.

If that is part of the Liberal government's priorities, and it is certainly on a list of initiatives, and it is on the document that this was a memorandum to cabinet, why in the world is the Prime Minister not acknowledging this has been discussed? Why is he not coming clean with Canadians and acknowledging this is something the government is looking at?

[Benefits, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and again today members of the Reform Party asked question of the government with respect to future plans to grant spousal benefits for sexual orientation. We understand that on the document passed around MC stands for memorandum to cabinet. We understand now that cabinet has discussed this issue.

I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to inform Canadians precisely what cabinet has decided with respect to future benefits for gays and lesbians.

[Goods And Services Tax, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want from coast to coast is equal treatment.

Ralph Klein, the premier of Alberta, has called for equal tax treatment. Even the Prime Minister's little buddy in Alberta, Grant Mitchell, has called for equal treatment. He says: "Albertans expect to have the federal portion of the harmonized tax collected in Alberta reduced to equal the level collected in those provinces".

When will the Prime Minister demonstrate his true commitment to fiscal equality by either lowering the GST for the rest of Canada or trashing this obvious payoff to Atlantic Canadian premiers?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the holy harmonization hymn book, chapter 7, verse 5, states on the harmonized GST: "We think that Albertans will applaud this move to an improved tax system".

I invite the Prime Minister to come to Alberta and say that. I hope when he comes he brings a very large Inuit carving with him because he will need it, I guarantee that.

Can the Prime Minister explain how his taking a billion dollars out of the pockets of Canadians to finance a tax break in Atlantic Canada demonstrates the Prime Minister's commitment to equality and why will Albertans really applaud the picking of their pockets?

[Gst, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there but for the grace of God goes I.

There is some information in the Prime Minister's little hymn book that we cannot find. We all know how the Prime Minister likes to cite page 22 of his red book. Could he now tell us on what page of his new holy harmonization hymn book he admits to forcing Canadians to pay a billion dollars to keep this tax that everybody hates? Where is that?

[Gst, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession a secret GST briefing book that was issued to help cover up the Prime Minister's failure to kill the GST because of an alleged act of God.

On page 2 of this holy harmonization hymn book it states: "The GST is not dead, buried and scrapped". I guess that would be revealed truth.

The finance minister, Sheila Copps and the Prime Minister's holy harmonization hymn book all state that the promise was broken. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he, not God, snookered Canadians when he told them he would kill the GST?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows very well that we have called on the government from day one to fulfil its promise to scrap the GST. It is how the Liberals won the election. He and all the members across the way who ran on that promise should take the high dive.

I want to quote from the House record from June 16, 1994. These are the words of the Prime Minister. He said: "There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. The Prime Minister sets the moral tone for the government and must make the ultimate decision when issues of trust and integrity are raised. That is what leadership is all about. As Harry Truman put it: The buck stops here".

My question is for the Prime Minister. When is he going to start accepting responsibility? When is he going to admit that he broke his promise on the GST?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has apologized for his role in the GST fiasco. The former Deputy Prime Minister, Sheila Copps, has jumped, or was she pushed? Now we have the situation of the Prime Minister in denial.

The question is very simple. When is the Prime Minister going to admit that he and his government broke their promise to scrap the GST?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, those are his alleged comments. Let me address this in two ways.

First, I believe people should be hired and fired on their merits, on their ability to do the job. That is the only criteria upon which people should be hired and fired.

There is a black gentleman who works for me. It is entirely inappropriate to suggest that our party would somehow discriminate against somebody because of their skin colour. That is ridiculous. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.

That is why I believe the hon. member across the way and the chief government whip are not being genuine in asking these questions. They are simply trying to throw mud because of what was allegedly said. They are trying to smear members who have never ever in their lives done anything to indicate that they are in any way racist or have shown any other kind of bias toward anybody. It is not very genuine of the hon. member to do that. Frankly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.