John Williams

[Employment, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is another story of more talk and more taxes and fewer jobs. In Canada 1.5 million people are unemployed, two million to three million underemployed, 800,000 moonlighting to make ends meet, the lowest number of young people working in 20 years, and one in four who are worried about losing their jobs. That is the Liberal job record.

What is the Liberal answer to this crisis? A 73 per cent hike in payroll taxes that its own department is saying is going to kill even more jobs.

With an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent, with 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, why is the government introducing a73 per cent payroll tax hike that is going to kill more jobs?

[Employment, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, great words, but no jobs. I cannot believe the government is actually trying to justify an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent.

Let us look at the numbers: 38,000 full time jobs disappeared last month; 44,000 more women are out work; the lowest number of young people working in 20 years. What is more, CIBC Wood Gundy and Canadians who had given up looking for work say that the unemployment rate is up to 13.9 per cent.

Why has the government broken its red book promise? Why have the Liberals failed completely and miserably to create growth and opportunity?

[Employment, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-Tory years have been hard years for the one and a half million unemployed in Canada. StatsCan announced today that the unemployment rate for February was 9.7 per cent. That is the 77th straight month, or six and half years, that unemployment has been over 9 per cent. It is the worst string of job numbers since the Great Depression.

I ask the Minister of Finance, where are the jobs, jobs, jobs that the Liberals promised Canadians in the last election?

[Tobacco, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the convention of ministerial responsibility says that the minister is accountable for what happens in his department and for what he says.

[Tobacco, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard a Liberal $10 billion tax hike as being nothing.

At the launch of the tobacco bill, the Minister of Health made a mistake. Twice the minister spoke ill about the effects of a particular type of tobacco. Twice he got his facts wrong.

When the minister was threatened with a libel suit because of his comments, he took the quick and easy way out. Instead of the minister apologizing himself, he passed the buck and forced his deputy minister to issue an unqualified written apology.

The minister did not have the courage, the integrity or the parliamentary morality to stand up and take the responsibility for his own words.

The minister alone is accountable for his actions and the actions of his department. When staff members are right, he is happy to take the credit. When they are wrong, he hangs them out to dry-

[Pensions, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let us do a simple comparison. The MP pension plan will pay out a maximum of $48,300 a year after 19 years of service, while Canadians have to work 35 years for a mere pittance of $8,800 a year. Not only that, but if a senior only has the new seniors benefit and the CPP, the Minister of Finance will take back half the CPP, which is blatantly unfair.

Will the Minister of Finance promise this House that he will introduce legislation now to clawback the MP pension plan on the same basis as the CPP?

[Privilege, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I refute the arguments put forth by the government whip who suggests the matter is not that relevant. He would lead us to think that the vote in the House was assumed by the government. If we ever find that the government of day can assume the outcome of a vote in the House, democracy in this country is in extreme peril.

I draw attention to page 4460 of Debates when the Speaker ruled regarding the GST issue on October 9, 1989. He said:

Under these conditions, the Chair feels it must exercise extreme caution against unduly restricting the authority of the House to deal with a perceived contempt, especially given the arguments which have been presented.

He went on to say:

I must confess that I have certain doubts regarding this case. Normally in cases of doubt, it has been the practice for Speakers to allow an appropriate motion to go forward for a decision of the House.

Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider in your ruling the fact that democracy is assumed by the government and to allow this motion to go forward.

[Health Care, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House about 45 minutes ago that his government had not cut health care.

Let me quote from the government's own document "Getting Government Right" dated February 20, 1997. On major transfers to other levels of government, the actual Canada health and social transfer for 1993-94 was $16.8 billion, down to $12.5 billion in 1997-98 and going down again next year to $11.8 billion.

In light of that irrefutable evidence, will the Prime Minister withdraw his assertion that he has not cut health care and admit that he has misled the House?

[Pensions, March 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you seek unanimous consent of the House to delete Motion No. 259 in the name of the member for Calgary Southwest from the Order Paper and replace the name of the hon. member for Calgary West with the name of the member for Calgary Southwest as the sponsor of Private Members' Bill C-341 on the Order Paper.

[Points Of Order, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as you know the House rules are set by precedent. Earlier today during question period you referred to some questions that would appear to come close to encroaching on the orders of the day. I think you also indicated that you would intervene if you believed that the questions encroached on the orders of the day.

Beauchesne's citation 428 (v) says a question must not "anticipate an order of the day or other matters" and (r) says a question shall not "refer to debate or answers to questions of the current session".

Citation 428 of Beauchesne's refers to written questions. I am asking you to advise the House on any guidelines you feel are appropriate that would give direction to the opposition parties that formulate questions, so that we can abide by the rules and know exactly what the rules are when we formulate questions in so far as they may or may not encroach upon the orders of the day.

There does appear to be a different interpretation by the Reform Party compared to the Bloc Quebecois on what is and is not allowable and our assumption of what you would or would not allow as far as questions are concerned.

Therefore, since there is nothing specific in Beauchesne's or in the standing orders that would give us specific direction regarding oral questions, I ask that you come back to the House to give us guidance.