Jean Charest

[Canada Pension Plan, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, might I suggest to the minister and the government that they should act their age; they really should assume their responsibilities.

If they are doing so, why is the government now syphoning billions of dollars annually out of the pockets of workers and small businesses in order to create a unnecessary surplus in the EI fund?

Why are they going along with that? Instead of feeding the poor and unemployed statistics, why does the government not return a bit of these people's own money, so as to create jobs in our economy?

[Canada Pension Plan, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise an issue today in the House of Commons that I can only assume has never been raised in the Liberal caucus in the last four years. That is the issue of unemployed Canadians.

I would like to know whether the government would want to acknowledge today that the increase in CPP premiums the Liberals are now planning for will have the net effect of taking away a week's wages for a worker who works and earns less than $35,000 a year. If they do know that, why are they doing it, or is it someone else's fault?

[The Environment, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised. The minister said they spent a lot of time. We knew that much. They spent a lot of time.

At this rate, however, I hope for everyone's sake that they will not put the whole delegation on the same plane to Kyoto because at this rate they will probably come off the plane with a different position than the one announced today.

While they are at it, could they explain to Canadians how they expect to implement in Canada any position that is taken in Kyoto without the active engagement and support of provincial or territorial governments?

[The Environment, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians are finding out that they really do not have a government. They have a process, whether it is the postal strike, whether it is pay equity or whether it is Kyoto.

I would like to ask a question of fact of the process government. It is a straightforward, simple question. Could the Liberal government tell us today which provincial or territorial governments in this country officially support the position which it announced today with respect to Kyoto?

[Human Rights, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer the government an opportunity to clarify for the House its position on human rights and trade.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs will remember that a few years ago the Prime Minister stated during a visit to his riding of Shawinigan, when asked what our position was, that it depended on the size of the country we are dealing with. In other words, name me your country and I will name you my principles.

I would like to know what is the position of this government with regard to trade and human rights.

[Employment Insurance Fund, November 28th, 1997]

It is other people's fault.

[Employment Insurance Fund, November 28th, 1997]

We understand.

[Employment Insurance Fund, November 28th, 1997]

Yes, yes, you had no choice. We understand.

[The Economy, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister must be out to lunch. Today he will probably find out that a major union in this country is pursuing this government, that it is bringing the government to court over the abuse of the EI system in using it for the purpose of reducing the deficit.

Since this government seems to be encouraging further increases in interest rates, is it really saying to Canadians that even if the unemployment rate were at 8% that it is okay to have well over a million Canadians out of work. It is fine with this Liberal government. As long as it meets its deficit numbers it does not actually care whether there are more poor children, whether there are people out of work, or whether we have a lower standard of living.

[The Economy, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the report will include some information about instructions given by the Prime Minister's Office.

My question is about Canadian retailers and small business who will soon start one of the most important periods of the year, the month of December. What is the government trying to accomplish with policies of high payroll taxes, with an increase of 70% in CPP premiums, with an increase in interest rates this week and further increases in interest rates, and a postal strike to add to business people's pain? What message are they sending to Main Street business people in Canada who are trying to earn a living?