Preston Manning

[Employment, March 13th, 1996]

The numbers that we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, are 1.4 million unemployed and 2.5 million under employed. That is the statistic he ought to look at.

Perhaps it is just as well that the minister did not answer my question about tax relief because who would believe anything the government said on that subject. Why would Canadians believe that the Liberals had any intention of leaving more money in the hands of taxpayers when they deliberately broke their promise to scrap, abolish and kill the GST?

The government has lost its believability on the subject of tax reform and that diminishes the stimulative effect that promised tax reform could have.

What is the hope for tax relief that will stimulate consumer and business confidence when the government has broken its one and only major promise on tax reform?

[Employment, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, after making inflated promises of jobs, jobs, jobs in the last election, the Liberal government has finally realized that it is the private sector that is going to create the majority of those jobs.

The unemployed need more than words. The only practical way to unleash the job creating power of the private sector on the scale that is required is through genuine tax relief. Yesterday the Minister of Finance ruled out all hope of that happening.

What is the hope for long term private sector job creation when the government has ruled out tax relief until the next millennium?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is about a broken promise and the finance minister attempting to download the responsibility onto the provinces.

The government has perfected the art of passing the buck. When it almost lost the country in the last referendum, it blamed Daniel Johnson. When it cannot deliver on its promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, it blames the private sector. Now when it cannot deliver on the promise of revoking the GST, it is the fault of the provinces.

Why does the government not accept responsibility for these events, starting with the broken GST promise instead of always blaming others for its own failures?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is not an argument about semantics or interpretation, it is a matter of credibility.

On October 18, 1993 the Deputy Prime Minister publicly promised to resign if the GST was not abolished. That cannot be denied. Over two years later it is quite obvious that the government has no intention of getting rid of either the GST or the Deputy Prime Minister. It is stuck with both of those millstones around its neck.

Why did the government ever make a promise, especially on the vital subject of taxation, that it had neither the will nor the political courage to keep?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election the Liberals went around promising to abolish, scrap and kill the GST. It was a cornerstone of their campaign. When Liberal candidates went from door to door they were not talking about harmonizing the GST; they were talking about abolishing and scrapping an iniquitous tax.

The government has clearly broken its promise. It is making matters worse by denying that it broke that promise. Now when that is not working, the Minister of Finance has the nerve to blame the provinces for his failure to keep that promise.

Why will the government not simply admit that it has no intention of ever scrapping, abolishing or killing the GST?

[Canadian Sovereignty, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident why Canada's trade interests are not being properly represented. If the Prime Minister would go back to the NAFTA and read the dispute settlement mechanism he would see what it says: "The dispute settlement provisions of this chapter shall apply whenever a party considers that an actual or proposed measure of another party would be inconsistent with this agreement".

It is quite clear that the Helms-Burton bill in the American Congress is a proposed measure in violation of the NAFTA.

Why does the Prime Minister not direct his trade minister to file an application to the dispute settlement mechanism with respect to this bill?

[Canadian Sovereignty, March 6th, 1996]

The actions the Prime Minister has mentioned here today, phone calls to the president, media releases, negotiations at the highest levels, are essentially political actions to deal with this problem.

When the government has taken the political route to dealing with trade disputes the U.S. has usually been the winner, as with the grain imports case. When Canada has used the practical and business like dispute settlement mechanism in NAFTA Canada has tended to be the winner.

Has the Prime Minister instructed his trade minister to launch an immediate challenge to the Helms-Burton bill under the dispute settlement mechanism of the NAFTA?

[Canadian Sovereignty, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the protectionist speeches given in the American Congress are a carbon copy of those made by Mr. Turner and others in this country in 1988. Perhaps the Prime Minister could arrange for those speeches to be burned-

[Canadian Sovereignty, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians and constituents of Reform members particularly I again state our condemnation of the shooting down of two private U.S. planes by Cuba. I also state our equally strong condemnation of the American anti-Cuba trade bill that encroaches on our sovereignty and the anti-Canadian statements by Senator Jesse Helms.

Surely it is time for the government to do more than wring its hands and do something decisive to protect Canadian interests from these disturbing American actions.

Can the Prime Minister explain why his personal appeal to the U.S. president and the personal intervention of his trade minister have failed to produce any support for the Canadian position in Washington, thereby placing Canadian interests, jobs and trade at risk?

[The Economy, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this month in the province of Alberta the government and the public are beginning a very positive and constructive budget debate.

It is a debate that cuts across party lines. It offers something to consumers, to business people, to the users of social services, to taxpayers. It is a debate on whether to apply a government surplus, something this House has not heard much about, to debt reduction, to social service investment or to tax relief.

When can Canadians expect the House of Commons to debate a budget surplus? Does the government foresee such a debate being possible in this millennium, the next millennium or the one after that?