Preston Manning

[The Economy, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the treasury could have a dollar for every excuse like the one given for not balancing the budget, the deficit could be eliminated.

Eight out of eleven senior governments in the country are committed to eliminating their deficits, not just reducing them, and are much further down that road than the federal government. As the provinces get closer to balancing their budgets, they fear that a fiscally irresponsible federal government will move into the tax room they have vacated.

Will the Prime Minister today assure the provinces the federal government will not undermine the positive effects of provincial tax decreases by federal tax increases?

[The Economy, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the House prepares to receive the federal budget, I want to examine the Prime Minister's assertion that the federal government has broken the back of the deficit.

If such a statement came from a government that had balanced its budget it might be credible. However, when it comes from the head of an enterprise that has run 25 consecutive deficits, has not had a budget surplus in a quarter of a century and is currently spending $30 billion more per year than it takes in, such a statement is unbelievable and exposes the government and the House to ridicule.

The only back the government has broken is the back of the Canadian taxpayer.

To the finance minister, if the government has broken the back of the deficit, how soon we can expect a reward for that accomplishment, namely tax relief for overtaxed Canadians?

[The Constitution, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, any question of sufficient import to wake up the solicitor general must have had some substance to it.

My final question today is what lawyers call a notwithstanding question. Notwithstanding the desire of Reformers to see the entire government replaced, notwithstanding our desire to see the cabinet shuffled and the Prime Minister impeached, notwithstanding our desire to see the Deputy Prime Minister go on an extended tour of Antarctica, will the government House leader please convey to the Prime Minister, Madam Chrétien and the Prime Minister's colleagues the best wishes of Reformers and our constituents for the season and for the New Year.

[The Constitution, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister provides no rational answer because there is no rational answer.

Any government that can talk itself into believing that a separatist veto over the Constitution of Canada helps national unity can talk itself into any other kind of concession. It is the Neville Chamberlain approach to constitutional negotiation: unity in our time through irrational concessions. When Winston Churchill was asked how to deal with a Prime Minister taking that approach, he replied: "If the Prime Minister trips, he must be sustained; if he makes mistakes, they must be covered; if he sleeps, he must not be wantonly disturbed; but if he is no good, he must be poleaxed".

Does the minister see the wisdom in Winston Churchill's position on how to deal with any minister who undermines the national interest by irrational concessions?

[The Constitution, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of efficiency and generosity on this last day before the break I have a very straightforward question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This is a question we have had difficulty getting a straight answer on but I hope that today we may receive it.

Will the minister tell Canadians in plain language how granting the separatist government of Quebec a veto over the Constitution of Canada enhances the cause of national unity?

[Quebec Referendum, December 13th, 1995]

Why do you not understand about people versus government?

[Quebec Referendum, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is doing on the national unity front makes Brian Mulroney look good, and you have to go a long way to make Brian Mulroney look good.

The Prime Minister has cobbled together a national unity package without consulting the nation, without consulting the premiers, without consulting his own caucus and without even

submitting it to parliamentary debate. He even uses closure, the most undemocratic tool of all to push parts of a national unity package through the national Parliament.

Why would anyone follow the Prime Minister's lead in the national unity area when there is no consultation, no mandate, no rationality, no democratic legitimacy behind his proposals?

[Quebec Referendum, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a clear answer appears to be beyond the capacity of the Prime Minister.

After the last referendum Canadians demanded change and some new ideas for national unity. Reformers responded to that call by putting forward proposals for changes in the federation and terms and conditions for dealing with separation.

The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has borrowed from Brian Mulroney's distinct society clause, gone back to a 1971 veto proposal and gone back to an 1867 clause in order to deal with the referendum.

Where are the new ideas, the imagination and leadership needed to keep this country together? How will distinct society, constitutional vetoes and vague references to peace, order and good government ever convince Quebecers to vote for Canada in the next referendum?

[Quebec Referendum, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was unable or unwilling to answer a simple question. The question was: How does the Prime Minister propose to use the federal power of peace, order and good government to ensure a fair and clear question in the next Quebec referendum.

Now the Prime Minister has had another 24 hours to reflect. The Deputy Prime Minister has whispered in his ear. He has had a chance to consult his legal advisers and the answer is probably on the front page of his briefing notes.

In the interest of national unity, will the Prime Minister now give an answer? How does the Prime Minister propose to use the federal power of peace, order and good government to ensure a fair and clear question in the next Quebec referendum?

[Quebec Referendum, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to keep this country together, it will only occur by providing clear answers to the questions that are being asked. This type of political rhetoric just adds to the uncertainty rather than to the certainty that Canadians desire.

Let me come at it another way. Last month in Toronto the Prime Minister said that he did not want any more referenda and implied that he would use the federal power to prevent future referenda. Last night he conceded that there will be another referendum. He said that he is going to use the federal power to ensure that it is a fair referendum.

Which is it? Is he proposing to use the federal power to prevent another referendum, or is he proposing to use the federal power to ensure that the next referendum is more fair? Which is it, one way or the other?