Preston Manning

[Quebec Referendum, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he has the powers and the means to ensure that the next Quebec referendum is fair.

What powers is he talking about? How is he going to use them to ensure the next referendum is fair? If the Prime Minister does not answer those questions, he gives the impression that he does not know what he is talking about or that he is making vague threats. He contributes to the unsettling nature which surrounds this issue.

I ask him again: What powers is he talking about? How does he propose to use them to ensure that the next Quebec referendum is fair?

[Quebec Referendum, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister got into this discussion by talking about the uncertainty another Quebec referendum would create. These types of comments, saying the federal government has powers to do something about that referendum, and then refusing to explain how and what powers it will use add to the confusion.

I will ask the Prime Minister again: If he knows what he is talking about, how does he propose to use federal powers to effect the fairness of the next Quebec referendum?

[Quebec Referendum, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard all that. However, my question was what powers under peace, order and good government does the federal government propose to use to affect the question in the next referendum?

[Quebec Referendum, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister talked about another Quebec referendum after saying he would not talk about another Quebec referendum. He went on to say: "The Constitution has a lot of powers for the federal government to act under peace, order and good government. We have powers and we have to use the powers to make sure the question in the next referendum will be fair to Quebecers and will be fair to the rest of the country".

Precisely what powers under peace, order and good government was the Prime Minister referring to? Precisely how does he plan to use those to ensure a clear question in the next referendum?

[The Economy, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to dwell on the past. I am wondering whether he remembers a time in 1978 when Mr. Trudeau went to an economic summit in West Germany and was somehow briefly converted to deficit reduction. He came back and went on TV. Does the Prime Minister remember this? He announced $2 billion in spending cuts without even telling his finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister.

Could the Prime Minister take a short trip, perhaps to Queen's Park; take a few lessons on budget balancing from Mr. Harris; get on TV and commit himself to spending cuts that will balance the federal budget?

Eight of eleven senior governments in Canada are now committed to deficit elimination. Will the Prime Minister make the Government of Canada the ninth, by committing to balance the federal budget by 1997-98?

[The Economy, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the former head of the Economic Council of Canada, John Deutsch, used to have trouble getting Mr. Trudeau to take the debt and deficit seriously. I wonder if Mr. Trudeau passed the virus on to the current Prime Minister.

The only way Mr. Deutsch could get Trudeau to take public finance seriously was to somehow link it to the Quebec or unity issue. Perhaps we can awaken the Prime Minister's interest in the issue by pointing to a recent CROP poll which said that 80 per cent of Quebecers believed the government should come to grips with real deficit reduction. This is something Quebecers have in common with other Canadians.

If the Prime Minister is groping for actions to unite the country, why does he not personally commit his government to balancing the federal budget before the end of his mandate? I ask him not to give us a 3 per cent answer.

[The Economy, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants to put his makeshift unity policy behind him and get on with jobs and the economy. So let us do that.

At present the greatest single impediment to job creation and economic growth in the country is the dead weight of the federal debt of $570 billion, a debt the government is adding to at the staggering rate of almost $100 million per day.

The IMF and Canadian business groups have repeatedly called upon the finance minister to get real and revise his weak deficit reduction targets.

Has the Prime Minister specifically instructed the finance minister to come up with a new deficit reduction target, the only one that means anything to the Canadian taxpayer, namely a zero deficit by 1997-98?

[Royal Arms Of Canada, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if it is true what the minister says, that the coat of arms belongs to the people of Canada and he is committed to building a better country, why are the people of Canada not consulted and involved in changes to the Canadian coat of arms?

[Royal Arms Of Canada, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have a rather curious turn of events here today.

Earlier last week the government in introducing this distinct society motion said it attached great importance to symbolism, even symbolic statements.

Now we have a proposed change in the Canadian coat of arms, a Canadian symbol, and the heritage minister who is supposed to be the guardian of these things dismisses it as inconsequential.

To whom does he believe this Canadian symbol belongs, to the sovereign, to the government, to some Liberal backbencher or to the people of Canada?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government imposes fines on British Columbia and Alberta to impose its outmoded view of federalism. It dismisses fundamental objections to its ill-conceived Quebec package from western provinces out of hand.

All of this undermines rather than strengthens national unity. In its misguided attempt to appease Quebec separatists, in its ham-fisted approach to retaining federal control in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the government runs the risk of pushing provinces like British Columbia and Alberta out the back door.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize that his steadfast resistance to real decentralization is as great a threat to the national unity of the country as the efforts of Quebec separatists?