Preston Manning

[Federal Spending, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are offering Quebecers change, real change; not superficial, symbolic constitutional change.

People cannot eat the Constitution. They cannot pay their mortgages with the Constitution. They cannot build their dreams on constitutional clauses.

What is needed today is a changed federal government that respects provincial powers, stops reckless spending and taxation, and gives all provinces the tools they need to develop the strengths of their own communities and economies. That is possible with a no vote.

Is the federal government open to these kinds of changes? Is the Prime Minister open to these kinds of changes? If the government is, how does it propose to demonstrate that openness in practical ways before October 30?

[Federal Spending, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem with our current Constitution is not so much its content but its application. The federal government has used its spending power to encroach on provincial areas of jurisdiction such as natural resources, manpower training, social services, language, culture and so forth.

The answer to the separatists is a more balanced federation which can be done by re-examining and reducing the federal role in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Is the federal government open to this type of change, a simple withdrawal from provincial areas of jurisdiction, again changes that can be made without constitutional wrangling?

[Federal Spending, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the separatists say that Canada cannot change and will not change but Reformers insist Canada is going to change, and without the help of constitutional lawyers and the federal-provincial wrangling they bring.

One of the real changes Quebec and every other province wants is a limit on federal spending. It is unchecked federal spending that has led to federal encroachment in areas of provincial jurisdiction, huge deficits and debt and a staggering tax burden for all Canadians. Legislation is required to limit federal spending power.

My question is for the finance minister. Is the federal government open to that kind of change, simply limiting federal spending power, a practical change that can be accomplished without constitutional wrangling?

[The Economy, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is one other thing that disillusioned Quebecers and sceptical money markets are both missing, which is the good news that Canadian federalism is going to change for the better. Canadians want it to change, the provinces want it to change, reformers in all political parties want Canadian federalism to change for the better.

Quebecers can develop their language, their culture, their resources, their destiny within that federation. They do not need a yes vote and they do not need constitutional lawyers to guarantee that federal security.

Will the finance minister make it clear the federal government is open to substantial positive changes within the federation, changes that do not require constitutional change, so that a no vote can mean both no to separation and no to the status quo?

[The Economy, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the separatists have been trying to downplay the economic consequences of the instability of the past few days. They have been trying to chalk it up to federalist fearmongering but money markets are not easily swayed by emotion or scare tactics. As the minister says, they react negatively to instability while they react positively to stability, certainty and positive initiatives.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell the House what positive steps can be taken to restore the faith of investors and lenders in the future of Canadian federalism?

[The Economy, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the past two days the value of the Canadian dollar has dropped by a cent and a half, interest rates have jumped alarmingly-the bank rate went up by 1 per cent today-and Canadian stock markets have witnessed the worst times they have had in eight years. The separatists are getting a foretaste of the economic consequences of their position.

Would the finance minister tell Canadians in plain terms what a vote against federalism on October 30 would mean for their bank accounts, their mortgages, their jobs and their economic future?

[Health Care, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Constitution assigns responsibility for health care to the provinces. The federal government only gets involved through the exercise of its spending power which is now declining. The minister is the first federal Minister of Health to preside over annual reductions in federal transfers to the provinces for health care which is resulting in closing beds, waiting lines and friction with the provinces.

Will the minister acknowledge that there are now distinct limits to the federal power over health care policy? Will she tell the House how those limits will affect her dealings with the provinces of Canada?

[Health Care, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know when the minister took this job they told her there would be no math, but there is.

There are only four sources of health care financing: federal transfers, patient contributions, private capital and provincial tax dollars. The minister is reducing the federal transfers. She is against the patient contributions. She is against the private capital. Therefore the only other source to replace the federal transfers is provincial tax increases.

If the minister is against all these things, in reducing the transfers will she not admit that she is in effect telling the provinces to get the additional revenue through provincial tax increases? Yes or no.

[Health Care, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the unavoidable reality of health care financing is that federal financial support of health care is declining in absolute terms. Under this government, federal funding has fallen to 22 per cent of the overall health care bill, with $7 billion in cuts in health care transfers projected.

The provinces are wondering, the Canadian people are wondering, how the minister expects the provinces to replace the health care transfers she is withdrawing. She says they cannot charge the patients. She is against facility fees and she does not want private capital involved.

Is the minister therefore proposing that the provinces impose additional health care taxes to replace the federal medicare funding she is withdrawing?

[Quebec Referendum, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government's unwillingness to recognize public and provincial demand for decentralization in social services, in health care financing and in natural resources management is bad for federal-provincial relations and bad for national unity.

Why does the Prime Minister not remove the centralizers from his cabinet and send a strong signal to Quebec and indeed to all Canadians that federalism can work better by accepting and practising the principle of decentralization?