Preston Manning

[Federalism, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister's reply makes myself and other federalists uneasy because it suggests that status quo federalism, simply "good government", is enough to rally support for federalism.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister and the government not acknowledge that what Parliament really needs to do is put a new and better face on federalism; the face of a balanced budget, the face of a more accountable Parliament, the face of economic and social renewal, in order to deepen the commitment of all Canadians, including Quebecers, to Canadian federalism?

[Federalism, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or any of the senior ministers from Quebec.

All of us in the House know that the people of Quebec will be making a fundamental choice later this year that will affect all Quebecers and all other Canadians. That choice will be between a federalist provincial government and a sovereignist provincial government committed to the separation of Quebec from Canada.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Because of the seriousness of this issue I hope that she will not regard this as a partisan question. What steps does the government believe Parliament should take in the next two months to ensure that the federalist option is chosen by a majority of Quebecers?

[Youth Unemployment, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are living in the past. The government's lack of new and bold ideas is not only evident in this field but in agriculture, the approach to the fishery and most seriously in the defence of federalism itself.

So far the government's only response to the threat of Quebec sovereignty is to promise a few more handouts like the headquarters of the Commission for Environmental Co-operation being put in Montreal. This is a tired, old-fashioned approach to winning support from Quebec voters by promising to pave roads and build buildings.

I ask again, does the government have some bold new ideas for Quebecers and all Canadians, in particular with respect to the revitalization of federalism?

[Youth Unemployment, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about allocating money that is ready to be spent. The Prime Minister's reply simply illustrates my point that there is nothing new or creative or bold being said.

Real Reformers have been calling for a portion of federal educational transfers to be paid directly to young people through education and training vouchers and for immediate revamping of the students loan program to make repayments income-contingent.

These are bold and new ideas for encouraging youth preparation for the new economy. Could the Prime Minister tell us why new ideas like these are not an integral part of the government's thinking or announcements on this subject.

[Youth Unemployment, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Canadians are now beginning to see some of the details of the government's legislative program and their initial reaction is disappointment, not enthusiasm.

For example, when Canadians examine the human resources project announced last week to help unemployed youth, they find that 70 per cent of the funds are not for job creation at all and that most of the program is simply a rehash of old programs and Liberal ideas from the 1960s and 1970s.

Does the government not have any bold new ideas for assisting young people, and if it does, what are they?

[Bosnia-Hercegovina, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. Various observers of the Bosnian situation suggest that UN peacekeepers there really have three options.

One is to do nothing different than what has been done in the past and run the risk of the collapse of the peacekeeping effort. The second is to issue the Bosnian Serbs an ultimatum with respect to this form of harassment and be prepared to back it up. The third is to prepare to withdraw.

Would the minister make it clear to the House whether the government favours any of these options or perhaps some other option?

[Bosnia-Hercegovina, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer.

Whether or not these incidents are retaliatory, I wonder if the minister could tell us what specific steps the government has taken to make it clear to the Bosnian Serbs that Canada will use its status as a recognized peacekeeper to marshal world opinion against them and their supporters unless this type of activity is stopped immediately.

[Bosnia-Hercegovina, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I think it is evident that the Bosnian Serbs are now retaliating for NATO's bombing raids on Sunday and Monday. What course of action does the Government of Canada propose if this retaliation continues or, worse yet, were to escalate?

[Government Expenditures, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are not having much luck in finding these expenditures. I therefore would like to direct my second supplementary question to another minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Could the minister tell us what additional expenditures he is planning in his department's $3.7 billion budget in order to further reduce spending as the Prime Minister has promised.

[Government Expenditures, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a commitment that there would be spending cuts in addition to those already contained in the budget. My line of questioning today is to try to find out from the other ministers who must have been a part of that decision precisely what those cuts are going to be.

The Prime Minister has not allowed the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to answer, so I would like to direct my question to another minister.

I would like to ask the Minister of Industry what additional spending reductions he is contemplating in his $2.7 billion departmental budget in order to further reduce the deficit as committed to by the Prime Minister.