Preston Manning

[The Economy, March 16th, 1994]

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

I would like to move beyond this family feud between Quebec Liberals and Bloc members over the College Saint-Jean to something of national importance.

Yesterday the money markets drove the Canadian dollar to a seven year low and forced interest rates up. This is something that hurts us all. Analysts say the markets were reacting to two factors: first, foreign borrowers' concerns about the bombing of the Quebec hydro tower; and second, the failure of the federal budget to reverse the choking trend of public debts and deficits.

What is the Prime Minister prepared to say to investors and lenders to alleviate their fears concerning these two factors?

[Job Creation, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the statements made by members on this side are not in support of spending money.

Yesterday the Prime Minister acknowledged that public works spending only creates temporary jobs. His own Minister of Finance has said that debt and increased taxes kill long term private sector job creation.

Why does the Prime Minister not commit his government to long term private sector job creation? Why does he not resolve this difference by coming down hard and unequivocally on the side of deficit reduction and tax relief?

[Job Creation, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to put it more plainly. The government cannot spend more tax dollars and cut spending at the same time. We cannot have one minister with his foot on the gas, one with his foot on the brake and nobody with their hand on the wheel, even if they are driving around Detroit.

There is a deep, inherent, systemic contradiction in the government's job creation strategy. Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians how and when he proposes to resolve this contradiction?

[Job Creation, March 15th, 1994]

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

Senior ministers of the government continue to send out contradictory signals on an old idea, namely the government's promise of job creation. The Minister of Human Resources Development says that this government will initiate job creation directly by spending more tax dollars. The Minister of Finance now refers to high taxes as a cancer on job creation and told Don Newman on Capital Report : ``We are going to cut government spending and we are going to cut it severely''.

These statements do not represent a balanced approach. They represent a contradictory approach to job creation. Can the Prime Minister tell us which of these senior ministers is accurately representing the position of the government on job creation?

[Employment, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and some members of the government are beginning to admit that reducing tax loads is the most direct way to create jobs. However the Minister of Human Resources Development and to some extent the Prime Minister continue to stress increased government spending on things like infrastructure as the most direct way to create jobs.

At this meeting are the government ministers singing from the same song sheet? Which approach is Canada advocating at the G-7 meetings: government led job creation through increased spending, or private sector led job creation through tax cuts?

[Employment, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the Prime Minister's answer and we certainly recognize that the Prime Minister borrows.

The Prime Minister made reference and the Minister of Finance is now admitting that a $1 billion spending cut in UI creates more jobs than a $1 billion spending increase on infrastructure. To be consistent therefore will Canada be recommending tax cuts as a job creation strategy at the G-7 meeting?

[Employment, March 14th, 1994]

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

As has been already mentioned, the government is represented at the G-7 meeting in Detroit to discuss worldwide unemployment and underemployment. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether his ministers are taking any specific proposals for job creation at all to that meeting and particularly whether the private sector's views on job creation have been included and are going to be presented.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all ministers will agree that in a democratic country no new order of government should be established without the consent of the governed.

Will the federal government be conducting a formal referendum among the aboriginal people of Manitoba to secure their approval of this new order of government?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the government committed itself to establishing a new order of government in Manitoba surely this question must have been discussed at cabinet. Surely no cabinet minister would have committed to this concept without having a clear definition in law and legislation of what this concept is.

We got nowhere asking this question of the minister of Indian affairs. I thought perhaps we would with the intergovernmental affairs minister. Perhaps I can direct this question to whoever on the other side understands what the meaning of aboriginal self-government is with respect to Manitoba. Could we be given that definition?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Several days ago the minister of Indian affairs announced that the government was formally proceeding to establish a new order of aboriginal self-government starting in Manitoba. The government has yet to provide this House with a clear definition of this new order of government.

Recognizing the minister's long experience in the field of intergovernmental relations, how is the federal government defining aboriginal self-government in the case of Manitoba's aboriginals? What will be the relationship of that new order of government to the Government of Canada?