Preston Manning

[The Economy, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I had trouble falling asleep last night so I read a speech by the industry minister.

In that speech to the Empire Club he admitted that Canada's standard of living is falling far behind that of the United States. It is now lower than that of California, lower than Michigan, lower than Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia, even lower than Mississippi.

Why does the Prime Minister persist in following high debt and high tax policies that lower Canada's standard of living?

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the best rehabilitative system for young people is strong families. That is where rehabilitation and preventive actions can occur.

If the hon. minister really believes the statistics that link criminal activity on the part of young people to economic deprivation in families, why does she and why does her government support discriminatory taxation against families that aggravate the problem?

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the justice committee and many members of parliament have found that older criminals were recruiting 10 to 12 year olds into criminal activity because they knew they could not be touched under the act.

The idea of lowering the age to 10 was to get those young people into the system so that the rehabilitative aspects of the Young Offenders Act could be applied at a younger age.

Why did the minister reject that advice not only from Reform MPs but from her justice committee?

[Young Offenders Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after six years of delay the Prime Minister has finally agreed to changes in the Young Offenders Act.

Reforms to hold parents of young offenders more accountable and to give victims a greater voice have been included. For that Canadians can thank Reform MPs from Surrey North and Crowfoot. Beyond that Canadians will be disappointed today.

For example, why did the justice minister reject the recommendation of her justice committee that the age of application of the Young Offenders Act be lowered to age 10?

[Member For Edmonton North, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago on March 13, 1989 the hon. member for Edmonton North made political history. By winning a byelection in Beaver River she became the first elected Reform member of the Canadian parliament.

Since then she has become a tireless champion of grassroots Canadians, one of the best communicators in the House of Commons, a constructive critic of two governments that needed criticism, chairman of the official opposition caucus, the loving wife of Lew Larson and a role model for countless young Canadians.

Those of us who know her best know her as more than a parliamentarian. We know her as an outgoing, caring person whose heart is still humble despite all her achievements and who still values her family, her faith and her personal relationships above everything else.

We love you, Deb, and offer you our heartfelt congratulations on the 10th anniversary of your election to the Parliament of Canada.

[Families, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask this question one more time to one Liberal lawyer I know is in the House. My question is for the Prime Minister, who has been evasive all week on this issue and who has let other ministers answer.

Does the Prime Minister believe that high taxes should be used to get parents to work outside the home?

[Families, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still did not answer the question. His lawyers are arguing that one of the reasons for tax discrimination against single income families is to get parents to leave the home for the paid workforce. That is their argument. Is that argument the position of the government? Does the Prime Minister support it, yes or no?

[Families, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister evades my question. His lawyers are at the United Nations today arguing in favour of tax discrimination against single income families. They are arguing that stay at home parents would not want to leave the home if they got the tax fairness of the type we are advocating. Does the Prime Minister agree with his lawyers or not? Is he or is he not in favour of tax discrimination against single income families?

[Families, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we wanted to hear from the real Prime Minister, not the would-be prime minister. No one believes the Prime Minister cares about tax fairness for families. He has brought in six budgets that discriminate against them. He ordered his backbenchers last night to vote against tax fairness for families. Today he has his lawyers at the United Nations arguing in favour of tax discrimination. Why does the Prime Minister not just admit that his policy is to discriminate against single income families?

[Families, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today at the United Nations representatives of this government are arguing that tax discrimination against single income families is a good thing. In fact, these Liberal lawyers are saying that if the government ended this tax discrimination, stay at home parents would never want to leave the house to get a real job. That is what they are saying.

Would the Prime Minister care to explain why his lawyers are at the United Nations today arguing in favour of tax discrimination?