Preston Manning

[Social Union, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all the provinces want from the Prime Minister is for him to respect the Constitution. The Prime Minister has a lot to do without meddling in provincial affairs.

Why does he not solve the problems in the defence department and with aboriginal affairs? Where is the new Young Offenders Act? Why does he not fix the Canadian dollar? Why does he not attack unfair foreign trade subsidies instead of the provinces?

Is it not true that the Prime Minister's real reason for meddling in provincial affairs is to divert attention away from his own failures?

[Social Union, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would like Canadians to believe that the premiers' social union proposals will somehow weaken the federal government, which is simply not the case.

The social union is about strengthening Canadians. It is about giving all Canadians better health care and better social programs. Why do the Prime Minister and the intergovernmental affairs minister not stop worrying about who gets the credit for fixing health care and just get on with the job?

[Social Union, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, ten premiers and two territorial leaders are ready and willing to deliver better health care and social services to Canadians. Yet the Prime Minister is doing his best to sabotage their efforts.

Last night at a Liberal fundraising dinner the Prime Minister tried to portray the social union negotiations as merely a power grab by the provinces. How could the Prime Minister's dumping on the provinces possibly lead to better health care and social services for Canadians?

[Apec Inquiry, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the people who will not let the commission do its work is the government itself. The former solicitor general pre-judged the outcome of the panel. That is tampering with the work of the panel. Now we have the chairman of the commission interfering to the point where the chairman of the panel quit.

Is it not true that the only reason the solicitor general keeps this panel alive is to keep the truth from coming out about the role of the Prime Minister in this whole sorry affair?

[Apec Inquiry, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has had two weeks to practise being solicitor general. It is time to take the training wheels off and answer my questions himself.

Ms. Heafey's interference was bad enough to make the panel chairman quit. She tampered with the panel's independence. She interfered with its decision making. She refused to deal with charges that their phones were bugged.

Who directed the actions of this Liberal appointed chairman? Who ordered this interference from Ottawa in the role of this particular panel?

[Apec Inquiry, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

On Friday the chair of the public complaints panel investigating the APEC affair resigned citing new interference from Ottawa. Gerald Morin cited interference from the Liberal appointed chairman of the commission, Shirley Heafey. He said her tampering made the panel's work impossible.

What possible excuse does the solicitor general have now for not replacing this panel with an independent judicial inquiry?

[Employment Insurance, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the workers that the Prime Minister is ripping off. The government has been ripping off hard pressed farmers by up to $1 billion a year in income and input taxes. The government is ripping off the working poor to the tune of about $15 billion a year from families and individuals who make $30,000 or less.

Maybe the Prime Minister can tell Canadians who just do not understand why he has instructed his finance minister to tax the life out of workers, farmers and the working poor.

[Employment Insurance, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister hides behind the Employment Insurance Commission, which is a frequent posture of the Prime Minister.

How independent are these commissions? Two of them work for the Minister of Human Resources Development and the other two are appointed by the government. If they object to this heist, they will probably be collecting employment insurance themselves.

Why does the Prime Minister not just do the right thing and give the employment insurance money back to the workers instead of blaming the commissioners?

[Employment Insurance, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister owes millions of Canadian workers $290 each. This Prime Minister owes thousands of Canadian businesses $415 per employee. That is how much further the employment insurance premiums should have been cut yesterday according to the chief actuary of the plan.

Why does the Prime Minister not simply tell his finance minister to give that money back to the employers and the workers of Canada?

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am in a hurry on this issue. I want to get this country out of the 19th century and into the 21st century constitutionally, whereas Rip Van Winkle over there is prepared to snooze his way through the 20th century.

Again, when is the Prime Minister prepared to conclude a substantive social union agreement with the provinces to strengthen the federation?