Preston Manning

[The Economy, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will read from the sermon on the mount. “We will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal dividend so that one-half will go to a combination of reducing taxes and reducing the national debt”.

Liberal candidates went door to door making that promise and less than a year later it is being broken by the Minister of Finance.

If the Prime Minister will not keep his debt reduction and tax reduction promise this year, why should Canadians ever again trust him on anything he says about debt reduction and tax relief?

[The Economy, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition will read from the red book: “We will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal dividend so that one-half will go to a combination of reducing taxes and reducing the national debt”.

Now the finance minister is breaking that promise and the Prime Minister is agreeing with him. It is just like the GST promise.

Will the Prime Minister tell us how this broken promise differs from the broken GST promise?

[The Economy, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on page 29 of the Prime Minister's 1997 red book it says this: “We will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal dividend so that one-half will go to a combination of reducing taxes and reducing the national debt”. It was a clear-cut debt reduction and tax reduction promise for every billion dollars of surplus.

Yesterday the finance minister told the CBC he is not going to apply that formula to the 1998 budget.

The finance minister is breaking the Prime Minister's promise. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in its presentation to the supreme court the federal government is quite clear on what it means with respect to the rule of law on this issue, but when it comes to what the federal government thinks about respecting the democratic will of Quebeckers on this question, the Prime Minister's position has been weak and unclear. This plays into the hands of the separatists and their new found friends.

When it comes to respecting the democratic will, does the government mean that if a majority of Quebeckers were to vote yes to a fair question in a fair process it would respect that decision, or does it mean something else?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois and the federal Conservatives are in bed together on the supreme court rhetoric. They both argue that the rule of law has no place in settling the issue of Quebec's secession, only the democratic will of the Quebec people.

If the government's position is that it is necessary to respect both the rule of law and democratic consent in this matter, will the government answer this question? How does it believe the democratic will of Quebeckers should be respected on this matter?

[The Economy, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem, the Prime Minister talks and that is it. He does not do anything.

Since the Liberals came to power the take home pay of the average Canadian family has dropped by $3,000. Tuition is up 45% for the students the government is so passionately concerned about. Student debt has tripled and unemployment for young people is at record levels.

Instead of creating another band-aid for publicity purposes, why does the Prime Minister not stabilize health and education funding and give Canadians debt reduction and tax relief?

[The Economy, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the would-be prime minister would defend the speech of the current Prime Minister when it did not contain a single word about debt reduction or tax relief.

If the Prime Minister wants to help children in Brandon, as he says, why does he load every child with $20,000 worth of debt on the day it is born?

If the Prime Minister wants to help the single mother in Brandon, why does he tax $1,300 out of her pocket every year?

Instead of getting out the chequebook, why does the government not reward Canadians with debt reduction and tax relief?

[The Economy, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Prime Minister announced that much of the fiscal dividend will go toward his millennium scholarship fund. His fund is full of lofty promises, but it will not replace the $7 billion the Liberals have slashed in payments to the provinces for health and education. It will not help students graduating this year with $30,000 of debt. It will not help the 17% of our young people currently out of work.

Instead of this millennium band-aid, why does the government not reward Canadians with tax relief, the real way to a brighter future for all?

[National Unity, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what the government needs to be doing besides pushing the supreme court reference is to put forward a plan A, a positive initiative to make the federation work better for everyone, including Quebec.

The plan A for which there is the most support inside and outside Quebec is a rebalancing of the federal and provincial powers, not tinkering with the powers as the government has done, but fundamentally rebalancing for the 21st century.

When is the Prime Minister going to give as much effort to developing a plan A for rebalancing the powers as his government has put into this plan B supreme court reference?

[National Unity, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent poll, 88% of Quebeckers believe it is their vote and not the law that should decide Quebec's future. In other words, they have been led to believe that it is either

or. That is a false choice, like the false choice that prevailed before the last referendum when thousands of Quebeckers thought they could vote for separation and still enjoy all the benefits of being in the federation.

Why has the Prime Minister not done anything to counteract these false choices which are so dangerous to Canada and so dangerous to Quebec?