Preston Manning

[Employment, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Brian Mulroney always had an explanation for his dismal job record. Our interest rate was lower than Liechtenstein's, our growth rate is better than Antarctica, we have a better job record than somebody in the G-7.

What do we hear from this Prime Minister? Exactly the same thing. Our job record is better than somebody in the G-7. But there are still 1.5 million unemployed, two or three million under employed and one out of four workers afraid of losing their jobs.

Instead of trying to justify high unemployment records exactly like Mulroney, why will the Prime Minister not do something different and start by addressing the high tax levels in the country?

[Employment, March 19th, 1997]

The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million unemployed when Mulroney left office, 1.5 million unemployed today.

The Prime Minister just does not get it. Taxes, taxes, taxes are what are killing jobs, jobs, jobs. Seventy-one tax increases by the federal Tories, 37 tax increases by this government. The government now collects more taxes than any other government in Canadian history, including wartime. And there is a connection between those high levels of taxation and the record of unemployment, the worst record of unemployment since the depression.

Instead of trying to justify high unemployment, exactly like Brian Mulroney used to stand in this House and do, why does the

Prime Minister not actually do something for the 1.5 million unemployed and start by lowering taxes?

[Employment, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the last two federal elections the leader of the federal party that ended up forming the government campaigned on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.

When Mr. Mulroney left office, the total number of unemployed was 1.5 million and the four years this government has been in office there are still 1.5 million unemployed.

My question for the Prime Minister is this. Why is his government's job creation record no better than Brian Mulroney's? Why has the Prime Minister, like Mulroney, failed to deliver on jobs, jobs, jobs?

[Employment, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I lay before the House two irrefutable facts. First, the Liberal government is taxing Canadians more heavily than any federal government in history.

Second, we have the worst string of unemployment numbers since the depression, 77 consecutive months with the unemployment rate over 9 per cent.

There is a connection between these two facts. We are demanding, in the name of 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, that the government acknowledges the connection.

Will the Prime Minister finally acknowledge that taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs?

[Employment, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister lists off the jobs that have been created in Canada by the private sector, he only tells half the story. He never tells about the jobs that have been killed by high government taxes.

The government has never said how many jobs it has killed through the $2 billion increase in GST. How many jobs have been killed by the $15 billion increase in personal income taxes? How many jobs will be killed by the $10 billion increase in payroll taxes proposed by the government?

The 1.5 million unemployed Canadians would like to hear the other side of the story. If the Prime Minister wants to tell the whole story, will he tell the House how many jobs have been killed in Canada by his high tax policies?

[Employment, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last month while the government was trotting out its budget, 38,000 full time jobs disappeared, 44,000 women lost either part time or full time employment, and our young people were dropping out of the workforce at a record not seen since the 1960s.

The so-called federal jobs strategy is an unmitigated disaster with 1.5 million people unemployed, 2 to 3 million underem-

ployed, 800,000 people working at two jobs to make ends meet, and 1 out of 4 workers afraid of losing their jobs.

Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that the federal jobs strategy has been a disaster and start taking a new tack based on tax relief?

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Clifford Olson, as a result of the actions of this minister, gets a national soapbox. What victims get is a study.

In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the section on legal rights there are 16 provisions affirming the rights of persons suspected or charged or convicted of crimes. There is not one section, not one clause, dealing with the rights of victims of crime. Right across the country Canadians are sick and tired of that imbalance. They want a justice system that puts the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals like Clifford Olson.

Will the justice minister commit today to pass the victims bill of rights that is languishing in committee or will the Liberals fail Clifford Olson's victims yet again?

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister professes this great empathy and sympathy for victims of crime and he gives us a list of tinkering measures.

What has the government done to actually act on its sympathy and empathy? It tinkers with section 745 rather than repealing it. It pays lip service to our victims bill of rights and then allows it to languish in the Parliamentary committee. It spends hundreds of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars on ensuring that

Clifford Olson gets a hearing and it invests no time, no money and no energy in the victims of his crime.

If the justice minister is so sympathetic, so empathetic to the victims of crime, will he commit today to enact a victims bill of rights that was presented to the House 11 months ago by the member for Fraser Valley West?

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this morning in Vancouver a preliminary hearing began into child killer Clifford Olson's appeal for early release under section 745 of the Criminal Code.

This hearing will be an indescribable horror for the families of the victims. It should not be happening and it would not be happening if the government had acted sooner and if it had repealed section 745 instead of tinkering with it.

Outraged Canadians are holding rallies today in Vancouver and elsewhere, asking how the government could be so callous and insensitive toward the victims of Clifford Olson's crimes.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how could the government be so utterly insensitive to the families of Clifford Olson's victims as to permit this hearing?

[Health Care, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, all members in the House know that the federal government has a responsibility with respect to funding of health care and the broad framework. It is the funding aspect that we are talking about.

We are wondering where this minister was in the prebudget discussions when the government decided to subsidize crown corporations and businesses to the tune of $7 billion a year and decided at the same time to cut health care by almost $4 billion.

Where was the minister when that decision was made? Why did he not stick up for health care in that circumstance, as he obvious did not?