Preston Manning

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers pay the highest personal income taxes in the western world. No wonder they are angry therefore when they find out that more than a billion of those hard earned taxpayer dollars have been grossly mismanaged by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

If the human resources minister had any respect for Canadian taxpayers and respect for the principle of ministerial accountability, she would rise in her place today and resign from cabinet. Will the minister resign from cabinet?

[National Unity, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, defining the rules of any future Quebec referendum in clear, indisputable terms is only half the battle. It is crucial, but it is only half the battle. Equally important is how the government proposes to modernize the federation to offer Quebecers and other Canadians an alternative to either status quo federalism or separation. They need a third way. For the Canadian federation to thrive in the 21st century, federalism itself needs to be modernized.

Will the Prime Minister include with his referendum legislation a list of the positive reforms that he proposes to modernize the federation for the 21st century?

[National Unity, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are still seeking clarity.

Canada will win any future referendum if Quebecers are presented with clear choices: the choice between an isolated Quebec state or a strong vibrant province within a renewed federation; the choice between building a strong future together on the basis of equality or embarking down separate paths on the basis of differences.

Surely the government has a responsibility to ensure that the choices are clear and that the consequences are clear.

I ask the Prime Minister, how does this proposed legislation clarify these choices and those consequences?

[National Unity, December 10th, 1999]

Check the records.

It is crucial, however, that any such legislation actually bring clarity, including a clear definition of what constitutes an acceptable question and what constitutes a clear majority.

Will the Prime Minister now tell the House how his proposed legislation defines each of these?

[National Unity, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Prime Minister has completed legislation setting out the government's guidelines on secession referenda.

We have advocated this type of legislation for a long time and—

[Tenth Anniversary Of Tragedy At École Polytechnique, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with the Prime Minister and other members to remember the victims of that tragic day 10 years ago.

On that day 14 promising young women lost their lives in a malevolent outburst of violence by a man with a gun.

I offer my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of these young women and to the young women who were wounded in this tragedy.

I do so on behalf of all the members of the official opposition.

My wife Sandra and I have raised five children in our home. They are now young adults, two young men and three young women. On the day this tragedy occurred two of our daughters were attending classes at the University of Alberta. As a parent, your heart sinks when you even hear about things like this and your mind races to two questions: How safe are our daughters, any of our daughters, from similar acts of violence? And, what can we do as parents, what in particular should we be teaching or providing at home in order to protect our children from violence, in particular violence directed toward women?

Later the news came out concerning the young man who had perpetrated these terrible acts, of the troubled life and background from which grew his pathological hatred of women. I found myself asking a third question of particular relevance to parents with boys at home: What can we do as parents, what in particular should we be teaching or providing our young men at home in order to deal with attitudes or conditions that might lead them to disrespect or discriminate against or to verbally or physically abuse anyone, but in particular those of the opposite sex?

All three of those questions are as relevant today as they were on this day 10 years ago. They demand responses particularly in our homes and personal relations where the attitudes of young men toward women and vice versa are shaped far more than they are by public policy.

Perhaps today the greatest tribute we can pay to those victims whom we remember and honour today would be to rededicate ourselves not just as legislators but as parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles to the prevention of violence in our society and in our homes, in particular the violence of men toward women epitomized by the tragedy of December 6, 1989.

[Taxation, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, now the finance minister is taking credit for creating taxpayers.

I have another tax statement from a pensioner in Ontario. He sent in his pension pay stub dated September 30, 1999. The total federal tax he paid was $4,434. Last year for the same period he paid $3,465. That is a $1,000 increase. His pension stayed the same but his tax bill rose by that amount.

Why does the government hurt pensioners by clawing back so much of their income each year?

[Taxation, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is the taxpayer's sentiment.

Why does the government continue to hurt families by confiscating so much of their hard earned income every month?

[Taxation, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister quotes newspapers and the banks. Why does he not listen to what the taxpayers are saying?

Here is a letter from an oil patch worker in Alberta who said: “I am working very long days away from my family just trying to get a bit ahead while not seeing my four-year old baby girl or wife for extended periods of time. I don't mind working hard or the sacrifices for now, but I would like to keep more of my hard earned money. My money is being stolen from me twice a month and wasted on Liberal”—

[Taxation, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from a man whose family immigrated to Canada many years ago. He wrote to object to the Liberal government's high tax policies, which have confiscated over a third of his income over the last 10 years despite the fact that he is not in a high income bracket. He said that before coming to Canada he lived under an oppressive communist regime, but then he said—and these are his words, not mine—“These days I am living under an oppressive Liberal tax burden and at times I find it difficult to differentiate between the two”.

Does the government not think it has gone too far when getting a tax bill reminds immigrants of the wealth confiscating regimes they have fled?