Preston Manning

[Auditor General's Report, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers are not impressed.

I have a copy of a bill from a Saskatchewan farmer who recently bought $531 of gasoline for his farm. When provincial sales tax, federal excise taxes and GST were added, his bill came to $1,137. That is more than $600 in taxes. In other words, the taxes were almost $100 more than the gasoline, and the government says it is helping the farmers.

The farmer asks, why is the government so good at collecting taxes and so bad at cutting them?

[Auditor General's Report, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal would be proud of collecting taxes. The auditor general has also joined business and labour critics in condemning the government's mishandling of employment insurance, particularly the payroll taxes that support it. He says “parliament and the public are left to speculate about the factors driving decisions concerning one of the government's largest and most visible programs”. They are left to speculate because the government is imposing payroll taxes far higher than those required to support the program.

EI no longer means employment insurance. It means extra income for the finance minister.

Why is the government so good at collecting payroll taxes and so bad at reducing them?

[Auditor General's Report, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report harshly criticizes the government for its mismanagement of various agencies and services, but it applauds the government in one notable area, the efficiency with which the government collects $21 billion a year from Canadians through the GST.

Is it not ironic that the party that advocated the abolition of the GST is now impressing the auditors with the effectiveness with which it collects the tax.

Why is the government better at collecting taxes than it is at cutting, abolishing and scrapping them?

[National Unity, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, another illuminating response.

The Prime Minister knows that anything more than a simple majority on a secession issue will be impossible to enforce. The Prime Minister hints at requiring a 60% threshold on a secession negotiation, but 59% support on a clear question in favour of separation would not settle the issue, it would only make matters worse. The federal government would find itself in a constitutional and democratic no man's land.

Since the Prime Minister wants to raise the bar, in the name of clarity, what contingency plan does he have to deal with a more than 50% vote?

[National Unity, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who resurrected this issue over a week ago and he has yet to make a single aspect of it clear. Let us go back to basics again.

The Prime Minister says that he wants a clear majority, but our idea of a majority is the same as it was in the last two referendums and the Charlottetown accord, 50% plus one. We have said that for years. The Prime Minister says that 50% plus one is not enough, but he will not say what it is. In the name of clarity, why does the Prime Minister not say what constitutes an acceptable majority?

[National Unity, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's newfound referendum strategy is as clear as a foggy night. He declared that he would make the rules for the next referendum clear, but he cannot say what he means by a clear majority, he cannot say what would constitute a clear question and, worst of all, he has never put forward any clear position on how to reform and improve the federation itself.

Four years ago we published clear positions on all of these matters. In the name of clarity, where is the Prime Minister's clear position?

[National Unity, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, he does not like 50% plus one but you will notice he did not say what he does like. That is not clarifying the situation. That is muddying it up.

We are democrats and we believe that Canadians are democrats too. We believe that a democratic majority on a clear question would have to be acknowledged and accepted in good faith by the federal government as grounds for negotiation however undesirable that outcome might be.

The Prime Minister says he wants to bring clarity to this situation. In the interest of clarity would the Prime Minister tell the House in what possible way he could enforce any other outcome?

[National Unity, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the question and he is equally unclear on his view of democracy. He says he wants a clear majority but he is unable to tell Canadians precisely what that is.

The federal government accepted 50% plus one in two previous Quebec referenda and 50% plus one was the rule in the Charlottetown referendum. Why will the Prime Minister not clarify his definition of what constitutes a clear majority?

[National Unity, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my friends have lost their sense of humour. The official opposition supports clarity on the question of the majority required on Quebec's separation. We have said this for five years and are glad that the Prime Minister has finally seen the light. However the Prime Minister gives clarity a bad name. He is not clear on what constitutes a majority. He is not even clear on what constitutes a clear question.

Our question would be: Should Quebec separate from Canada and become an independent country with no special legal ties with Canada? Yes or no. Does the Prime Minister agree with that formulation of the question?

[National Unity, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to each of the new members and welcome them to the daily circus.