Preston Manning

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the minister pretending to protect taxpayers' interests. The way to protect taxpayers' interests would have been to have made the right decision in the first place, not to try to shield a wrong decision from the courts.

Nothing the government says can change the fact that this government cancelled the Pearson deal in the first place, that this government compounded the problem by trying to deny access to the court to affected parties and that this government will leave taxpayers on the hook for $662 million or more.

What will be done to undo the damage of this politically motivated decision and action?

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Liberals, not the Conservatives, made a number of ill conceived promises that are now costing taxpayers billions.

First it was the GST, then it was the EH-101 helicopter cancellation and now it is the Pearson airport development deal.

The Pearson deal cancellation was politically motivated in the first place. The attempt to keep it out of the courts was politically motivated, and now Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for $662 million and counting.

Who will take responsibility for this mess, the former transport minister, the present transport minister or the Prime Minister who made the wrong decision in the first place?

[Job Creation, June 19th, 1996]

Has the federal government analysed how many real jobs could be created by a federal tax cut? Yes or no.

[Job Creation, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer is straight out of the 1960s. We have 1.3 million people unemployed. We have two to three million people under employed. We have one out of four Canadians worried about their jobs.

The Prime Minister does not have to talk to the House about creating jobs in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. He has to talk about creating jobs in the millions if he is going to address this question.

I ask him again, and I will put it very simply. Has the federal government analysed-

[Job Creation, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had read a little further he would know that if the Reform taxpayers' budget had been implemented in 1993 his government would have a surplus next year and be in a position to offer tax relief.

Four months ago in this House the Prime Minister admitted that governments do not create jobs. Yesterday he revisited the idea of an infrastructure program run by government as the principal instrument of job creation.

The government seems unable to grasp the 1990s principle of job creation that a dollar left in the pocket of a taxpayer creates better and more jobs than that dollar in the pocket of the finance minister.

Instead of committing billions of dollars to another temporary infrastructure program, has the government ever seriously considered how many real jobs would be created by a multibillion dollar federal tax cut?

[Job Creation, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that job creation would be the number one priority at the first ministers' conference. The key to job creation is not public works projects but genuine tax relief.

Yesterday in the House when government ministers were asked why tax relief was not front and centre on the agenda of the first ministers' conference, they had no explanation.

If job creation is one of the Prime Minister's top priorities, why is tax relief not high on the agenda of the first ministers' conference?

[Taxation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is supposed to be some sort of economist. He would know that under Reform's taxpayers budget the federal budget would have been balanced this year and tax relief would have been accomplished.

The Government of Ontario has responsibility for the biggest regional economy in the country. The federal job strategy has to be co-ordinated with the job strategy in that province for maximum effect. The Ontario government has taken the position that tax relief is the key to job creation in that economy and has acted on that position in the recent budget.

If the federal government truly believes in co-ordinated federal-provincial approaches to job creation, why does it not follow Ontario's lead and put tax relief squarely on the agenda of the first ministers conference?

[Taxation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, its record on job creation is 1.3 million unemployed, 2 million to 3 million under employed and 1 out of 4 Canadians worried about their jobs.

When the Prime Minister goes into that conference at the end of the week, of the ten premiers there, eight will have either balanced their budgets or run surpluses. All those premiers are in a position to actually deliver tax relief to their people, whereas the federal government will be taking $25 billion more out of the pockets of Canadians next year than in its first year in office.

Is it not true the federal government is at the back of the pack when it comes to tax relief and that is why it is unable to provide leadership on this subject at the first ministers conference?

[Taxation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in his luncheon speech today the Prime Minister outlined the subject matter of the first ministers conference that will be held later this week.

In particular he said job creation will be one of the main themes of the discussion. The key to job creation in this country, particularly private sector job creation, can be summed up in two words: tax relief. It is taxes, taxes taxes that kill jobs, jobs, jobs.

If job creation really is an objective of the first ministers conference, why is tax relief not front and centre on the agenda?

[Taxation, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in his-