House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.
The Constitution June 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Charlottetown accord discussions of the amending formula went on for several days. They were preceded by consultations by officials. They resulted in formal proposals to amend the amending formula which were agreed to by 10 provinces and the federal government.
If that did not satisfy the section 49 requirement, what is it that makes the Prime Minister think a half hour discussion at this conference in June will satisfy that requirement?
The Constitution June 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if we could follow the logic in that answer, the Prime Minister appears to be arguing that section 49 of the Constitution requires this first ministers conference to discuss the amending formula. But there have been at least three major first ministers conferences at which the constitutional amending formula was discussed: the two Meech Lake discussions and the full-blown first ministers conference with respect to the Charlottetown accord in 1992.
Why does the Prime Minister insist that another meeting is required to discuss the constitutional amending formula when these three previous meetings satisfy that requirement?
The Constitution June 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, only a week ago the Prime Minister appeared on national television with the premier of Quebec saying that he was not going to discuss the Constitution at the first ministers conference in June. Now, a week later, the Prime Minister is insisting that the constitutional amending formula be on the agenda at that conference. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what made him change his mind?
Employment May 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, these answers are simply not enough for the 1.4 million unemployed, for the underemployed and for the one out of four Canadians worried about their jobs.
On the 1993 campaign trail the Prime Minister slammed Kim Campbell for saying unemployment would not substantially improve until the year 2000. He called it an admission of failure. Then after only two and a half years in office he turns around and says almost exactly the same thing, and all this after promising job creation heaven on pages 11, 15, 16 and 20 of the now discredited red book.
Did the Prime Minister ever intend to keep this election promise of jobs, jobs, jobs or was it, like the GST, simply another cynical political ploy to get undeserving Liberals elected?
Employment May 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the number of jobs the government claims to have created, even if it were taken at face value, is completely inadequate in relation to the millions of jobs required.
If we subtract the number of jobs lost over the last three years, if we subtract the number of temporary jobs and if we subtract the number of Canadians who have given up looking for work, the government's job creation record is simply atrocious.
The government professes to have firm targets for deficit reduction. What is the government's target for reducing the unemployment rate and when will it be achieved?
Employment May 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Liberals criss-crossed the country promising worried Canadians jobs, jobs, jobs.
Almost three years later we have 1.4 million Canadians unemployed, we have almost a third of our workforce underemployed and we have about one out of four Canadians worried about their future job security.
In other words, we have massive economic insecurity. How does the Prime Minister respond to this situation? He responded on his recent western trip by saying Canadians will just have to live with it.
Is the Prime Minister really telling 1.4 million unemployed Canadians they will simply have to learn to live with yet another broken promise, the broken promise of jobs, jobs, jobs?
National Unity May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister correctly, if that is the only guideline the government is firm about, will the minister then introduce a motion in the House declaring the House will not recognize a unilateral declaration of secession by any province in Canada?
National Unity May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said there will be negotiations on ground rules for the next referendum but provides no details at all.
He says 50 per cent plus one is not enough to separate, but he does not know what percentage would be acceptable. He says the federal government would never acknowledge a unilateral declaration of separation but cannot seem to outline the grounds for a democratic and legal secession.
Either the Prime Minister is making this up as he goes along or the federal government does have ground rules governing the next referendum on secession and is not disclosing them.
Which is it? Does the government have firm ground rules for governing a future referendum on secession? If it does, will it table them in the House?
National Unity May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution, secession and the rule of law require precise interpretation. But the Prime Minister continues to muddy the constitutional waters with his off the cuff comments about possible guidelines for future referendums on secession without saying what those guidelines are.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said: "If ever we have a referendum by any province, I hope there will be a discussion beforehand to make sure the rules are known by both sides".
I am wondering if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can explain what the Prime Minister was trying to say. In particular, what discussions or negotiations was he talking about, who would take part, and precisely what would be discussed?
National Unity May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the trouble with the Prime Minister is he is not clear and precise on an issue desperately requiring clarity and precision.
If the Prime Minister says he is to rely on the rule of law in an unprecedented situation, he should translate his position into legislative acts and motions before the House.
Again, will he introduce a motion into the House, a solemn declaration affirming the people of Canada are free to determine their political destiny and that Parliament will not recognize a unilateral declaration of independence by any province?