Preston Manning

[The Senate, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the view of Albertans and the Prime Minister on representation in the Senate is fundamentally different. Albertans' view is that the senators should represent the people of Alberta, not the Prime Minister's party.

The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that the Senate reform proposals contained in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were not the triple E Senate proposal that this party represents. The Prime Minister knows he can democratize the Senate without a constitutional amendment.

When Premier Klein holds an election to fill Alberta's vacancy in the Senate and hundreds of thousands of Albertans participate in that election, as they did the last time, will the Prime Minister recognize the right of those people to choose their own representative in the Senate of Canada?

[The Senate, May 9th, 1996]

In this democratic age it is no longer acceptable for Canadians to have unelected, unaccountable senators having anything to do with the passage of public laws and the spending of public money.

Alberta has a law on its books for the election of senators and Premier Klein wants to hold an election to fill the latest Senate vacancy. Will the Prime Minister agree to appoint to the Senate the individual elected under the Alberta Senate Selection Act?

[The Senate, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that Canadians are demanding a greater say in the political process.

[Taxation, May 8th, 1996]

In other words, Mr. Speaker, a tax reduction granted by one level of government has been sopped up by another level of government, which is precisely my point.

Yesterday Ontario cut its payroll taxes, something that the finance minister and everybody else has said creates jobs. However, the federal government is killing jobs by holding its payroll taxes high to support an inordinate level of UI contributions and proposing further increases to try to stabilize financing of the CPP.

If there really is a federal-provincial understanding of harmonization for tax relief, why is the federal government creating upward pressure on payroll taxes while the Ontario government is trying to cut payroll taxes at the same time?

[Taxation, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through its GST harmonization program, temporarily left $170 million in the pockets of New Brunswick taxpayers, a tax reduction.

Two weeks later the Liberal premier of New Brunswick announced that he was working on a new business tax to get that $170 million into provincial coffers, a case of one level of government taking away a tax reduction granted by another, precisely the thing that the finance minister had said the federal and provincial governments agreed not to do.

Given the fact that his verbal agreement with the provinces is obviously being disregarded, will he commit to reaching a written federal-provincial tax relief agreement with the provinces?

[Taxation, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he was willing to enter into a federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure that tax cuts given by provincial governments like Ontario remained in the pockets of taxpayers.

The finance minister responded by saying that the issue had been discussed extensively at federal-provincial meetings and that a general agreement existed that one level of government would not tax away tax reductions made by another.

Does such a general agreement in fact exist, and if it does, will the finance minister table it in the House?

[Taxation, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, just a simple question. If there does exist a federal-provincial agreement on taxation not to invade each other's territory, as the minister says, will the minister table that agreement in the House?

[Taxation, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you will excuse us for not believing the Prime Minister when it comes to pronouncements on the subject of taxation.

The government's own record with respect to tax relief is abysmal. The only thing worse than its record on tax relief is its record on keeping promises. Canadians deserve to know that money left in their pockets by provincial tax cuts will not be sucked up by the federal government to pay for things like a $1 billion GST harmonization.

Is the Prime Minister willing to enter into a federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure tax relief given by provincial governments remains in the hands of Canadian taxpayers?

[Taxation, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today the Government of Ontario will announce the first instalment of a promised cut in the provincial tax rate. Ontario taxpayers, however, are aware of the insatiable appetite for tax revenue by the federal government, an appetite that increased federal tax revenues by more than $25 billion since the government took office.

In order to maximize the benefits of Ontario's tax cuts consumers have to be convinced the dollars will stay in their pockets and not be picked by some other government.

Will the Prime Minister today promise that his government will not raise federal taxes and negate the stimulative effect of Ontario provincial tax cuts?

[Liberal Party, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can bluster and fume all he wants, but for Canadians the issue is the integrity of the government and they will not be diverted from that.

During the last election the Prime Minister promised to restore honesty and integrity to our institutions. He said that if it is in the red book it will be done.

The government has kept less than 25 per cent of its red book promises. The Prime Minister now says it is unrealistic to expect the rest to be kept.

The Prime Minister also said last week that politicians should not sign contracts to keep their promises. Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Prime Minister's signature not on page 1 of the red book?

By failing to live up to its election promises, is the government now saying the Prime Minister's signature is not worth the red book it is written in?