Preston Manning

[Government Budgets, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this fiscal year eight provincial governments are expected to balance their budgets or post surpluses. This means they will be in a position to offer tax relief to consumers and businesses and therefore stimulate real job creation for the unemployed. The only government left dragging its feet on budget balancing and tax relief is the senior government in Canada, the federal government.

If eight provinces can balance their budgets and even the separatist premier of Quebec can commit to deficit elimination, why can the federal government not do likewise?

[Taxation, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the statements by the finance minister concerning Reform's budget are false.

This is not an academic matter. The finance minister will recall that his predecessor, Michael Wilson, in the late 1980s attempted to reduce federal taxes and managed to do that in a couple of years. However, the provinces, particularly the Liberal provincial government in Ontario, increased provincial taxes to sop up the tax relief granted by the federal government, and the taxpayers never saw any of it. Now people are afraid the same thing will happen in reverse.

I ask the minister again for a yes or no answer. Will he enter into a federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure that tax relief given by one level of government is not taken away by another level of government?

[Taxation, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest problems the provinces are having in balancing their budgets is the drastic reduction in transfers instituted by the government, exactly opposite to what the minister said.

These are not unfounded fears. Despite the minister's assurances that this has all been discussed with provincial counterparts and that there is agreement, there is not agreement. If the minister is so confident this agreement can be reached would he be prepared to enter into a formal federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure that tax relief measures adopted by either level of government are passed on to the long suffering Canadian taxpayer?

[Taxation, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, every senior government in Canada with the exception of the federal government is now committed to deficit elimination and balancing its budget.

Eight jurisdictions are expected to balance their budgets this fiscal year or post surpluses. This means that a number of provincial jurisdictions are getting close to being able to offer tax relief to their people. Their concern is that the federal government, still running a $30 billion deficit, will cancel out provincial tax cuts with federal tax increases.

Will the finance minister today assure his provincial counterparts that his government will not raise federal taxes when provinces cut theirs?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal candidates in the last federal election did not knock on doors and say: "Please send me to Parliament because I want to harmonize, I want to co-ordinate, I want to integrate federal and provincial taxes so that we can tax you more efficiently". That is not what they said.

They repeated the promises made by the finance minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister to kill and abolish the GST. I ask the Prime Minister very simply so that he does not evade the answer to this question. Why did he mislead Canadians?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the last federal election campaign Liberals proclaimed their hatred for the goods and services tax. From Bonavista to Vancouver Island the chorus was "vote for us and we'll kill, abolish and scrap the GST".

However, last night when a motion was put to the House to kill, scrap, abolish the GST, what happened? The Liberals defeated their own election promise.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why has the Liberal government broken that election promise?

[The Economy, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is sleep walking again on this issue in preparation for the next contest with the separatists in Quebec. In order to win that contest the federal government must appear fiscally stronger and more fiscally responsible than the separatist Government of Quebec. It has to be ahead on debt elimination, it has to be ahead on debt reduction and it has to be ahead on tax relief. Unbelievably, the government seems to be willing to trail the separatists on these three counts.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that by dragging his feet on those three subjects or talking a lot about those three subjects but not addressing them, he is weakening the federalist position even before the next contest with the Quebec separatists begins?

[The Economy, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that either the Prime Minister did not hear my question or he did not understand it.

We are talking about manoeuvring for the next referendum in Quebec. The premier of Quebec has committed his government to deficit elimination. He will then blame any failure to meet that target on deficit unloading by the federal government, of which there was a great deal in the recent budget. There is a trap here. I challenge the Prime Minister to avoid it.

Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the federal government will be in better shape than the separatist Government of Quebec on deficit elimination, debt reduction and tax relief prior to the next referendum?

[The Economy, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the separatist premier of Quebec committed that province to enacting a deficit elimination law and achieving that target by the year 2000. Apparently this measure enjoys consider-

able support from Quebec business executives, union leaders, federalists and separatists.

Once again, the federal government is in danger of letting the separatists get out in front, this time on the issue of who can manage government finances more responsibly. When will the Prime Minister establish a firm date for the elimination of the federal deficit, or is he prepared to play second fiddle to Lucien Bouchard on that issue?

[The Economy, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am really talking about the connection between the fiscal position of the Government of Canada and the unity issue. Once again the Prime Minister is not looking far ahead.

In order to win the next contest with the separatists the federal government must be, not appear to be, fiscally stronger and more fiscally responsible than the separatist Government of Quebec. It should be ahead on deficit elimination, it should be ahead on debt reduction and it must be ahead on tax relief if it is to win that contest.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that by dragging his feet on these three issues he is weakening the federalist position even before the next contest with the separatists begins?