Jim Silye

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the third instalment of the Liberal's copy Reform awards.

Today's winner is the member for Vancouver Quadra whose personal proposals for pension reform are suspiciously similar to the Reform blue book. At a time when the cabinet has approved a two tier pension plan that will make millionaires out of defeated politicians, it is indeed outstanding to have a government backbench MP suggest that the treasured gold plated pension plan be based on the principle of matching funds.

Imagine a Liberal actually saying that MPs should live by the same rules as other Canadians, collecting their pensions at age 65, or that they should be forced to tighten their belts like those living outside planet Ottawa. Reformers have been calling for these changes for four years.

I commend the member for Vancouver Quadra for joining our cause. I call on the Prime Minister to stop comparing his salary and pension with professional hockey players and start comparing it to those who actually pay his salary and pension, the Canadian taxpayers.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

While normal Canadians are taking a hit in this budget, this year's spending estimates reveal that the budgets for running the Senate and ministerial offices have been increased.

Why is it that senators and politicians continue to ride the gravy train on planet Ottawa while overtaxed Canadians have to tighten their belts?

[Main Estimates, 1995-96, February 28th, 1995]

In their last year they will spend more money than in their first year: 158.7 to 158.

[Pensions Of Members, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the solution to a fair and proper pension plan is simple: Pass a bill in the House that would make MPs subject to the same laws as all other Canadians. That way an MP pension plan would be no better than that of any other Canadian or as good as any plan that is out there in the real world.

Why will the minister not consider abolishing his ill fated, inadequate, still gold plated, two-tier pension plan and make it the same as those in the private sector?

[Pensions Of Members, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal two-tier pension reform is inadequate, unfair and in fact illegal in the private sector. The MP accrual rate of 4 per cent is double the legal limit allowed for the rest of Canadians under the Income Tax Act.

How can the President of the Treasury Board justify this blatant double standard in light of the job losses that will have to be announced this afternoon in the budget?

[Income Tax Act, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members vote no, except for those who wish to vote otherwise.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Reform Party will vote against the motion, except for those who want to do otherwise.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech, although I basically disagree with her fundamental premise. I would like to make a comment and have her respond.

Having worked with her on the Standing Committee on Finance for a while, I know she is sincere in looking for solutions. As an individual who obviously by her considered remarks is very intelligent, I would like to offer a suggestion as to how to find that solution.

A lot of people know that if you define the right problem or if the problem is defined correctly, you now have at least 50 or 60 per cent of the solution because that is where you will focus your efforts.

I would present the case that this government has not identified the right problem. We have a problem in this country with the deficit, debt and the interest costs to service this debt. It is the debt that is causing the high interest costs and it is the high interest costs that is the number one problem in this country. Therefore the deficit is part of it because it contributes to the debt which increases the interest.

I will go very slowly. There are three parts to it: debt, interest and deficit. The government says it is the deficit that is the problem, that if we reduce the deficit, we will solve the problem. Wrong.

At the end of three or four years, this government's program will have added $90 to $100 billion to the debt which then would make the interest costs rise regardless of this 3 per cent of GDP. That is what everybody is saying in the world economy. That is why they are concerned about the toughness of the cuts necessary. It is adding to the problem.

What this government is doing is adding to the problem, thinking it is solving it by defining the wrong problem. That is why it is paramount that we get to a zero deficit so that we do not keep adding to the debt. It is the interest cost that is going to hurt those very people who the government is concerned about, the very people the government wants to help. The government will raise taxes to help and it will hurt the economy even more.

I am saying if we identify the interest costs to service the debt as the problem that then we will come up with different solutions and more of the solutions that the Reform Party is putting forth. I would like the member to make a comment on that, please.

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

The backbenchers are getting restless, Jake.

[Liberal Party, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a refresher course on the translation of Liberal rhetoric.

When the Liberals say that they hate the GST and will try to kill it, what they really mean is they will try selling it under a different name at 8 per cent.

When they say that their interest rate projections are bang on, what they really mean is give or take 4 per cent.

When the Prime Minister says that everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die, what he really means is that they are going to raise taxes.

When the Liberals say that they are going to get tough on young offenders, what they really mean is: "We will slap you on both wrists".

When they say that western economic diversification helps thousands of western companies secure new markets, what they really mean is that re-election in Winnipeg is in the bag.

When Liberals say that they will reform our social programs at any cost, we now know they mean it, at any cost.

Finally, when the finance minister uses cliches like keeping our feet to the fire and squaring the circle, beware, Mr. Speaker. What he really means is that like the Prime Minister and because of his cabinet he just does not know. He does not know.