Jim Silye

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Yes, four Reformers could do the job of seven Liberals, that is right.

If we use the same proportion of representation in the United States of 85,000 to 90,000 on average, it would have 2,900 congressmen. That is how disproportionate we are. We are 10 times worse off than that country because we will not stick to the principle that a government governs best that governs least.

The Liberal Party pretends to be fiscally conscious but the very first opportunity it has-the very first bill that came up was this electoral boundaries item-to show leadership, an opportunity to lower the overhead and the cost of running government and running the country, it chooses to increase government and to cop out on constitutional reform.

I would like to know if the member could address why she favours increasing the size of the House of Commons when I know from a personal point of view, working with her on other committees, that she believes in fiscal restraint?

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the member for Mississauga West also defends this bill. One of the criteria that I cannot understand as a member of the committee she defends is the size of the House of Commons growing to 301 members.

The greatest classical liberal of all, Thomas Jefferson, said that government governs best that governs least. That principle has been lost.

Let us compare the state of California to Canada. The population in California is 29 million. It has 52 congressmen and two senators. It has one president and a governor. Fifty-six people run 29 million people.

Canada has 27 million people. With the Senate and the House of Commons, we have 399 people. Perhaps the member could address this. We are worried here about representing 30,000 people or 85,000 people when in the States, one congressman represent s 571,000 people. Perhaps a few more staff to help with the immigration and unemployment problems would be the solution and not to increase the size of this House.

This House should be reduced to 265 members at a max. The city of Calgary does not need six or seven MPs in the next federal election. It needs only four. More members should think like that in order to represent the city.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment on this bill on electoral changes. It centres more around the size of the House of Commons.

I cannot believe that the chairman of the committee in his speech said that to introduce a cap or to reduce the size of the House is not feasible because of constitutional problems. The logic that the member for Kingston and the Islands uses is that we should not address the size of the House of Commons and its

growth. He is defending the status quo and it is just an excuse for lack of leadership.

[Committees Of The House, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know we discussed it in a House leaders meeting, but I do not know why there is reluctance to mention the amount.

[Committees Of The House, February 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification of whether there is a limit to the amount of money allocated for this travel.

[Petitions, February 6th, 1995]

The third petition, Madam Speaker, represents the opposing view on sexual orientation as 55 Albertans call on Parliament to oppose any legislation that would directly or indirectly redefine the family.

The fourth and final petition also relates to the subject of families, as 34 Calgary and area residents call on the government to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a child care expense deduction to all families and not just those using outside receipted child care.

I will continue to present all petitions that are sent to me by constituents of Calgary Centre regardless of my personal or political views on the subject.

[Petitions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as part of my parliamentary duties I rise today to present four petitions to the House.

The first is on behalf of Mr. Michael Dobbin and T.S. Symington who along with 82 other Calgarians call on Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The second petition is on behalf of Mr. Robert McNutt who along with 36 other Canadians calls on Parliament to prohibit discrimination the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.

[Special Interest Groups, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and submit my second Liberals copy Reform award.

Number two on the list is the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who said: "The practice of using tax revenues to finance special interest groups with particular axes to grind has created a multimillion dollar system of bureaucratic patronage that operates with little accountability to ministers, MPs, the media, or the taxpayer".

It appears that Liberal backbenchers are finally beginning to see the light and have added the Reform blue book to their reading list.

Unlike the red book the blue book calls for the reduction and/or elimination of funding to special interest and advocacy groups. Unfortunately cabinet is not listening.

To date we have seen no action by this government to cut back interest group funding. To cabinet we say enough is enough. Listen to what the Reform Party is saying. Listen to what the Liberal backbenchers are saying. Stop funding special interest groups and start giving taxpayers a break.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party will vote yea, except for those members who may wish to vote otherwise.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party members will be voting yea, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.