Jim Silye

[Parliament Hill, October 27th, 1994]

You knew about it for months and you cannot co-operate.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and address this issue of double dipping which my colleague did not mention in his speech. He said the gold-plated MP pension plan is number one on the hit list that Canadian taxpayers do not like. I am here to verify that because that is the attitude in Calgary Centre.

The hon. member should realize that double dipping is when a member of the same government gets an appointment. Joe Clark was double dipping because he got an appointment while he was receiving a pension from this government. If Joe Clark wished to run for the provincial legislature of Alberta then he would be welcome to continue to receive his pension plan from the federal government and work as a provincial MLA. That is not double dipping.

Double dipping is defined as getting an appointment by the same government that you serve. That is where the conflict of interest is. There is no conflict of interest if you work for a provincial party and then leave that party to run for a federal party. If you then run for a federal party, you tell the people in your riding you are running federally. If those people in the province of Alberta elect you with one of the strongest majorities, that is not double dipping. That is not getting an appointment from another level of government. That is going before the people, laying it on the table and being duly and freely elected.

Personally, I am getting sick and tired of the whining of the government about double dipping.

It says that it is going to do something about it. It has done nothing. I asked the Prime Minister in question period way back in January: When can we opt out of this gold-plated MP pension plan because many Reformers want to? He said: "Soon, soon, soon". He has done nothing. It is all talk. Talk is cheap but the interest on the deficit and the debt is not.

[Points Of Order, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under Standing Order 37. I believe the question I was asking was fully in order. Yet the Speaker-

[Committees Of The House, October 25th, 1994]

Would the Minister of Finance agree to allow members, if requested by motion of the opposition parties or by motion of the party opposite of the government, to have department officials appear at a committee to review-

[Committees Of The House, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister about a promise that he has not kept.

In the red ink book on page 92 it states that committees will be given greater influence over government expenditures and individual members of Parliament will be involved in an effective prebudget consultation process.

Since the minister is a co-author of this red ink book, will the finance minister keep his promise and allow committee chairs to request that officials-

[Liberal Party, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the government, the current national debt clock is $535,664,978-

[Liberal Party, October 25th, 1994]

Therefore, should the Liberal government not listen more to Reformers' suggestions?

[Liberal Party, October 25th, 1994]

Have the Liberals cracked down on those abusing our immigration system?

[Liberal Party, October 25th, 1994]

Have the Liberals ruled out once and for all the taxation of personal RRSPs?

[Liberal Party, October 25th, 1994]

Have the Liberals ended patronage appointments?