Deborah Grey

[Government Expenditures, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister likes to say that the federal government led by example when it came to reducing the deficit but the problem is that is just not true.

Departmental spending is $8 billion higher than the finance minister promised it would be.

The Liberals promised with their program review that they would reduce departmental spending by 19 per cent, but so far, as the minister knows, it has only gone down 9 per cent. This probably qualifies in his department as an "oops". That is a huge difference.

My question is this. Why does the government find it so difficult to tighten its own belt by $8 billion when it did not bother it a bit to slash health care and education by $7 billion?

[The Economy, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear this rhetoric.

In 1992 someone who sat exactly there with 1.5 million unemployed, Brian Mulroney, told us not to worry, that Canada had the best job creation record in the G-7.

Now in 1997 with 1.5 million still unemployed someone who sits in the very same chair, the present Prime Minister, is saying: "Don't worry, Canada has the best jobs creation record in the G-7". It is the same old story.

We could not trust Mulroney with that line in 1992. Why in the world should we trust the Prime Minister with the same old line in 1997?

[The Economy, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to talk about flip-flop. These kinds of numbers and encouraging words the Prime Minister fools himself with are no comfort and mean absolutely nothing to people who are unemployed and looking desperately for jobs.

The Liberals' flowery words and rosy predictions are absolutely cool comfort to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians and the nearly 80,000 Canadians who went broke last year.

Since the Prime Minister's jobs strategy has failed miserably and since he has ruled out tax relief, I ask him to get to the facts and not give us the flowery numbers and predictions he knows are glossy. How does he plan to keep his red book myth of jobs, jobs, jobs that he tried to snow the people with in 1993?

[The Economy, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday it was reported that personal bankruptcies had jumped22 per cent for last year over 1995. Almost 80,000 Canadians went broke thanks to Liberal economic policies.

Not only have the government's high tax policies given us the worst string of unemployment numbers since the great depression, they are causing Canadians to go broke at near record numbers.

What does the Prime Minister have to offer the unemployed and the bankrupt other than his empty election promise of jobs, jobs, jobs?

[1997 Brier, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Kevin Martin and his Ottwell Curling Club rink have once again proven that Edmonton is a city of champions.

Kevin, along with lead Don Bartlett, second Rudy Ramcharan, third Don Walchuck and fifth man and coach, Jules Owchar, won the 1997 Brier yesterday in Calgary with a thrilling 10-8 victory over the powerful Vic Peters rink from Manitoba.

All who helped organize this year's Brier championship are to be congratulated. A quarter of a million people attended the event during the week.

It looked bad when we lost to Peters in the round robin during the week, but on Friday night in the quarter final we squeaked out a win and it was then one game each. Then Sunday was the all-time, ever-lovin', championship tie-breakin' round. In the eighth end my heart sank when Peters stole two, but in the ninth we scored three back and then in the tenth end we stole one for the win. What a finish.

Now it is on to the world championships where once again Martin will prove that we are the best of the best. Way to go Kevin Martin, you are the champ.

[Pensions, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that if the government moved quickly on this thing it would not be seen as a tax. Any Canadian who gets their T-4 in the mail this week is going to have a really hard time saying they do not see this as a tax when they see CPP premiums go up by 70 per cent. It is just ridiculous.

The minister's non-answers in the House day after day on this topic point to a very serious problem with this government, the issue of trust. The minister continues to ignore his own department and denies again and again that these payroll taxes are killing jobs.

Again, how many jobs will be killed by the CPP premium hike? How could Canadians trust this government with anything, let alone their cash?

[Pensions, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance claims that Canada pension plan premiums are not a tax on Canadians. His own department has disagreed with him again.

Another finance study dated March 13, 1996 called CPP premiums a payroll tax and said that they will reduce jobs. That is the third finance study at least that we have uncovered that contradicts its own minister.

Will the minister admit that his CPP tax hikes in fact are killing jobs, not creating them as he has hinted, and how many?

[Pensions, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian young people want to know that there will be a sustainable

plan for them. They would like to earn three times as much through privately funding their own RRSP rather than any CPP plan.

Thirty-two years ago these Liberal politicians called John Kroeker crazy for predicting that CPP was unsustainable without constant payroll tax increases.

In the next 6 years from now alone, premiums will have gone up over 70 per cent and Canadians will be paying a full 10 per cent of their paycheques toward a pension plan that still is not sustainable.

The minister thinks people in the galleries here and across the country are really pleased about this plan of mismanagement of their own money.

Is it not true that the government is hiding the fact that premiums will have to go up again before the Canadian public gets any benefit which these people have promised?

[Pensions, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this junior minister talks about having the support of all the provinces on it.

In 1965 Mr. Kroeker stated that the Pearson government simply lured the provinces into the CPP by offering them loans from the fund at amazingly low bargain basement interest rates. No wonder they are keen on the project.

Thirty years later in the 1990s this government is doing exactly the same thing with the provincial governments. Using the CPP as a cash cow for governments was a lousy idea in 1965 and it is a lousy idea now, 30 years later.

Why did the Prime Minister and those in charge of dealing with the provinces right now on this deal lure the provinces into a sweetheart deal at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers who will have to belly up and pay that cash?

The Liberals learned nothing since 1965. Which way will it be, sweetheart deals for the provinces or the best deal for Canadian taxpayers in their retirement?

[Pensions, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 32 years ago today John Kroeker was fired from the federal civil service for daring to criticize the Pearson government's newly created Canada pension plan.

Mr. Kroeker rightly predicted that the CPP was unsustainable and for that he lost his job. For that he was blackballed by the federal government and labelled a kook. Mr. Kroeker said that the CPP would be broke by the year 2000 without constant and large infusions of cash from Canadian taxpayers.

Will the Prime Minister, who was part of that Pearson government decades ago, admit that Mr. Kroeker was right in 1965 and that his own Liberal government was wrong?