Deborah Grey

[Pensions, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister talks about unanimity in the land I have heard that phrase somewhere before in this Chamber and it just blew up in their face in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

This government has a real double standard when it comes to pensions. The Prime Minister is asking Canadians to pay more for less but he certainly is not making the same demand on his MPs. Canadians are being asked to pay 10 per cent of their pay cheques for a measly $9,000 in Canada pension plan pensions.

The Liberal members opposite, and of course those others who have put into the MP pension plan, are paying 10 per cent of their pay cheques but they are going to get $40,000 plus in MP pensions.

Let me ask the Prime Minister this. How can he rationalize asking Canadians to pay more for less when Liberals pay less for more and continue to enjoy their lavish gold plated pension plan?

[Pensions, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would say somebody who opted out of the MP pension plan hardly has a guarantee of being rich down the road. Therefore I have a vested interest in making sure that the Canada pension plan or something like it is going to work for Canadians when they get old.

He says that he wants to make sure that young Canadians will have some support. I agree with that but I think they should have more than some support. Let us get them into private RRSPs so they can get a lot more than just some support. Older Canadians will also feel the pinch.

Under the Liberal plan a self-employed couple aged 60 will pay an additional $4,436 in CPP premiums and get $1,000 less for it when we factor in the Liberal clawback of the new seniors benefit.

I again ask the Prime Minister how can he rip off older Canadians by asking them to pay more for less?

[Pensions, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday was the deadline for people to contribute to RRSPs, so retirement income has definitely been on the minds of Canadians.

They want to know why, though, when it comes to the Canada pension plan they have to pay more for less, 73 per cent more. They want to know why 10 per cent of their salary is only going to get them $9,000 a year through CPP when the same amount invested in the safest RRSP would get them $26,000 a year. That is nearly three times more than with the Canada pension plan.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he rip off young Canadians by asking them to pay more for less?

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a pretty simple question. I will quote the hon. member from part of his speech. He said: "I haven't earned my MP pension" and we are going to do all we can to make sure he never does, but then he said further, "my taxes are so high that I can't afford to live without my teacher's pension".

How many Canadians have the luxury of a teacher's pension to subsidize their small wage of $64,400? If he says that his taxes are too high-

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Take it out.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, by Canadians being able to put into their expanded RRSP program, they will get exactly double what the government offers in any pension scheme.

The same study that was done by Joe Italiano in the minister's department also examined the impact that payroll taxes had on wages. It is one thing for the minister to say that this is an investment. For the employers who are kicking out another 70 per cent of taxes on premiums for their workers, this is what his department came up with, not some Reformer, regarding wages.

"Employers, that is the people who hire and pay the employees, try to pass the increased cost of higher payroll taxes on to employees through lower wages". Somehow that does not sound like a great investment.

Since Canadians have already suffered a $3,000 pay cut under this Liberal government, how much more than $3,000 will they lose now that the finance minister has increased payroll taxes by 70 per cent?

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, right now the people who are upset are those who have existing bankruptcies, which are up 60 per cent. I am not sure they would be bragging about the budget.

In the finance minister's world, a $3,000 pay cut for families is defined as economic growth and a 70 per cent pay hike in payroll taxes is considered an investment.

In April 1995 the minister's department released a study-I will table it if he would like me to-which concluded that a 40 per cent increase in CPP premiums between 1986 and 1993 had killed 26,000 jobs.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Has his department figured out the negative impact that this 70 per cent increase in CPP premiums will have on jobs? It was 40 per cent before, and now it will be a 70 per cent increase in these pay hikes. How many jobs will that lose, not create?

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I pointed out that over the past five years the finance minister's tax revenues have gone up by 30 per cent, while the take home pay of Canadians has gone down by 10 per cent.

"Not to worry," he said, "those increased tax revenues were a result of the incredible economic growth". Could it be that all the great economic growth explains why Canadians are $3,000 poorer, why 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed and why one in four Canadians are worried about losing their jobs?

I ask the finance minister this. Can he explain why all this supposed economic growth has made the government 30 per cent richer and Canadian families 10 per cent poorer? How does it add up?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the argument here is not over growth, it is just who is going to get the benefit from the growth. This government is getting 20 per cent of the benefit while the Canadian public and taxpayers are losing10 per cent of it.

Since the Liberals came to power in 1993 the average family income has dropped by $3,000. I do not think families could be convinced that this is growth or that it has been really fun for them.

Let me ask the finance minister again how he can possibly claim no new taxes when the average family income has dropped by $3,000 per year and its Canadian pension plan payroll taxes have been hiked 70 per cent. How does it work?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister did a pretty good impression of George Bush with his no new taxes line. Unfortunately here are the facts.

Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, federal tax revenues have increased 20 per cent while the average family income has decreased by 10 per cent. Liberal years have been good years for the finance minister but hard times for Canadian families.

Let me ask the finance minister this. How can he possibly claim that there have been no new taxes when the average income of Canadian families has dropped by 10 per cent?