Deborah Grey

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the reaction I have been getting on the talk shows I have been doing today is that people are saying that 10 cents, 20 cents, 30 cents, 40 cents out of every dollar they are sending to the government is going to pay the interest on the debt. That is money that cannot go to hospitals, universities and jobs.

How does the finance minister have the nerve to say he has addressed Canadians' anxieties about hope and vision over the future of medicare, CPP and other social programs when interest payments remain the largest single government expenditure?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were looking for some kind of hope in yesterday's budget but the only thing they got was illusion. There was the illusion of job creation, an end to the cuts, an illusion to preserving social programs and the illusion of no new taxes, which looks so grand.

The reality is that the budget does nothing to create long term jobs. It only puts off cuts until after the next election. It ends the sanctimonious promise of universality for social programs. Also, by failing to deal decisively with the debt and deficit, the budget takes more money from taxpayers' pockets.

Did the finance minister really think Canadians would be fooled by a time release budget that delays tax increases and program cuts until after the next election?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, regardless of what was in the red book, the finance minister said: "I will abolish the GST". "We hate it and we will kill it," said the Prime Minister. "Scrap it," said the revenue minister. And of course there are those words that we have all come to love: "If the GST is not abolished, I will resign", said the Deputy Prime Minister.

Why is the government going to expand and hide the GST in a secret supertax, instead of just plain killing it?

[Goods And Services Tax, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would hate to think during International Women's Week that I was being undressed in the House of Commons by this government.

During the election-

[Goods And Services Tax, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, thank you. Red is dead, because here are some of the things they said during the election: "I would abolish the GST".

[Goods And Services Tax, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election the Liberals quite clearly stated that they would scrap, kill, abolish the GST.

Yesterday the finance minister waved the red book around, somewhat like a white flag, and said that the government meant harmonize, not scrap. In fact it meant augment, not abolish. Canadians know what they heard from Liberals during the last election campaign. They simply will not forget it.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When will he live up to his promise and the promise of members of his caucus, to scrap, that is kill, that is abolish the GST, unlike what he says on page 22 of the red book?

[The Economy, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment is key but there is no sense lending money to kids and then charging it back later, that much plus interest. It is scandalous.

The government has tried to make a $17 billion deficit sound like a victory and a $12,000 a year internship amount sound like the key to fighting and winning against a 16 per cent youth unemployment rate.

The reality is that Canadian young people are less likely to find a job now than when the government took office in 1993. What is more, any young person lucky enough to even find a full time job will be paying more taxes than they can ever expect to receive in benefits from health care, social assistance and public pensions.

Why is the government condemning Canadian youth to a life of unstable employment, higher taxes and reduced benefits by its stubborn refusal to balance the books now?

[The Economy, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about rolling targets, how long are we going to roll along until this thing gets balanced?

If somebody puts the high jump level at one foot I would say anyone could trip over that kind of low and ridiculous target. The Liberal government says that it wants to create jobs, especially for young Canadians. However, in the upcoming budget with its $17 billion projection, more jobs will be created on Wall Street than on any university campus: $250 million for young people versus $50,000 million for interest payments alone to international money lenders.

Why will the government not offer young Canadians real hope and a chance at a real long term job by simply balancing the budget; no rocking, no rolling, just balance it?

[The Economy, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister said that his job was done. He was satisfied with a $17 billion deficit projection and that now it was time to create a few jobs.

What the Prime Minister does not seem to grasp is the fact that deficit elimination is job creation. Thirty-three cents of every taxpayer dollar goes to pay just the interest on the federal debt. That is 33 cents that cannot go to health care, post-secondary education and pensions.

Does the government really feel that its job is done when 33 cents out of every taxpayer dollar ends up in the hands of money traders? Why will the finance minister not announce a firm date for a balanced budget?

[Privilege, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is not my intention to challenge the Chair ever. You and I had a meeting along with the clerk of the House of Commons. New facts came out when you talked to me very specifically about the printing department and all those departments being under your supervision.

We are not talking about printing here. We are talking about interference by the Prime Minister's office which, Mr. Speaker told me clearly, was not under his jurisdiction. I am talking about a contempt of Parliament by the Prime Minister's office, not the printing department.