Jim Silye

[Goods And Services Tax, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister had a little problem with his throat. I hope it has cleared up today. My question is directed to him.

He said yesterday that harmonization will lead to a better tax for consumers and for small business. How can that be, given that the combined tax increases taxes by 8 per cent on goods and services in areas that were untaxed before, areas like children's textbooks, wheelchairs and medical supplies, just to name a few?

The finance minister is willing to spend a billion dollars from the federal coffers to compensate three Liberal provinces for any lost revenues. Who will compensate the taxpayers of these provinces for their extra personal costs?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Lac-Saint-Jean on his maiden speech, his first presentation in the House of Commons.

I would like to make two comments. The first is that I hope this new member does not feel too guilty about taking away the crown of the youngest member of the House of Commons from his colleague from Témiscamingue who held the crown until he showed up. I worked with the former youngest member of the House in the Standing Committee on Finance. I know he tried to hold this government accountable, as he should, and he did a good job. I hope the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean does the same in holding the government accountable.

Having said that, hopefully the member will have time to answer my second comment. In delivering his speech, I noticed some traces and hints of the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The member's style is very similar. However I hope there is a little more substance to what the member says and does.

The former leader is all things to all people. He is able to deliver everything to everybody in Quebec. He is able to walk on water. He is able to save social programs yet cut at the same time. He is able to promote youth employment. He is able to do all those things but the money is not there.

How does the member propose to add some substance to what he has talked about?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Question, question.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take exception to the member's speech. In his opening remarks he said that he was quite surprised and expressed disappointment that the government and the third party were very silent on this bill. I take exception to that.

We have not been silent on this bill. I would like him to acknowledge the fact that we have not been silent on this bill. Our two critics stood in this House today and expressed this party's point of view. They expressed it quite clearly and very eloquently. I would like the hon. member to acknowledge that fact.

Just because his party wishes to prolong the debate and wishes to have more people speak on this issue, he should not then put down members of the third party who have spoken to this bill. Would he please acknowledge that?

[Goods And Services Tax, April 18th, 1996]

Do not choke on your own words.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the short version of that answer is he is now enlightened.

Not all the Atlantic provinces have jumped on the harmonization band wagon. The MLAs of Prince Edward Island are seeking further input because, to quote one, "a blended levy would broaden the tax base moving into areas not currently taxed by the PST such as electricity, heating oil, drugs, some clothing and footwear, equipment for the physically challenged and textbooks".

Is this what the finance minister wants to do, tax the physically challenged?

[Goods And Services Tax, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party, the finance minister said he would get rid of the GST. He further stated on March 6, 1990 it

would be difficult to do that if the federal tax becomes integrated with provincial taxes.

If harmonization was bad then, why is it not bad now?

[Bank Act, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Red Deer on his speech. He said that this was a topic about which he really did not know much. However, after listening to him I find that his comments and opinions even improved on the speech which I gave on this topic. He did an outstanding job. It just shows the quality of the members over here in the Reform Party.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Red Deer-

[Bank Act, April 17th, 1996]

Where are they on the GST?

[Bank Act, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this debate could very quickly leave Bill C-15 and get on to areas of national unity. I will refrain from doing that and I will get back to the topic at hand, recommendations in terms of changes to financial institutions.

More specifically, I am interested in the CDIC aspect of the bill and where the bill proposes rate premiums for the CDIC. The premiums will be according to risk. We, the public, will not be able to know what the risk rating is at the various institutions. It is covered by a veil of secrecy. I want to know if this member believes that is a just action.

Also, if it is the objective of the government to make financial institutions more transparent and hold them more accountable, how does he feel about the speech I gave earlier this afternoon on co-insurance? Perhaps there is a need to look at co-insurance. Rather than having 100 per cent deposit insurance, perhaps there should be a 90 per cent guaranteed share along with a 10 per cent share by the investor.

There is a perverse sense of fairness in the current system where lower risk or more successful institutions that do not go into receivership, that do not go broke, that do not cost the taxpayers money actually have to help pay for the ones that do and ultimately taxpayers end up paying.