Jim Silye

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the amendments put forward by the member for Gander-Grand Falls. Before I comment on them, he took a heck of a long time during his 20-minute oration to point out in a very partisan and grandstanding fashion how the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois support this bill. However, he conveniently ignored the fact that his very own government supports this bill. In every comment the member made about the opposition parties supporting this bill, he conveniently and purposely left out mentioning that his government is in favour of this bill.

I respect the member's right to disagree with his own party. We believe in that on this side of the House. We believe it is an advantage to allow members of a party to speak out on the negatives of a bill, especially if members so passionately feel there is something wrong with it. However, to carry the game to the degree the hon. member has in terms of giving the general impression that his party was not a part of it disappoints me. I respect the hon. member, but I must put on the record that in this

case the way he presented his comments is taking political partisanship one dramatic step too far.

Let us get to the crux of the matter which are two amendments to the bill. I agree with the member for Témiscamingue. He is right. These two amendments are poorly written and poorly thought out. They have been served up to circumvent the bill itself so that this gentleman could have one more opportunity, one more platform to give his speech and to hear himself talk.

What the member accomplished in the process was to show us the typical Liberal attitude that where there are tax breaks available for Canadians, where there are advantages for Canadian citizens in the form of reduced taxes or where it eliminates double taxation to help solve a problem in our tax system, the Liberal government is against it. The Liberal government and this member are against it.

The hon. member wants to generate as much revenue for the government as possible on the backs of what he calls the so-called rich. The mythology that the rich somehow or other get a disproportionate share of the advantages and benefits of infrastructure is crap. That kind of philosophy and attitude has to stop, which is why Liberalism is slowly coming to an end as well.

For the member to give a speech one way and to ignore the benefits of the bill, never once addressing the advantages and the good aspects of the bill, is terribly one sided. It is the Liberal way of arguing. I believe the only way government members can defend themselves is by presenting a biased and prejudicial point of view without looking at it from both sides.

The reality and the weaknesses of these two amendments to Bill S-9 are that by trying to strike the bill down, the member is not accepting the realities of today's economic climate. The global economy requires that everybody, as closely and as much as possible, deals under the same rules and rates of taxation so that there is no unfair competition and the flow of capital is not more advantageous in one country or another. If Canada does not keep in step with globalization and with the same rates of taxation by convention with all other countries, we are at a great and serious disadvantage.

In light of the personal crusade of the member for Gander-Grand Falls to strike down Bill S-9 on technical grounds, that it did not originate in the House, he is ignoring the wonderful advantages and benefits of the bill.

I was being taunted by the other side to say what those advantages were. It offers relief for Canadians residents from the application of U.S. estate taxes. It has tremendous advantages for all people in eastern Canada who have residences in Florida. If they happened to sell them they would have to pay estate taxes on anything over $60,000. It raises the limit to $600,000. Is that not an advantage to Canadian residents?

Yet when we listened to this member's speech he made it sound like it is a tax expenditure we are giving up that will cost Canadian taxpayers. It is not costing Canadian taxpayers. It is costing U.S. taxpayers. That is the other side of the story the member failed to point out.

That is what I mean by balanced and representative argument and presentation when we are discussing bills. We will be discussing complete fundamental tax reform in the country very shortly. It is a burning issue; it is an issue that will come up. It includes issues like taxation and rates across borders nation to nation. We will have debate on various forms of flat tax. The member for Broadview-Greenwood has a proposal for a flat tax that his party members conveniently choose to ignore, which is typically Liberal. It offers a wonderful solution to our complicated system but they ignore the member. I do not know why but they do.

When the debate takes place we will have people speaking for it and against it. No tax reform and no taxation system, no matter how much it is simplified, has all the answers and has all the solutions. It requires debate; it requires looking at both sides of the story. That is what I would like to see happen when we discuss taxation bills especially and bills that affect our pocketbooks as this bill does.

As critic of this topic and this bill on behalf of our party I will be making a recommendation to our caucus. We on this side of the House have the right to accept my recommendation or not. We will see what happens on that side of the House when the amendments are voted on. I will recommend to our party that we oppose the two amendments because they are strictly for grandstanding purpose. They are very poorly written. They are extremely hard to understand except for Motion No. 1 which I can understand.

As the Bloc member said, how can they be for it for a few years and then against it after? As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance pointed out very well, the member probably does not understand the implications of his motion. As soon as I heard that, it verified the fact even the Liberal government felt it was very poorly written.

Therefore on those two grounds I will be recommending that we oppose them. However, when it comes to Bill S-9 itself, I will be recommending to our party that we support the bill. That is where my comments end on the matter.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. We have now been listening to the hon. member for the last 10 minutes and so far I do not see the relevance to the two motions he has before him. We gave him 20 minutes to speak on them. I do not see where there is a tie-in to either one of the motions and why he represents and recommends these motion be adopted.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 17th, 1995]

It is supported by the government.

[Thanksgiving, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on this Thanksgiving weekend Reformers would like to thank a few Liberal members who have really stood out in this session.

First, we would like to thank all of those unknown backbenchers for filibustering the government's own pre-referendum stay asleep "snooze bar" legislation.

Second, we would like to thank the Minister of Finance for his Walter Mitty, feel good, two-year revolving target approach to fiscal forecasting which if nothing else will make weather forecasters look good.

Third, we would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for helping us put together a working definition of the term racist. Thanks to her we now know that a racist is an individual who is winning an argument against a Liberal.

Finally, thanks go to the minister of HRD whose job creation initiatives have ensured that thousands of young Canadians will utter the words "do you want fries with that" upon graduation from university.

We would like to thank the Minister of Justice for his unwanted gun control bill, the treasury board minister for his expensive infrastructure program, and a special thanks to the Minister of Health for her great impersonation of the hon. member for Macleod.

[Employment Equity Act, October 4th, 1995]

I wish to vote otherwise, Mr. Speaker. I vote against this motion.

[Hockey, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, nothing defines Canadians more than their love for the game of hockey and its colourful heroes who have brought so much joy to so many.

Long before words like arbitration and agent became part of the game's vocabulary, names like Bathgate, Howe, Mahovlich, Beliveau, Kelly and Richard were being claimed by runny nosed shinny players on rinks across Canada. I know because I was one of them, as were many of my colleagues in the House.

We may have lost our breakaway speed, but we will always remember the smooth stickhandling of a Jean Beliveau, the sure slapshot of Frank Mahovlich, the fierce intensity of Henri "Pocket Rocket" Richard, the clutch goal of Paul Henderson, the sharp elbows of Gordie Howe, the tenacity of Ted Lindsay, and the feared hip check of Pierre Pilote.

I am sorry Mr. Meeker, but I only remember how you taught the game on TV.

These individuals personify character, class and charisma. Most important, they made it fun for us to be kids. For that I thank these gentlemen.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

I hear the member opposite say: "Nonsense". My argument is that whether people are male, female, black, white, yellow, red or green as the member for Edmonton Southwest said, it does not matter. They should apply for the job. If they have the training and the qualifications they will get hired.

The employer should be free to hire. Is that not freedom? Is that not freedom of choice? Is that not in the charter of rights? What rights do employers have?

We are trying to make a better system for the country. We are trying to encourage people. It is equal opportunity that is important. It is on equal opportunity that certain members of the government are missing the point. They fail to see that we are looking for introducing and encouraging businesses to hire the best person for the job but to give the black, the white, the Indian, the yellow or whatever race, equal opportunity to be interviewed for the job. That is the kind of legislation from which we need to protect people. Those are the kinds of regulations that perhaps we could introduce into our system to make sure that everybody has an equal opportunity. If they do not, then they are discriminated against and then we should do something about it.

Employers cannot be legislated to hire certain types of people because of quotas. That is not meanspirited. That is right spirited. That is trying to put the heart and the mind in the right place to do the right thing for the right people, both employers and employees.

The government is interfering once again in corporate Canada by bringing in regulations and red tape it has no business doing. Government is better off doing other things, such as balancing the budget and getting us out of debt. That is the problem. Government wants to add to it at 3 per cent of GDP per year. The deficit is not the problem, the debt is. Legislation such as this is going to make it more difficult and more inefficient for corporations to operate and function.

In my years as an employer in the private sector, I have interviewed and hired a lot of people who are disadvantaged. I have hired people who were mentally handicapped. They did a good job in delivering internal documentation. Our encouraging them, working with them and seeing them grow in spirit, heart and mind was an encouragement and a boost for all of us. I did not need legislation to do that. Nobody ordered me to hire this gentleman.

In a company I still own, there is currently an individual who is physically handicapped. He is short and one leg is shorter than the other. He is just one heck of a good draftsman. He is a great spirit around the office and fun to have. I have hired males, females, francophones. I have hired a Czechoslovakian who can barely speak English. Nobody ordered me to do this.

I am saying this as a representative of the private sector, which I believe I am. I am about the average of the private sector. Certainly there are some people in the private sector who would take advantage of the rules but I would say the majority of people, which I represent, do not need legislation like this to tell them whom to hire and why to hire them. They are going to look for competent people, people who are going to fit into the mould of their corporations and their companies.

To have this arbitrary law that says that you must now, Mr. Silye, interview people of this nature and this type because of the census is wrong. It says this is the only classification you can look for, when perhaps the very types of people I am being ordered to hire do not have the training or the background to do that particular job.

Let us stick to the issues. Let us not bash the Liberal Party, the Reform Party. Let us talk about the merits and the demerits, the pluses and the minuses of employment equity. That is a debate. That is what the people are here to hear. That is what Canadians want to know about. Is it a good thing or is it a bad thing?

I stand today in my place to say I think it is a bad thing. If other hon. members feel it is a good thing, let them say why they think it is good. Let me say why I think it is bad. Let us not get into Reform bashing and the meanspirited kind of crap that is going on which leads to unparliamentary language. Let us just stick to the issue.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the government's argument and that of the individuals who represent employment equity is that in the name of introducing equity and equality they are, and I hope they can see this, introducing a form of inequality, a form of inequity that discriminates reversely against the very discrimination they claim they are trying to avoid.

It is the same with the Income Tax Act which is convoluted, complicated and confusing. In the name of clarification, in the name of fairness, in the name of equity the government has introduced 1,000 plus pages of rulings and amendments to clarify the Income Tax Act. By adding another 1,000 pages is that clarifying it or is that confusing it even more? It is making it worse and worse and worse. It is the same kind of thing that is going on with this bill. By preaching and supporting employment equity the Liberals are introducing more legislation, more rules that make it more confusing, more convoluted, more complicated. It is a detriment to business. It is a detriment to the hard working citizens

of the country who want to move forward and get on with the job of stimulating the economy. At every turn another government law comes in with more red tape, more regulations, more rules to follow, more auditors. Now we are going to have people auditors.

It is bad enough that Revenue Canada is checking our books every frigging month. It is bad enough that Revenue Canada is interpreting the rules for the government because we need money.

Let me remind all those people at Revenue Canada it is not the deficit that is the problem. Let me remind the Government of Canada it is not the deficit that is the problem. The debt is the problem and the government is adding to it. High taxes are the problem and the government is adding to that. It is bad regulations, lousy rules like this, terrible laws like this which are the problem. The government is not listening. It is continually adding to the problem.

I understand it is in the hearts of Liberals. I know they believe what they are saying comes from the heart and they feel it is helping Canadians. I believe when they say they are trying to eliminate discrimination that they are honest and sincere about it. But I am saying that in so doing they are not really eliminating discrimination, they are introducing a new form of discrimination. That is what is wrong. That is what I ask the government to reconsider.

This amendment deals with the private sector. I hope members opposite will agree it has been a good employer, has promoted the economy. Eighty-five per cent of revenue generated in tax dollars comes from the private sector. At least leave it alone.

If the government really believes in the legislation, then just apply it to the government sector. It can do what it wants with the bureaucracy. That is their baby. Do it, try it and see the inequities that will be introduced. But please support the amendment because it leaves one sector of the economy that can function viably well and will not in any way deter or detract from the intent of the bill. I know how the private sector thinks, acts and deals. It usually hires the best person regardless of race, colour, creed or whatever.

If the government is intent on introducing employment equity, go ahead and do it in the public sector. Go ahead and do it with the bureaucrats and watch the uprising that will occur. I know a lot of people in the bureaucracy are not happy with the form of affirmative action that is taking place right now.

I am asking the government to reconsider its opposition to the amendment and do something constructive. It can have it both ways. By accepting this amendment it can go ahead with the bill, if it is just applied to the public sector and leave the private sector alone. Then we will see which will end up being right.

I believe the bill is an intrusion into our lives. It is an intrusion which the government does not need to do. It is an intrusion it would be better off to avoid and leave alone. I believe that employers can be trusted. I know that for the most part private sector employers, the vast majority, can be trusted.

Mr. Speaker, I know you have a great interest in hockey. Does it discriminate against players from all over the world? No. It sought to change the rules, to bring in the best hockey players in the world. We have a National Hockey League that has every nationality playing on it. Was there employment equity introduced in that profession? No. We do not need employment equity. I stand against employment equity. I stand for this amendment and for equal opportunity for all.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment of my colleague from Edmonton Southwest to delete application of the bill in the private sector and to speak not only in favour of the amendment but against the employment equity notion and concept completely.

One of the things that frustrated me this morning in listening to the debate was that very few government members are looking at the issues and countering the points of view presented against employment equity. Rather they have chosen to be meanspirited. They have chosen to Reform bash and make this a party issue. I take exception to that. I take exception to the member for York North who rose in his place earlier today and called the Reform Party meanspirited.

I come from the private sector. I have run businesses for 25 years. I have hired and fired many people, male and female, and have had people work for me of various colours and of various ethnic backgrounds. I think I am a tough taskmaster but I am not meanspirited. I am an employer with a heart and with compassion. I believe in paying people a good day's wage for a good day's work.

I am against the government-union philosophy that once people get a job in government they cannot be let go and have a right to work. That is not correct. It is not available in the private sector. Also it is unacceptable in the private sector to have government intrude into our lives with more and more regulations.

Employment equity does that very thing. It tries to get into the lives of corporations and tries to dictate to them whom they have to hire and why they have to hire them. It is doing nothing more than social and economic engineering which this party stands against.

It is not meanspirited to be against employment equity. It is not meanspirited to point out to the member for York North that we believe the best person available for the job should be hired for the job. If those best people are 10 black people, then they should be hired. If it is 10 white people, then they should be hired. If it is 10 native Indians, then they should be hired.

If the government tells the employer that he has to hire based on a quota because the demographics of the census it has taken says

that Canada is made up of certain colours and certain percentages of people that his business has to hire on that basis, then it is basically forcing corporations in a lot of cases to hire people who are not as qualified.

[Points Of Order, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to know, on a point of order, if the barbeque is still on tonight.

[Excise Tax Act, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech on Bill C-90, I will comment on the speech from the member for Témiscamingue about broken promises. I agree the government promised to get rid of the GST but it will not get rid of it. The Deputy Prime Minister promised to resign if the govern-

ment did not get rid of the GST and she is still here and will not resign. This is another example of two broken promises.

Bill C-90 is a tax bill, pure and simple, and a huge tax grab that serves only to hurt the economy. The Liberals have been big on their flowery rhetoric of no tax increases. On a personal basis they did keep that promise. However, Bill C-90 hits Canadians in their pocketbooks both at the pumps and in the air.

Our main contention or disagreement with the bill is it implements the 1.5 cent per litre gasoline tax discussed in the 1995 budget. This revenue raising measure, a tax hike, will raise $500 million. As Reformers we vehemently oppose this measure.

My colleague, the member for Lethbridge, will rise this afternoon as well and talk more about the effects of gas taxes, and so I will leave this important subject for him.

Other aspects of the bill include an increase in the air transportation tax from $50 to $55 for domestic and transborder flights purchased in Canada, and from $25 to $27.50 for transborder flights purchased outside Canada. The tax on airlines is based on the amount of time people spend in the air. It is designed to recover government costs for things like air traffic controllers, maintenance, et cetera.

This is the second time in as many budgets the finance minister and the Liberals have increased the airline transfer tax; $40 on domestic flights when they took office and $55 now, a $15 increase. This tax hike, revenue raising measure, will raise $27 million to $33 million for government spending.

Bill C-90 increases the excise tax rates on tobacco products for sale in Quebec and Ontario by 60 cents per carton and on tobacco products for sale in Prince Edward Island by $1 per carton. Originally in Bill C-11 the Liberals thought the best way to battle the underground economy was through reductions in incentives to smuggle because of the high rate of taxation; that is, take the profit out of smuggling. I agreed with that position and it was a good thing to do. It worked on cigarettes, so why not do the same for liquor which is now also causing a big problem at the borders and is offering opportunities for smugglers to make extra money and not pay their share of the taxes?

They killed the taxes on smokes in Ontario and Quebec and now those taxes are creeping up again. This revenue raising measure, this tax hike, will generate $65 million for government spending.

I question how the government spends our money. Every one of these three measures increase taxes when the finance minister presented his budget, pretending all along he was not raising taxes. What we need is tax decreases, lower taxes so people can create long term meaningful jobs. If people have more disposable income in their hands and in their pockets and businesses had more disposable income they could stimulate the economy. The government is blind as to what to do in terms of an economic philosophy which has long term meaningful benefits for the country.

We have just come back from Atlantic Canada. It does not want any part of ACOA. It told us that. ACOA subsidizes and helps high risk businesses. High risk businesses have a tendency to have a high failure rate. Those people concluded early on that therefore the government is subsidizing failure and they do not want that. They want the government to not spend that money and to lower their taxes instead, leave the money in their pocket and they will look after themselves very well, thank you very much. That is in P.E.I., in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. Those provincial governments, Newfoundland and New Brunswick, are cutting with real cuts, unlike this government.

Government red tape, involvement and intrusion are all driving up costs and driving investment out of the country. The government may laugh and think it has have the perfect plan but sadly and faster than we realize capital is leaving the country. The global market has shrunk the opportunities to having it as quick as pushing a button on a computer. We can move products, goods, services and the dollar signs simply go from one account to another and Canada is not participating. Canada is blind with its cumbersome, complicated, convoluted Income Tax Act and we are missing opportunities.

We need lower taxes and a new tax system, a flat tax with high and good personal exemptions and no double taxation. It is funny that when we deal with other countries such as the United States on NAFTA we send trade representatives with to meet its trade representatives. We negotiate agreements with them. What do we do? We eliminate double taxation. We lower tariffs. We look at ways of stimulating more competition. We look at ways of helping business. When the government comes back to Canada to its own people and businesses it raises taxes and keeps double taxation. That is hypocritical. Why does it not have its trade representatives negotiate with the finance minister and get it changed?

What we need is a simplified taxation system that reduces compliance costs and makes everybody more willing to participate and able to participate in stimulating the economy.

Bill C-90 amends seizure and notification provisions of the Excise Tax Act to provide enforcement officers with greater discretion. Previously customs officers had to seize vehicles if contraband tobacco was discovered. This bill will allow them some discretion. However, I do not know if this discretion is the answer for some of these officers in light of a couple of stories about senior citizens from the States travelling to Canada and being treated like terrorists for a bottle of pepper spray used to fight off attackers.

Another couple was recently forced to pay $18 of tax on $12 worth of wine and beer.

Bill C-90 is a disgrace for the Liberals. They claim they are not raising taxes. They try to use smoke and mirrors but the finance minister's rhetoric is not fooling anybody. Canadians know how this hurts them. Canadians see it every day. They will not forget at the next election.

The Reform Party is opposed and will always stand opposed to tax increases and we are against Bill C-90.