Jim Silye

[Customs Act, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing and debating Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Act and the customs tariff and make related and consequential amendments to other acts. It is a fairly large bill and there are some pretty good items in here. I would like to address a few of them.

The Reform Party favours and supports Bill C-102. This bill reduces tariffs on a broad range of goods used as inputs in Canadian manufacturing and operations and on certain finished goods. It enacts changes to streamline and consolidate Canada's duty deferral programs and make them more accessible to all manufacturers. It increases the amount of goods that Canadians can bring home from abroad. I will get back to that more specifically later.

Overall, this bill reflects all Canadian tariffs where previously the tariff was higher than the U.S. level. This of course was a requirement in the NAFTA agreement and allows us to compete on an equal footing with the United States.

This bill sets the framework for establishing free trade zones within Canada. By streamlining regulations regarding tariffs, cities or other regions are now able to provide additional incentives to set up a free trade zone. This allows free trade zones to be set up and funded under the auspices of local rather than the federal government, that level of government closest to the people. It is a philosophy and a theory we support. It eliminates the duplication of services among federal, provincial and municipal governments. It even gets communities involved and is something that is headed in the right direction.

Other tariff reductions in the bill are part of a biannual review of Canadian tariffs and are a result of ongoing consultations with various industries and other requests to lower tariffs to increase the competitiveness of Canadian exports.

I would like to say to the taxpayers who are listening to the debate today that this bill gives effect to what they have already been enjoying. It often baffles me how we can be doing things when the law has not yet been passed, but we are out there in the marketplace doing it. I do not know how it works. Nevertheless, this is a measure my party supports.

For those taxpayers who are listening, this is a bill that increases the limits when they go to the United States. If Canadian citizens are out of the country for not less than 24 hours they can bring home $50 worth of product. If they are out for 48 hours it is $200, and if it is not less than seven days it is $500.

Reformers support Bill C-102 because it reduces tariffs and makes Canadian business more internationally competitive. It is in favour of free trade, as our party has been all along. It started that way and it always will be that way, unlike the government.

Government members argued and said that they were against the NAFTA. They argued and said that they would renegotiate the NAFTA. They argued and said that it is not in the best interests of Canadians. Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops might have a few more words to say on that topic. However, when they formed the government they reneged on that promise. I recall that they indicated in the red book that they would look at the NAFTA. I believe the government made the right decision. It was wise for them to change their minds. It was wise to break that promise. It did Canadians a favour and we will benefit from it in the long term.

Of all the tariff changes, and there are well over 1,500, there is only one increase in tariff; all the others are decreases. In case the finance minister wants to buy a pair to present his next budget, the increase is on rubber boots imported from Great Britain. I think he needs a pair of rubber boots. We all know how he keeps digging our debt hole deeper and deeper every day. He believes in digging deeper. He is committed to digging deeper. He is only adding at the rate of 3 per cent of GDP. That is much less than the Conservative government, but it is still in the billions and billions of dollars. He keeps adding to the problem, not solving the problem. I think a pair of boots rather than a pair of shoes might be ideal for the next budget. Why not, in light of our economic situation?

This is an opportunity for me to put in a plug for something I think has to happen. It has to come about. The time has come. There are members on the other side who agree with this and there are members on this side who agree with this. I believe there are even some members of the Bloc Quebecois who agree with it. Whether they are in this country or in another country, they will probably have to look at this as well.

Why not look at the total reform of our taxation system? Simplify it by redistributing the tax base. Broaden the tax base so that we can introduce the lowest possible rate. This sort of taxation system that is being bandied about is called a flat tax. A flat tax is something that should be debated. It is necessary.

The underground economy is growing. We know how strong the underground economy is in Atlantic Canada. We have just come back from there and we know it is operating. We know that it operates here. I know it operates in Calgary. I know it operates in Edmonton. There is no need for that to happen.

Businesses are losing out to American companies. Bills like Bill C-102 help to restore faith in imports and exports. It helps to bring us back to competitiveness. However, because of our complicated income tax system investors are investing outside of Canada at a faster pace than ever before. I hope the government listens and does something about it.

The United States is also looking. The United States initiated the free trade discussions and is looking at ways and means to improve their tax system. The United States already has a lower tax regime than we do. It already has governments that spend less than we do. Our problem is still high spending in this country, and the government will not reduce it fast enough. Eventually, when we get over on the other side, we will be able to solve that problem.

If the United States is going to be looking at a flat tax, we should be doing the same. If we are not working in parallel, if we are not working in unison, we will become uncompetitive and our businesses will not be able to compete. If we do not address this and soon, it will hurt an awful lot of Canadians and this country.

We encourage the government to continue further down the road established by this bill and continue to reduce tariffs to facilitate international trade. The federal government has extensive powers to reduce tariffs further and should continue to do so.

There is one item I just remembered. When the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance addressed Bill C-102 he indicated that this bill and also Bill S-9 would help the customs people do a good job and represent us well. When he made that point he gave the impression that our customs officials are right on top of it and doing a good job.

I would like to point out to him two issues and two stories. We read about the spray story in the media where Bob and Ramona Edgerton got rapped on the knuckles for bringing that in. This is another one that sadly distresses me. This happened to a couple who came to Canada on a holiday. It happened at the Huntington-Sumas border crossing. They are in their sixties. They were driving through customs. The official asked if they had anything to declare. As Mr. Edgerton says in his own words:

The sin was, of course, honesty. While files of cars with Canadian plates streamed north unimpeded, I told the customs agent that we had a bottle of wine and a six-pack of beer in the trunk.

He asked what kind of bottle and I told him a "jug". This immediately excited him and he was out of his border hut in a flash-well more like a waddle. Sitting for hours and harassing geriatric tourists doesn't keep one physically fit.

Anyway, he seemed puzzled by the word "jug" (perhaps the term is unknown in Canada) and demanded to see it. I opened the trunk and pointed to a paper sack; therein was a jug of cheap white wine. The agent examined it at length. It was as if it was the Holy Grail had fallen into his hands.

The man replaced the jug and started to scribble on a pad. I started to close the trunk, but he stayed my hand, demanding to examine the six-pack of beer. This he did with the bedazzled look of a person who is viewing a six-pack for the first time.

Then he announced that I could pay duty or abandon these items. I foolishly opted for duty. Inside the office, I encountered another agent who examined the first one's citation and asked if I had a receipt for the wine and beer.

Back I went to the car and after some rummaging actually found a grocery receipt. All this time scores of cars with Canadian plates were streaming northward at a mighty clip. Not a truck was opened, hardly did they pause at the checkpoint.

We know that smuggling of guns and liquor is also a big item with these trucks, so we should have been checking a few of them.

I took the receipt inside, handed it over. The beer and wine had cost just under $12. The agent inside said the duty would be $18. I couldn't believe it! A duty of 150 per cent.

It was then I decided to abandon the potables to the customs people, who next asked me-demanded, actually-that I sign a receipt. I signed something that was written partially in French. I don't read French. I may have agreed to give up my possessions and spend my few remaining years in a penal colony outside Yellowknife. I know not, nor do I care.

What I do know is I shall never willingly return to Canada, which will no doubt please most Canadians. The question then is how to recoup my $12. I thought of poaching a few salmon from the mighty Fraser or spray-painting a police cruiser.

But no. Instead, my plan is to avoid all western Canadian games events, cancel a trip to Vancouver, begin dieting and get out of Canada post haste.

Actually, the customs people-who even now are drinking cheap white wine and quaffing economy beer-have not cost me $12, but saved me hundreds. Oh, Canada.

Doug Walker has gratefully returned to his home in Asheville, North Carolina.

I would not want this government to think that everything it has done, the way it has done it, and how it has done it is perfect. It is not a perfect world. There is work out there to be done. To gloss over events like this hurts Canada and its reputation. I see no need for that kind of action and activity. That division and that department should be looked at.

[Customs Act, September 21st, 1995]

Six weeks from now.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Kamloops a question. If he believes that the current system of taxation is unfair, that the current taxation system is too high, what does he think about the current level of government spending?

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, September 21st, 1995]

One per cent.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill S-9 amending the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act of 1984 for a third time, as mentioned by the two previous speakers.

For all intents and purposes the act is already a done deal as its contents were agreed on in a protocol signed by trade representatives from both countries on March 17, 1995. The protocol bill became Bill S-9 and the Senate subsequently approved it on May 3, 1995. That leaves it up to members of the House of Commons and specifically members of the Standing Committee on Finance to give it one last good look.

Basically tax treaties and their amending protocols have two main objectives, the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. Since they contain taxation rules different from the provisions of the Income Tax Act they become effective only if we give them precedence over domestic legislation by passing bills like Bill S-9 through Parliament.

I want to make sure Liberal members opposite understand what that means. For Canada to simplify its tax rules with regard to trade with the U.S. its politicians pass bills like Bill S-9 that bypass the convoluted, complex and complicated Income Tax Act. With all due respect, what a treat that must be. Canadians sit at home trying to figure out their T4s and their T4As and phrases such as discernible loss while a few trade representatives sign a tax protocol not subject to any aspect of the Income Tax Act.

The primary objective of most tax treaties is the avoidance of double taxation. Bill S-9 makes a number of important changes in this area, including bilateral reductions and withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties reflecting the rates now accepted in most countries, a complete withholding tax exemption for payments for the use of U.S. technology, relief for Canadian residents from the application of U.S. estate taxes, increasing the maximum estate tax exemption from $60,000 to between $600,000 and $1.2 million U.S.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance will be bringing in estate taxes in Canada in his next budget, making this section of the bill an exercise in futility.

With regard to double taxation, Bill S-9 expands the exemption from U.S. tax for the income earned by RRSPs, RRIFs and the Canada pension plan.

In the area of fiscal evasion the bill gives authority to impose withholding on CPP and OAS payments made to American residents. The 1984 treaty only allowed the American state these former Canadian residents lived in to tax such payments. Now we can withhold the money at source if it is being collected illegally.

There is also a provision in Bill S-9 for a mutual assistance in the collection of taxes owed by a citizen of one country who resides in the other.

These are very positive measures which our party fully supports. However, what disturbs me is that we can accomplish these changes internationally but not internally, not domestically. For example, we can agree to chase tax evaders north and south of the Canada-U.S. border yet nothing has been done by the government to chase those who evade things like child support across our provincial borders. It is a double standard.

Another example of this can be seen in reductions and withholding tax rates on the dividends, interest and royalties held in Canada and the United States. What about the continuing double taxation of domestic dividends in Canada? This is a double standard. Our trade representatives seem to be able to negotiate what our domestic politicians and representatives cannot.

The question that begs to be asked is why. The answer is because bills like Bill S-9 take precedence over the Income Tax Act. They are not governed by it. Maybe it is time Canadians did not have to be governed by the Income Tax Act either. Maybe it should be repealed. Maybe it is time to get rid of it altogether, start from scratch and build up a whole new base to create a simple, visible and fair system of taxation such as the flat tax.

Philosophically, certainly it is in tune with the times. Practically, it would be keeping in step with what is going on in the United States. A protocol bill like this one seems to solve all our problems. Many Republican representatives in the United States are looking at a flat tax. They are looking to simplify their system. They are looking to make it more fair, where people who make the same level of income pay relatively the same amount of tax. They are looking to reduce the high compliance costs of tax collection.

What is frustrating to me is that the majority of Canadians have to hire accountants to do their personal income tax returns. Our corporations have to hire accountants to do their tax returns. Businesses have to figure out their GST calculations and submit them to the government. In other words, the private citizens and businesses are paying to keep track of taxation for the government, and it still costs Revenue Canada $1.2 billion to collect our taxes. It still costs $400 million to $500 million for the GST revenues to add it all up. That is almost a cost of $2 billion when the people in the businesses are doing the work. Implementing a simplified taxation system would reduce that cost. It would be in line with what we are doing with protocol agreements such as we have in Bill S-9.

It is so obvious and so clear that I do not know what the government has to fear. The Liberal member for Broadview-Greenwood is proposing a flat tax. He has been ignored for 10 years. I do not know why. What is it that makes politicians when they form government afraid to look at a new, clear and fair system of taxation? Why not send the trade representatives who negotiated the deal into the House and let them negotiate in the standing committees a new system of taxation? Businesses would be better off and individuals would be better off.

We have to get rid of the intertwining of our social and economic programs through the Income Tax Act, separate them and have a system of taxation that collects the amount of money we need to pay for the programs Canadians want, be it child care, be it health care, be it education, or whatever it is they want. It could be a megaproject that we would cut but the government would probably continue. Then we would know what the rate should be. Then we would know whom to tax. Then we would know how much to tax. It would be there for us. It would be within our grasp. It is a system of taxation whose time has come; there is no question.

If we can agree on issues between two nations such as how to avoid double taxation, why do we not look at an internal system that would avoid double taxation within our own country? Why are we being so foolish in keeping the burden and the cost of calculating income tax and in keeping the burden and cost of high taxes?

More bills will be coming up later today and tomorrow that concern excise taxes. Some will be decreased; some will be increased. Bill C-90 will increase taxes all over the place. We do not need that. We need tax reduction, not tax increase. I will be talking more about the flat tax in future speeches, so I will drop the analogy of the good things in Bill S-9.

I see the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister. I am encouraged he is somewhat willing to look at what the flat tax has to offer. He has made no commitments, but it is a start in the right direction because it will benefit all Canadians.

In conclusion, once again I repeat that we are in favour of Bill S-9. However we are opposed to the fact that the government will not negotiate the same type of deals at home as it does abroad. Our government cannot continue to smile at the neighbours, make good deals with them and not make the same good deals at home. It is engaging us in fights at home. The separation fight is all about power. It is all about taxation, who should be taxing and at what levels, and getting rid of the double taxation system and the duplication of services. Why not tell the province of Quebec that it can handle x, y and z , that the federal government will get out of that business and that it can collect the taxes for it? That is something which shows that federalism works, but no, the government would not do that.

People in Canada need change in a big way. As we have seen today, positive change can only come about through bypassing, ignoring or disregarding the Income Tax Act altogether. If we had to continue to abide by the rules of the Income Tax Act to negotiate with other countries, we would not get anywhere because no one would understand it.

We have tax lawyers and accountants in this country who are intelligent and highly educated. They give advice to individuals and corporations and at the end of the day sign a disclaimer: "Notwithstanding all the advice I have given you, everything in here might be true or might not be true. My interpretation should be accepted by Revenue Canada, but if it is not it is not my fault". They do our tax returns. If it is in a grey area, Revenue Canada says: "No, you cannot have that". Then the department charges us and we have to pay. If we do not pay we end up having to pay double interest. A person has more rights as a criminal-and I do not want to go back to Bill C-45-than one who misses the filing date of the income tax return.

The government goes after us. It is arbitrary. It leads to conflict between citizens and the bureaucrats. We do not need that. We do not need the department to be frowned on, to be cursed at, to be sworn at. We can simplify the matter and make it better by having a simple system of taxation that everyone understands. Then we would not have taxpayers fighting the department over appeals, over treatment or over rulings. We do not need that.

In conclusion it is time that we start giving Canadians in Canada the same types of rules and rates governing Canadians outside Canada.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the previous speaker for revealing some of the aspects of our prison system that perhaps a lot of the Liberal members on the other side are not aware of. Now, having been made aware of that, they would appreciate what we are attempting to do here by making amendments to Bill C-45, which is an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the Transfer of Offenders Act.

The first amendment that is being put forth by my colleague from Wild Rose is an amendment that will require offenders to pay restitution to the victim of an offence committed by the offender or to the family of the victim where the victim is killed or is unable to manage his or her financial affairs as a result of the offence. We are recommending 30 per cent of the gross of the prisoners' salaries be put into this type of an account.

As my colleague from Fraser Valley West suggested, perhaps that is too low. I agree. I feel that for too long now and for too many years Liberal justice ministers have basically developed and created a system of law where the criminals have more rights than the victims. I know there are a lot of lawyers on the Liberal side, who when they are in court know that with the criminal's rights they have to be careful how they tread or the criminal gets off, whereas in the whole shuffle the victim's rights, the parents of the victim if there is a death, and the people who are suffering are often forgotten.

The purpose of this amendment in a lot of ways is not just 30 per cent of $8 a day or 30 per cent of the GST rebate or 30 per cent of the compensation a prisoner gets. Perhaps it is something far beyond that. Perhaps it is something that is more symbolic and this is only a small step, as when they first landed on the moon: a small step for man but a large step for mankind. Perhaps this is a small step for justice but a big step for victims and victims' rights.

It is a symbolic gesture. If something like this is ever accepted and Bill C-45 amended then perhaps judges in the future will be

able to apply this principle. Future parliamentarians will then perhaps be able to look for other ways to compensate the victims who have been slighted or hurt. Rather than the current system where victims have to sue in a civil case to get compensation or remuneration, if a criminal has any assets at all perhaps this would be the small step that would allow victims or families of murder victims to get some compensation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe you were in the chair, but earlier during the debate my colleague from Wild Rose was the first speaker. He spoke in his usual loud and boisterous voice and I had to take out my earphone. I certainly heard him loud and clear when he was talking about a phone call he received a few months back that caused his heart to sadden. It was from a former student of his whose wife had been raped at knifepoint and the fully identified accused was allowed bail. He stated that his wife was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, knowing that the rapist was at large.

This was not the only indignity to be experienced by this law-abiding woman. The constituent did not have the funds for counselling, treatment, or medical services that would reduce the trauma of the brutal assault. Yet the offender was receiving full funding out of taxpayers' dollars for whatever was needed.

We hope this amendment will assist that constituent to receive these medical services to assist and overcome the trauma resulting from the brutal assault by the rapist. This amendment will make the offender responsible for paying some of that care.

Perhaps it will help if offenders knew they would be deprived of 30 per cent of the tax dollars they receive in prison. Once again, I like what my colleague from Fraser Valley West said: it is too low. Why are we being so nice? Make it higher. Make it 50 per cent; make it something that hurts them. They do not get much, and what they get they spend on items like cigarettes and other amenities that were described, which I find obscene. Take that 30 per cent to 50 per cent away from them and have it go into a fund that is available for victims and their families. Those amenities and privileges offenders get they find very valuable while they are in prison. This means as much to them as an automobile means to somebody outside. Cigarettes or these other amenities become something they really need. Therefore, while it is not much in dollars and cents, it does have some value to the prisoners. As I said, it is symbolic. Hopefully the legal system can use this as a stepping stone.

If they knew they had to pay a price even while they were in prison, while it may not prevent the crime of future perpetrators, perhaps it will make the criminal realize that crime just does not pay as much. When I heard the speech by my colleague from Fraser Valley West it almost sounded like some people have a better life in prison than out of prison.

For too long victims of crime have been an afterthought in our criminal justice system. Offenders receive full legal and medical support without regard to the hardships victims of crime are experiencing. This amendment will give victims of crime some consideration through this criminal justice system.

We have to start somewhere, and this is an opportunity to start, for the Liberal government to accept an amendment that is headed in the right direction. It is not huge. It is almost like we are recommending tinkering with the system by making such a small amount available to victims, as the Liberals do with the elimination of ferry services and with the introduction of these small taxes everywhere else.

The amendment will inform those who have committed crimes that there is a financial price to pay to the law-abiding citizen. Criminals are responsible for crime, not society. The amendment will make criminals realize that the justice system now accepts that if you break the law you pay two prices. One price is incarceration and the other price is paying money earned in jail from taxpayers' dollars to the victim for compensation or needed medical treatment.

For too long the government has talked about victims of crime but has done nothing for these victims. This is an opportunity for the government to put taxpayers' money where this government's mouth is. This is the opportunity for the government to finally do something meaningful for victims of crime. This is the opportunity for the government to really support women who have to try to live past a crime that has robbed these women of their peace of mind. This is finally an opportunity for the government to show Canadians that victims have rights and the government has a concern for victim suffering.

Once this principle is accepted in the Criminal Code it will help set the ball rolling, as I mentioned earlier. If the criminal has any assets, this is an opportunity for victims to at least get some compensation for what they have had to suffer. In some way, somehow and some day soon we have to do something for the victims. Far too long, far too often and far too much at a high cost to taxpayers we are supporting criminals and criminal activities and their rights over and above victims' rights.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1995]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time the member has risen to make the same point.

I have sat in the House for two years now and have heard a lot of debate and comments on each issue. I believe it is in Your Honour's power to direct members on how close they have to stick to the exact meaning of a bill or an amendment. I have heard a lot of members stray. I cannot recall which speech but perhaps the member herself strayed sometimes to make a point, to get to a certain issue in a roundabout way. I think members are allowed to have that flexibility.

To continue to rise and object like this I do not think is in good taste. I feel members should be able to make their points. It is an important issue. It is something that is affecting the lives of victims of crime. I believe that you should allow-

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the parliamentary secretary to the House leader has another issue he would like to bring forward. If he does I would like to have that heard now so that we could proceed. We would agree to the request.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

I should not have recommended a number. If it were $150,000 the net amount we would get is $75,000 to look after everything, all expenses, the second residence and everything else.

What the hon. member gets right now is about $72,000 net. He is within $3,000 of that same figure. I can show that based on the total compensation package.

The solution is not to keep defending this gold plated, trough regular, trough light and trough stout plan. Even members of the government do not understand the pension plan. They keep defending it rather than asking how they can fix it. I have put forward a suggestion and a solution. The pension plan is too generous. Get rid of it. Make it no better than the private sector's. That is what Canadians want. That is what we have to do. Listen to what Canadians have said and do that.

If we do that there is a problem with the rest of the equation and we will have to fix it. However, there will be another time to talk about remuneration. We have to bring one down and bring out all of the perks which are under the table.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, we have an issue where, on the basis of a low salary, the government tries to justify a high pension. I have tried to take a look at the complete remuneration package of MPs, which includes the so-called low salary and the pension. If we add them together what do we get? It is too low on the one end and too high on the other. Why not bring them together and look at it that way?

As far as the doubling up of expenses, that $21,300 is called an expense allowance but all the members who live in Ottawa and the surrounding area get it and they do not have two residences. I use all the expense money because I live in Calgary and I have a residence here. According to Sobeco, Ernst & Young, not all of that expense money is used up. However, that is not really the issue.

The issue is we should come clean and say: "To be a member of Parliament this is your job description and this is the head office. You come from all across Canada to work in the head office. If you come here we will pay you this much in a transparent taxable salary. Receipt your expenses and we will reimburse you. Within that benefit package we will give you some of these benefits, like a life insurance policy, a health and dental policy, parking, and the value of that is determined by-"