Jim Karygiannis

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the minister moving in that direction. There was a serious offence in 1984 in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt. In 1989, when we were both novices here, I presented a private member's bill. After 10 years a lot of the recommendations I presented are coming to light. I want to thank the minister for moving in that direction. It is an honour to be part of a government that has seen the light at the end of the tunnel.

Could we not look at the legislation for automatic transfers? Could we not look for mandatory treatment? For a serious crime like a killing where the young offender is over 14 we could automatically transfer that case to adult court. We have mandatory treatment. If the young offender refuses mandatory treatment we could withhold these special considerations.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to present a petition from several hundreds of constituents of Scarborough—Agincourt.

The petitioners indicate that the Government of Ontario has already breached its own agreements with provincially funded housing co-operatives and has threatened to introduce legislation to cancel the contracts and operating agreements of housing co-operatives participating in federal programs once the federal government devolves its responsibility to the province.

The petitioners also indicate that the interests of the co-operative housing owners and members can be protected in these negotiations only if the Government of Canada insists that there be specific safeguards preventing the province of Ontario from using its legislative authority to cancel existing contracts and operating agreements.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ask the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to immediately suspend negotiations on social housing with the province of Ontario and to resume negotiations only if the minister proceeds under publicly declared principles established with the input of co-operative housing stakeholders.

Being a neighbour of one of the petitioners, I totally agree with the petition.

[Division No. 101, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote recorded as having voted no with the government.

[Petitions, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from my constituents.

The undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House that incidents of explicit nudity in public places are becoming more and more frequent; that each incident of nudity harms the public, specifically children; that there are laws in Canada to protect our children against this form of nudity in all media but currently there are no laws protecting our children in public places; and that there would be fewer such incidents if certain legislative measures were taken.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically sections 173 and 174, so that indecent act and public nudity provisions clearly state that a women exposing her breasts in public is an indecent act.

I add my voice to that too.

[Pensions, February 4th, 1998]

No.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote to be recorded as no.

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify with the member across the way what minister she is talking about. When the question is put to the New Democratic Party, what minister is the member actually—

[Drinking Water Materials Safety Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I heard with great interest my colleague from across the way talking about privatization, deregulation, and so forth.

I am wondering if the member is sitting in the provincial legislature in Queen's Park in Ontario or if she is sitting right here.

Talking about privatization, I do not think this is happening here. But with great interest I heard that the member said that we do not have any dialogue with organizations, we have inadequate consultations, no proper dialogue. We have been at this almost a year. How much more do we have to wait, according to the member's sense of evaluation, until we have to see the light and get a proper bill on the table, which in my estimation this is, to get Canada moving? How much longer do you want to wait? Another two years until you have, in essence, dialogue with everybody or are you ready to move right now?

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way. There were some key words, that it is not workable, we have to examine the structure. She also said that it was irresponsible. The responsibility is not in the bill, the responsibility is standing up on one's feet and criticizing something by saying it is not workable, it is not this and it is not that.

If my colleague across the way has some great ideas that she wants to bring forward I am sure this side will be interested in listening. However, let us not call something irresponsible when it is not. The responsibility here is criticizing something and not putting something down on the table. That is the way the Reform Party has always been. If it wants to call a spade a spade, let us not say the sky is falling. Responsibility is being elected to this place.

If the government does not see its way and the great party across the way has some sense in where it wants us to go, put it on the table. Do not just stand and criticize. If it has some constructive ideas, bring them forward instead of criticizing.

[Income Tax Act, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure to rise today to speak on my private member's Bill C-324, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. Bill C-324 provides for the elimination of entertainment expenses as a deduction under section 67.1 of the Income Tax Act.

I received a number of calls and correspondence from lobby groups and business associations under the mistaken belief that meal deductions would be affected by this amendment. I would like to make it clear from the outset that this amendment would not affect business meal deductions.

What this amendment would do, however, is bring a certain amount of fairness into the tax system for both small businesses and individuals. I would like to commend the government which in the 1994 budget reduced the deduction from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. At that time there was much concern expressed by the

business community that this would have a detrimental effect, but this was proven not to be the case.

I believe that elimination of the entertainment deduction would in the short term cause a small amount of disruption but in the long term have no negative effect on businesses and a positive effect on the revenues of the government and create a more equal playing field for all those who pay taxes

If we look at sport stadiums in any major Canadian city the majority of the best seats and practically all the box seats are held by corporate entities. They do so with the help of 50 per cent deduction on their income tax, while at the same time the average Canadian sits in a cheaper seat up in the bleachers and pays full price. The same holds true for attending the theatre, opera or the events where the business community gets to deduct half the cost while the average Canadian pays full price. This situation gives rise to the circumstance that most sport stadiums count on the very expensive box seats to provide necessary revenue to pay the exorbitant salaries of sports figures who are indirectly being supplemented by the Canadian taxpayer.

Although no figures are available there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that many of these corporate seats and boxes are used by employees and their friends and families rather than to further business contacts, as was the original intent of the deduction. In my opinion this change would result in significant savings to the people of Canada with relatively no impact on small businesses and only a small period of adjustment for large businesses.

While this bill has not been deemed a votable item, I believe that it is of some importance and when the opportunity arises I shall resubmit it.