Jim Karygiannis

[Income Tax Act, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. With regard to the point raised by my hon. colleague, I would like to make a few points clear.

This bill was properly researched and drafted by the private members' business office which, I assure members of the House, is highly professional in its organization with many years of experience in these matters. It saw no problem with regard to the exclusive prerogative of the crown to levy taxes and believes this bill to be in order.

Erskine May's twenty-first edition, pages 727 and 728, shows examples of matters that require a ways and means resolution to be initiated by a minister of the crown. The examples listed include, under taxation, new taxation, continuation of an expiring tax, reimposition of a repeal tax, increase in the rate of the existing tax, and extinction of an instance of tax.

This bill does not change or repeal the rate of taxation or offend any of the criteria which fall under the purview of the government. It merely eliminates a deduction which will cause persons and business affected by this bill to pay this rate of taxes, as do other Canadians.

I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule against this point of order and let the debate proceed.

[Income Tax Act, April 10th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-324, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (entertainment expenses), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Excise Tax Act, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the comments of my colleague. He spoke about the EH-101 helicopters. He spoke about the Pearson deal. He spoke about the Somalia inquiry. I cannot understand what party he really represents, the Reform Party or the Conservative Party. I would have expected that speech from a Conservative, but the only Conservative member in the House is not the one who is speaking. Is the member running for the Reform Party or is he running for the Conservative Party?

The people of Canada clearly stated before the last election that they did not want the EH-101 helicopters. They also said they did not want the Pearson deal. If we listen to the member, we are listening to the Conservatives of pre-1993.

I wonder if the Reform is going to pick and choose in which ridings it is going to run and in which ridings it will not run. The member has presented himself as a Conservative.

The member also spoke about the hidden tax and about taxes in general. In England they have the VAT, the value added tax. It is 16 per cent. People know they are paying 16 per cent. In Canada we have the PST and the GST. In the maritimes we are trying to harmonize those taxes. Then, when people go to the till, they will get a bill which will say the item is $100. They know they will pay $100. At the end of the day they will be paying $100 for an item and the taxes will be included.

My constituents know they will have to pay tax, whether it will be 16 per cent as it is in England or 15 per cent as it will be in the maritimes.

Maybe we could get the Harris government to come to the table. A lot of its members have privately said they want to harmonize. I know Mr. Harris is holding out because he wants a big buyout. If we were to hold out to him $2 billion or $3 billion he would jump and say: "I want to harmonize at 13 per cent or 14 per cent". If we were to get the Harris government to the table to harmonize the taxes, at the end of the day $100 at a tax rate of 14 per cent or 15 per cent would still be $100. The member opposite would certainly agree that Canadians would be happier with that than paying $100 and having the tax added on top.

My question for the member is very simple and clear. Is he running for the Conservative Party or the Reform Party? I am confused. The way he is carrying on, it sounds like he is running for the Conservatives. If he is not running for the Conservatives, let us make sure we get the Reform policy.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I guess sometimes the blood flows very heavily and when you do not hear the truth and you hear things in remarks that sort of make the blood boil in your head you sort of forget the procedure. This is why colleagues like the member for Kingston and the Islands are people we need.

In Toronto we were just named number one of all the cities. That is something that the Reform Party does not like because it does not have any members elected in the vicinity of Toronto. It has one, just north. In the next election I promise we will work hard to make sure it does not have any.

We have kept 78 per cent of the promises. More than any other previous administrations or any other party we have had the guts to stand up and say: "These were our promises, these are what we kept and this is what we are". By all accounting we have the guts to account and put the numbers down.

Some of my colleagues across the way do not like those numbers because they know what they are showing in the polls is the same as the interest rate, 5 per cent and it is going down.

In closing, I hope the interest rate goes down and along with the interest rate going down so does the performance of the Reform Party.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

No, they do not have any mortgages.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

You have mortgages.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

They crossed the road, as my colleague says.

I want to speak about my constituents who were unemployed three years ago and who now have jobs. I want to speak about the bank rates going down and stimulating growth and potential. I want to speak about the industries in my riding that do not have to go to the banks and borrow at 12 per cent to 15 per cent as they did in the previous administration. Now they can borrow at 5 per cent.

I hear my colleagues across the way. They do not like the words 5 per cent interest at the bank. Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not like it, tough. My constituents like the 5 per cent. My constitutes enjoy not having to carry 10 per cent and 15 per cent on rates that they have to borrow. That stimulates the economy.

I as an individual have a mortgage. I wanted to renegotiate my mortgage. It dropped down.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

They cane them, as my colleague says.

The Liberals presented their platform which was called the red book. We had enough guts after three years to come and say this is our accounting and what we have done, 78 per cent. By any accounting, we presented 78 per cent. I do not see what the Reform Party promised. I do not see the Reform Party accounting for what it promised and what it is doing.

I challenge the Reform Party to bring its accounting. Not only can it not do its accounting, it forgot about the leader pointing graphs up and down. There is no accounting here.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but speak after listening to the Reform Party attacking a colleague whom I have known for the past eight years since I came to this House, a colleague for whom I have a lot of respect, a colleague who probably knows the ins and outs of this House like the back of his hand.

None of the people in the opposition have had time to talk to the individual or to come to know him as some of us on this side of the House have.

Personal attacks by the Reform Party are constantly being made against the member for Kingston and the Islands. I heard with great interest the speaker before me saying that one of their members attested to the knowledge of the member for Kingston

and the Islands. This is not something they want for the opposition party. They did not say a member from the Bloc. They want their member.

Reform members who were elected in 1993 and came here said they were going to make changes. There are no changes. They are politicians just like the rest of us. They just speak differently. We see the whip get up and say "or anybody who wants to vote differently". Nobody stands up and wants to vote differently. They all sing the same tune. They were going to do things different; anybody else who wishes otherwise. If they wish to do otherwise here comes the leader and they are out of here. They will be kicked right out.

[House Of Commons, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague about the history of his forefather. If he were hanged and quartered I was wondering how my colleague evolved. I will speak a bit about history, democracy and the privileges we should have and should not have.

Democracy comes from two Greek words, part of my ancestry, demos, which means people, and kratos, which means country. In the old ages in Athens people would gather at the bottom of the hill to have a say in what the state should be doing. At that time they did not have elected members of Parliament or an elected system but collectively they were there and made a decision.

As we evolved we came to what we have today, the Westminster system and the parliamentary systems of different countries. People have different elections. Other people get elected at large. For example, in the parliamentary systems in Europe in the second district of Paris 20 or 30 members of Parliament are elected. In Canada we have a plus one system which means one parliamentarian gets elected for one seat.

The constituents who have sent us here want us to voice their opinions in caucus. We all come here, as I did in 1988, with dreams

and aspirations. We find out there is a larger game. We find out we have to listen to our colleagues. We find out there are rules and procedures. It is not what we want it to be but by working in committees and here we can make changes.

I always ask my constituents what one member of Parliament can do. I raise the example of when the Prime Minister put forward a private member's bill back in the sixties and changed the name of the Trans-Canada Airlines to Air Canada. Members of Parliament are effective.

I commend my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River, for bringing this important motion to the floor of the House. It gives us the right to access information. It gives us the right to ask. We do not have to be wary that if I ask this question somebody will crack my knuckles.

I support the motion my colleague has brought forward.