Jim Pankiw

[Government Contracts, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal sponsorship program slush fund is so riddled with political interference that the auditor general is investigating the phantom report.

Incredibly, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is refusing to conduct a parliamentary inquiry even though when he was in opposition, he tabled a motion demanding that a parliamentary committee “examine all aspects of government contracts including those relating to advertising”.

Surely such a radical flip-flop deserves an explanation from the minister of pork and patronage. Why is he ignoring his own advice?

[Child Predator Act, March 20th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-437, an act to provide that persons who commit a sexual offence involving a child serve the entire sentence imposed without early release or parole and be found to be child predators, and to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker,I am pleased to introduce this bill to provide that persons who commit a sexual offence involving a child serve the entire sentence imposed without early release or parole and be found to be child predators.

It would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to prevent any unescorted temporary absence, day parole, full parole or statutory release being granted to a person who has committed a child predator offence or who has been found to be a child predator. Thus it would ensure that the full term of the sentence would be served in custody in every case of a child predator offence.

The enactment would also allow the court to order an offender who is found to be a child predator to be held in custody for an indeterminate period if the offence is a second or subsequent child predator offence and in the case of any subsequent release, avoidance of contact with children, electronic surveillance and monthly reporting to police.

In conclusion, it is a shame that this type of proposal to protect our children should have to come from an opposition member and not the justice minister. It is just another illustration of the desperate need to change the government so we can get the kind of criminal justice reform we need to protect our children.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points of Order, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, more specifically, I am asking if you have any authority to intervene in the case of a committee that refuses to carry out its mandate?

[Points of Order, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance because the mandate of the committee has been prostituted. The committee is not fulfilling its mandate and its responsibility. We know these regulations are illegal. They have been in place for five years and now the committee is refusing to put a disallowance report to parliament.

Mr. Speaker, what is your guidance? What is the point in having the committee if it will not act to disallow regulations that it knows are illegal? Where do we go from here?

[Points of Order, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Five years ago, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations informed the minister of fisheries that some Indian only fishing regulations were ultra vires the act of parliament. In other words, they were defective regulations that were in effect illegal. For five years the committee has been trying to have those regulations revoked but the minister's office has just stonewalled.

In December the committee voted to have a draft disallowance report prepared. The disallowance procedure for regulations would have the committee chair table the disallowance report in parliament. Today however at the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations the Liberal members voted against a motion to adopt the report. This means the chair of the committee could not come today to table the disallowance report of these race based regulations which discriminate against people on the basis of race, not to mention the fact that they are illegal.

I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to table this report nonetheless right now.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I made a comment earlier about the prime minister of Great Britain. The British prime minister is the leader of the labour party in the U.K. which correlates to the NDP in Canada. He stated to Canada's parliament that the case against free trade was misguided and, worse, unfair. I read his whole quote to the House. I pointed out that we in Saskatchewan are victims because we export our people because of socialist policies.

The hon. member for Churchill said the NDP supported free trade. My Conservative colleagues assure me the NDP vigorously opposed it. Does the hon. member for Prince George--Bulkley Valley know what the facts are? Did the NDP support the free trade agreement or not? My understanding is that it has always been opposed to it.

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that our free trade agreement with the United States and all aspects of our trade with the Americans should be done on principle. In any case where an unfair trade practice is undertaken by one of our trading partners, we should, within the rules and confines of our trade agreements, vigorously defend our position and our right to have free, open access to the markets of our trading partners.

However, my point here is that the NDP has taken a stand against free trade. Its members always spout this anti-American rhetoric despite the fact that Americans are our largest trading partner, our friends, our neighbours, our allies, and in fact even increasingly our relatives. Saskatchewan is good testimony to this because we in Saskatchewan have had a socialist government, in perpetuity it seems, and the NDP is responsible for the fact that we just keep exporting people from Saskatchewan, a lot to Alberta but many to the United States. Increasingly my constituents are telling me that their sons and daughters are going to the U.S. because of the socialist, backward mentality of the NDP in Saskatchewan.

I want to read into the record a brief statement made by Tony Blair, the leader of the social democratic party in Great Britain. When he addressed the House last year, he said:

It is time that we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It is the key to jobs for our people, to prosperity and actually to development in the poorest parts of the world. The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair. However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of rational argument. We should start to make this case with force and determination.

I agree with the prime minister of Great Britain that NDP members have their heads screwed on backwards, and we should, as vigorously and intentionally and strongly as he did, make the case against their misguided rhetoric.

[Crown Corporations, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when in opposition, the public works minister said this about the bid rigging of federal land sales:

Is it not about time that this issue be referred to a parliamentary committee so we can investigate it, not next year, not after the election, but this week?

We all know the Liberals forced the sale of valuable federal land in Montreal to a Liberal supporter for only one-quarter of its value. Will the minister put aside his double standard on integrity, take his own advice and refer this shady land deal to a parliamentary committee or the RCMP?

[Grants and Contributions, March 12th, 2002]

Check the record, Mr. Speaker, that is not what he said. He avoided the question just like he avoided it now. The issue is this minister's double standard on integrity.

The scandal surrounding Liberal pork and patronage at public works continues to grow. Since the sponsorship slush fund was put in place by this government, Liberal friends at Groupaction have billed Canadian taxpayers $60 million and kicked back $100,000 in political donations to the Liberal Party.

Why is the minister adopting the ethical standards of Alfonso Gagliano instead of the standards he demanded when in opposition?

[Grants and Contributions, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when he was in opposition, the current minister for public works said that allegations of conflict of interest should be investigated. In fact, he asked the following question in the House:

Can (the minister) specifically tell the House whether he is willing to refer this matter to a parliamentary committee?There have been a number of such allegations made by very credible sources. Isn't that enough?

Why was it a good idea to investigate corruption when he was in opposition, but not now that he is holding the levers of power? Why is the minister ignoring his own advice?