Jim Pankiw

[Public Works and Government Services, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is clear evidence that Alfonso Gagliano and his staff violated the conflict of interest code prohibiting the preferential hiring of supporters and friends. Not surprisingly the Liberal government is refusing to allow a parliamentary committee to investigate the scandal.

Will the current minister of public works finally request an RCMP investigation, or is he content to remain complicit in the government cover-up?

[Species at Risk Act, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that although the current Minister of Health is obviously no longer the minister of justice, the issue of mandatory hunting rifle registration will continue to haunt her, and her government I might add.

With respect to the matter at hand, the species at risk legislation, let me begin by saying that in 1992 the convention on biological diversity obliged Canada to adopt measures for mandatory habitat protection of threatened and endangered species and a scientific listing of species at risk to be a part of that process, both of which actually this legislation is deficient on and actually does not meet those obligations.

Furthermore, I might add that it is unfortunate that it has taken the Liberal government so long to bring in this legislation. It has been in office since 1993 and here it is 2002 and, if I am not mistaken, this is the first piece of environmental legislation that it has ever brought in in all the years it has been in office, and the legislation falls short of our obligations under that 1992 convention.

Nonetheless, the species at risk working group, which was a coalition of well recognized and major environmental groups, as well as industry stakeholders, put together a series of consensus recommendations. The government is of course ignoring those recommendations in this legislation which has been its tendency in many other cases.

In many cases, industry stakeholders and, in this case, environmental groups with respect to environmental issues, are very much equipped to know the issues better than politicians quite frankly. The recommendations from these groups should be taken very seriously, not just flippantly disregarded as has been done in this case.

As I have said, that tendency exists in other areas, such as agriculture where farm groups have been proposing solid, sustainable agricultural policies and solutions to the agriculture crisis for years but instead of adopting some of those recommendations and listening to farmers themselves, the Liberals have stumbled from ad hoc agriculture program to ad hoc program trying to snuff out the fires of the crisis on a temporary basis. They do not seem to get it.

In any case, not only did the government ignore the consensus recommendations of the species at risk working group but members of the opposition in committee and, I might add, even some of the Liberal members of committee, worked very hard and proposed a whole series of amendments that they passed at committee to improve the legislation. Now that we are here at report stage, those amendments have been reversed by the minister, once again ignoring the advice and knowledge of people who have had a very close hand in working with the issues.

I will outline three specific deficiencies of the legislation. To be set up effectively, a plan to protect threatened and endangered species should include a science based approach: a list of threatened and endangered species that is put together by scientists and experts, not by politicians.

Second, if a species is placed on that list and a recovery plan stage is then entered into, that stage would include further scientific study and socio-economic assessments.

The legislation, however, involves political based decisions whereby there would be no requirement for the government to make a decision on recommendations by scientists or even to respond to them, no time line and the decision ultimately would rest with a politician as opposed to scientists. That is an obvious, glaring deficiency in the bill.

Third, there are provisions in the bill allowing for federal interference on private or provincial land but no mandatory protection for species at risk on federal land.

In the case of federal land, protection is discretionary on a case by case basis. Not only is that an inconsistency but it is obviously a wrong approach.

Protection of species at risk benefits everyone. No individual should bear the sole burden of the cost of recovery. Landowners who would be involved in the process should be subject to receiving fair and reasonable compensation. There is no clear provision for that in the bill either.

I want to address the issue of compensation for landowners. It is not in the bill but it will be dealt with, supposedly, by regulations from the minister. This is an approach that the government is increasingly taking every time it tables legislation. Instead of introducing comprehensive legislation that is very clear and thoughtful, it puts together these little framework shells of legislation and then accomplishes most of everything else through regulation. That is fundamentally wrong.

I would like to commend my hon. colleague, the member for Edmonton North, who, together with Senator Lowell Murray, co-authored a report entitled, “The Working Group on Democratic Reform”, a very exciting and comprehensive document of political, parliamentary and electoral reform. One of the recommendations contained in that report is regulatory reform, specifically, three measures are suggested.

First, that the government should be required to table a copy of the draft regulations before a bill is finally voted on in the Commons, or Senate if it originates there. Ideally, the draft regulations would be tabled at second reading or at the outset of committee study of the bill.

If that recommendation had been followed by the government, then the regulations pertaining to compensation for landowners could have been part of the process and could have been deliberated at committee where witnesses could have been called to testify about what they thought and amendments could have been proposed. It would have greatly improved the legislative making process.

The second recommendation in the report was with regard to new regulations under existing laws. It states that they should be tabled in parliament at the time of pre-publication so that appropriate committees can review them if desired.

Once again, that process is not followed by the Liberal government. When the time comes for the minister to table these regulations about compensation, there is no parliamentary scrutiny.

The third recommendation is that the disallowance procedure to rescind a regulation should be put on a statutory footing rather than being only an order of the House under the standing orders.

In fact the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations is currently struggling with that very issue right now. In December it voted to disallow some Indian-only fishing regulations that, as far back as 1997, were identified by the committee as being illegal, or what is called ultra vires the act, in other words, outside the scope of the act of parliament, and that the minister was making these regulations even though he did not have the authority to do so.

In December, because the minister kept dragging his feet and would not correct the situation, we finally voted to disallow those regulations. However the Liberal dominated committee, a few weeks ago, just outvoted us and is keeping that report away from parliament.

Those are some very solid suggestions for regulatory reform which I sincerely hope will one day be adopted by government.

Let me conclude by saying that the opposition coalition believes in protecting endangered species based on the principles of respect for private property, voluntary programs, co-operation, sound science and accountability. Without a strong emphasis on these principles, endangered species could become more threatened as the result of bad legislation. The current endangered species legislation does not sufficiently reflect these principles and we will continue to fight for legislation that is effective and that will work.

[Public Works and Government Services, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's conflict of interest code directly prohibits the preferential hiring of supporters and friends.

Credible allegations continue to surface that Alfonso Gagliano and his staff broke the conflict of interest code when they interfered in the operation of a crown corporation to obtain jobs and contracts for Liberal supporters.

The former chair of Canada Lands Company and a vice-president have both stated that they were routinely handed lists and pressured to hire friends of the former public works minister, but the Prime Minister's personally appointed ethics counsellor has turned a blind eye. The only response has been to sweep Gagliano out of cabinet and under the carpet in the hopes that Canadians never learn the truth.

How times have changed. When the Liberal government was in opposition, the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services demanded that the RCMP investigate allegations of government corruption.

Canadians want the public works minister to explain his double standard on integrity and explain the Liberal government's refusal to request an RCMP investigation of the scandal.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The simple answer is that they cannot.

Municipalities are struggling. They are under intense financial pressure at both ends. There is downloading on the one hand. On the other hand as I explained regarding property taxes, some of the money is used for infrastructure and some of it is used for the delivery of services by the municipality. That is money the municipalities need to operate and function and provide the services that they do. However part of that money is being siphoned off through this tax grab of the employment insurance fund in Ottawa.

We could do the math. I do not know what it would come out to for all of Canada but in the city of Saskatoon since 1995, $4 million has been diverted to the federal government. That money should have gone toward roads and bridges in our city.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a far greater degree of scrutiny and accountability over the expenditure of public funds, taxpayers' money. Canadians work hard. They pay their taxes and they have expectations. They deserve to have that money treated in a very accountable, transparent, responsible fashion.

I would just say this about the irresponsible fiscal management of the government. The recent budget has no provision to make even a single payment on the $565 billion national debt for the next three years. What Canadian would manage his or her personal finances that way?

We are talking about people getting an education, trying to better themselves and get ahead in life. At some point most people eventually take out a mortgage and buy a house. Imagine someone saying to the bank manager “I want to borrow money but I think I will just let the interest float for a few years”. The bank manager would say “That is irresponsible, smarten up” and would give the guy a slap or whatever. Yet the government does it with our own money. It is absolutely incredible.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many areas on which a person could criticize the budget. There is such rampant waste and mismanagement that I could stand here for hours listing them.

There are three areas in particular that the budget did not appropriately address. The first one is the national debt. I hope I will have time in my comments to talk about that in a little more detail.

The employment insurance fund is a rip off. The federal government is siphoning over $5 billion a year in excess of the premiums that employers and employees pay and dumping it into the consolidated revenue fund. I hope I will have enough time to explain how, as employers, municipalities are facing the same rip off. By virtue of that fact, property taxes are being diverted into the consolidated revenue fund of the federal government and are being wasted on handouts to special interest groups and grants to corporations.

Another thing is the inherent unfairness of the tax system of which the Liberal government is so supportive. Using Liberal terminology, the tax system is called progressive. The member for Markham wrote an editorial for the Globe and Mail some time last year. He raged on about how progressive the tax system was. In the recent budget the Minister of Finance added a tax rate. What is meant by progressive tax system, is that tax rates progressively increase the more money we make.

Progressive sounds like a positive term, but if the government wanted to be intellectually honest, it would say that we had the most regressive tax system in the world. To progressively increase tax rates is punitive. The more money we make, the more we apply ourselves and the harder we work, the more we pay. It penalizes success and rewards failure. It is inherently unfair.

The member for Markham wrote an editorial using intellectual dishonesty. He called the Liberal tax system progressive. The truth is, it is progressively punitive; it is regressive.

I told him that I had read his editorial and that I found it objectionable that he had used that kind of language. When people read this they probably thought it was the most progressive system in the world so the Liberals must be good. A former economist of a bank ought to know how punitive the tax system is to hard working Canadians and inherently unfair.

When I spoke to the member for Markham I used the perfect example of a friend of mine who was in a low income situation for several years after high school and decided he wanted to better himself and generate more income. He had some goals, dreams and aspirations so he went back to school. He took out student loans. Besides the demands of the study that university required, he had a part time job on evenings and weekends to help get himself through school. After all the years spent at university, where he obtained a professional designation, he had a substantial debt to pay, but he became a great productive member of society.

We should support education more. Maybe the Liberals should look at spending more money on education and health care instead of handouts to Liberal business friends and special interest groups. We should be encouraging education.

My friend became a contributing member of society. He worked long hours at his chosen profession to pay back his student loans. However, as a result of the Liberal progressive tax system, he is paying the highest rate of taxes.

My friend is being penalized for having spent all those years going to school. He had to work evenings and weekends to help put himself through school so he could earn a decent living. However the Liberal tax system penalizes him. Not only will he pay more taxes because he is earning more, he is disproportionately penalized because he is bumped up to ever increasing tax brackets. We could have a single rate of tax so that the more money we make the more we pay.

The more overtime that people work, the harder they work and the more they apply themselves, the more they will be penalized. That is wrong. I used that example and asked the member for Markham how he could justify that. I said that not only was his article intellectually dishonest but he was promoting a very unfair system of taxation. He replied that fairness is a relative concept.

What does that mean? I want the people of Markham, Unionville and other areas in his riding to know this fact. He is supportive of a punitive, regressive tax system which says the harder that people work, the more they apply themselves, if they want to obtain more education, they will be penalized.

That is the inherent truth of the Liberals' tax system. It is wrong. It is offensive and it is unfair. The member ought to know better, being a former economist of a bank. I hope the bank replaced him with someone with a little more common sense. I hope voters send him a very clear message in the next election that they do not want to be penalized for working hard. They do not want to be penalized for helping their kids become educated so they can get better jobs and be successful.

People do not want to be penalized. The Liberals' regressive tax system should be changed. Let it be known that progressive tax is an intellectually dishonest term. There, I am glad I got that in.

I do not want to use up a lot of time going through the history of the employment insurance fund. Suffice it to say that the unemployment insurance system initially brought about in 1940 has evolved over the years. Today it is a program whereby employees and employers pay premiums on income and that money goes into the consolidated revenue fund. Benefits are paid to people who claim them.

The premiums people are paying currently sit at $2.25 for employees and $3.15 for employers per $100 of earnings up to a maximum amount of $39,000. Those rates are 15% higher than what is required to have an even flow of money in and out of the fund. Since 1995 an excess of money has been paid into the consolidated revenue fund than what has been paid out in benefits to people who become unemployed. Currently that 15% constitutes $5.4 billion a year.

At the present time the EI surplus is approximately $38 billion. Since 1995 the federal government has taken in $38 billion into the consolidated revenue fund and it has been spent. In other words there have been grants dished out to the Liberals' corporate friends and handouts to special interest groups and all the wasteful government programs. Some $38 billion has gone into this fund and has been spent. It is called the surplus but it does not exist. The money has been spent by the federal government. That is bad enough.

However municipalities are employers and they pay premiums as do their employees. Using the city of Saskatoon as an example, the 15% overpayment by employees and the city as the employer was $800,000. Some $4 million since 1995 has been diverted out of the city of Saskatoon's property tax revenues and into the federal government. I used Saskatoon as an exmaple because that is where I am from, but everywhere in the country, people's property taxes are being siphoned off into the Ottawa sinkhole of waste and mismanagement. Property taxes were never intended for that purpose.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I understand and agree with my hon. colleague that it is necessary to involve the provincial counterparts in order to formulate a long term sustainable agriculture policy. However, all I hear is rhetoric devoid of substance with more promises to consult. There is nothing substantive.

I mentioned the U.S. farm bill as I was wrapping up my comments earlier. It is actually the farm security act which is now before the U.S. senate. The president of the United States himself said that the U.S. will support agriculture to whatever degree is necessary. We know what that means.

That bill has provisions. It is a comprehensive program that includes safety nets, soil, water and wildlife conservation plans, value added programs and drinking water programs for rural development, research and trade subsidies. It is a comprehensive program that delivers to farmers in the United States certainty and security in a sustainable long term policy. It is a program they can rely on. It is a program which they know the government will support. However it actually causes even more problems for our farmers. The competitive disadvantage that our farmers face against the subsidies of other nations is becoming further entrenched.

For seven years the government has been stumbling along from one ad hoc crisis management program heavily weighted in bureaucracy to the next. It is incumbent upon the government to look at the American model. Look at what the result is going to be for our farmers. Give our farmers something of substance like what the American farmers have, the farm security act.

However, I have no confidence that will happen because in committee today the minister said that he did not really understand the American program.

[Criminal Code, February 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to follow up on a question I initially posed to the minister of agriculture in late October prior to the implementation of the December federal budget.

In quick summary, essentially the point I raised was that the government and the agriculture minister himself have become well known for stumbling from ad hoc program to ad hoc program with no long term vision. These ad hoc agriculture programs are consistently heavily weighted in bureaucracy. They are very complicated and eventually fail.

I asked the minister to give some kind of assurance that there was a plan in place to move past the government's crisis management, ad hoc to ad hoc program style of agriculture policy and implement a long term, sustainable agricultural policy which farmers could rely on to do some planning. The minister's response, according to Hansard , was that the government did want to move beyond crisis management.

I suppose there was some room for hope that the federal budget would contain a long term sustainable policy vis-à-vis agriculture. Regrettably there was no plan for agriculture in the December budget. There was no new money in the budget, nothing at all.

Since that time we have been questioning the agriculture minister periodically.

Today at the agriculture committee the minister marched in with his deputy minister, assistant deputy minister and about a dozen other bureaucrats in tow and announced that he was unveiling his great new plan. He called it the new architecture for agriculture plan. He had a very fancy slide presentation. He said that the new architecture plan for agriculture includes five points: risk management, food safety and food quality, environment, renewal, and science and innovation. There was no substance nor specifics.

What are farmers supposed to do with this new architecture plan? Imagine a farmer walking into a bank and saying “Here is the new plan from the minister of agriculture. I want a loan so I can put my crop in this spring”. Exactly how are farmers supposed to do any long term financial planning or crop planning if they do not know what programs are going to be there for them?

As I said there were no specifics on any of the five points of the plan, except to a slight degree with respect to risk management. The minister said that it would be a partnership of federal and provincial governments and farmers themselves. It is reminiscent of GRIP, a program which the Liberal government dismantled in 1995.

Since that time, as the minister himself said today in committee, the programs have been failures. We have been telling the minister that every year since 1995. These programs have failed. They do not work. We have to come up with a viable, sustainable agricultural policy. At least he finally is admitting that those policies did not work.

The U.S. farm bill is a comprehensive program of safety nets. It includes soil, water and wildlife conservation, a value added program, a drinking water program, rural development, research and trade subsidies. Why does Canada not come up with some kind of comprehensive agriculture policy like the Americans' plan and commit to it such as the Americans have so that our farmers can plan?

[Fisheries, February 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, several years ago the Liberal government implemented a series of aboriginal based regulations causing turmoil in the B.C. commercial salmon fishery. After five unsuccessful years of urging the minister of fisheries to correct this illegal situation members of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations voted this past December to disallow the regulations.

I want to ask the House of Commons chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee, the member for Surrey Central, when he will table the disallowance report in parliament.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has laid before the House conflicting statements at a time when our troops are engaged actively overseas. That is what makes this such a serious matter.

He told the House that he had first been informed of the capture of al-Qaeda forces by our troops on a Friday, then on the following day he said that it had been much earlier in the week, in fact on the Monday. Then when asked to explain this contradiction he gave a very confusing explanation that did not make any sense. He linked it to a picture and said he did not recognize that the picture was connected to the capture of these people, but that does not change the fact that he said he was first informed on two different dates.

Either he deliberately is throwing out a red herring to mislead the House or he is very confused. In either case, whether it is just gross incompetence and mental defect on the part of the minister or whether he is intentionally misleading the House, it brings the issue of credibility and confidence in the minister into question before the House.

Therefore my question to the member is this. Since the issue of the competence and the credibility of the minister is very much on the minds of Canadians and the matter is being referred to a committee, surely he would support the removal of the minister from his position until the results of that committee are final, because the minister may very well be compelled to resign in disgrace when we find out the results from that committee.

Either he should support the removal of the minister from his position or he should provide the House with an explanation that makes sense. The minister's explanation of this picture, how he did not realize it was connected, is confusing and does not make any sense and he still gave two different dates.

Either the member should explain it in a way we can understand or he should support the minister's removal from his position while the committee investigates.