Jim Pankiw

[Parliament Of Canada Act, October 28th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-451, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act. The bill will provide for fixed election dates to be held on the third Monday of October every four years.

Reform MPs are champions of democratic accountability and the bill seeks to advance the cause of improved democratic procedures by putting an end to the games of politics and patronage which are traditionally played with election dates.

I urge all members of the House to support my bill in the interest of improving the democratic election process in Canada through fixed election dates.

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

[Taxation, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is about giving working Canadians a break so they can keep themselves out of poverty.

Mr. Tkatch also pays about $700 a month in taxes, EI and CPP. It is close to the point where he might just as well sign over his paycheque to the government and live off the deductions.

Will the finance minister explain to Mr. Tkatch and others like him why they should not just quit their jobs and go on welfare?

[Taxation, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, two families in Prudhomme, Saskatchewan. In one of them, Preston Tkatch is the sole breadwinner but his monthly take home pay after taxes is only $220 more than the welfare cheque a family of the same size receives. It is this government's tax policies which are pushing more and more Canadians into poverty.

Why does this finance minister allow a situation to exist in which there is more incentive for people to go on welfare than to work?

[Agriculture, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for months now this Liberal government and the agriculture minister in particular have been ignoring the farm income crisis on the prairies.

The average drop in farm income over each of the last two years was 50% and programs such as crop insurance and NISA will not provide sufficient help. In fact, NISA will not even cover the cost of fertilizer and fuel next spring for many farmers who are struggling to avoid bankruptcy.

If the Liberals had listened to Reform in 1993 the government could have been investing in a farm safety net to protect farmers who are getting hammered by European Union subsidies and unfair trade practices by the U.S. So far there has been no response from the agriculture minister to Reform's proposals.

Farmers across the west are demanding action but sadly they realize it will not be coming any time soon from this do nothing Liberal government.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is unfortunate that we are limited in time. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke stated that the EI fund had been very well managed by the Liberal government. That is exactly what he said.

My opinion is that a $19 billion surplus which does not exist because it has been spent is atrocious management.

I wonder if the member for Guelph—Wellington would agree that misappropriation of $19 billion is very good management as stated by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition draws the attention of the House to section 43 of the Criminal Code that recognizes the primary role of parents in the raising and disciplining their children.

The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 of Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon—Humboldt.

The first petition is from residents who want to ensure that marriage, as it has always been known and understood in Canada, is preserved and protected. The petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Royal Canadian Mint Act, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we put this issue to rest here. It is important that everyone understands that the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar defeated Brian Pallister in the last election. The member for Brandon—Souris should be the one to resign in the event that Mr. Pallister wins leadership, because the member for Portage—Lisgar, the Reform member, would again win in a byelection because he did win by 1,500 votes over the Conservative candidate. Unless the Conservative candidate wants to come back for a second defeat, so be it.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga West said that under this program the banks would get a guarantee. In other words, taxpayers would guarantee the loan.

Then the member made the point that the money can only be lent for assets. The first example he gave was leasehold improvements.

That is a perfect example of the problem with this government. We have career politicians making decisions for business who are completely out of touch and without any understanding of the realities of running a business.

With respect to leasehold improvements, the member clearly does not have a clue what they entail. A leasehold improvement is an asset to a business. However, if the business fails it may be a liability to the next person. In many instances leasehold improvements are not consistent. They are not what is required of the next business coming in.

Therefore, there may be a liability on the business if the venture is not successful. There may be a requirement for them to remove those leasehold improvements, in which case they would be destroyed and the asset would become a liability.

I have made leasehold improvements to businesses. In fact I borrowed money under the Small Business Loans Act for leasehold improvements. I am an example of a business person who was unnecessarily burdened by government excess regulations.

I would have qualified for a bank loan, but the bank said that the government had a plan which the taxpayer would guarantee, and I was forced to pay a premium on it. That is one of the ways in which the mentality of this Liberal government ends up burdening small business people such as myself.

The reason government members do not understand that is because they are career politicians. The hon. member for Mississauga West said that in 1988-89 he was appointed small business advocate by Premier Davis. That member's connections to politics and getting appointments to different things goes back years and years. I would not be surprised if he was a lawyer.

The member said that we found what the top three problems were. Notice that the member said “we found”. He did not say “I know what they are”. How would he know? He is not a small business person and he is out of touch with the needs of small business people.

He said that taxation was a problem. If that is the problem, then why is he in a government that has increased taxes 37 times in the last four years? That seems to be an inconsistency to me.

The member also said that access to capital or financing was a problem. My only comment to that is, why has the government of which he is a member not lowered EI premiums, reduced taxation or ended the excessive burden placed on business by government regulations? Why is the member part of a government that acts against small business?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 28th, 1998]

Can the Government of Canada indicate how much was spent to send government employees to Paul A. Douglas' Banff Management Courses held in Banff, Alberta, in February, April and October 1997?