Jim Pankiw

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-36, the budget implementation act.

The recent Liberal budget could have been historic since it is the first time in decades that our books have been balanced. However, the Liberals missed an historic opportunity in the budget to deal with the issues of most concern to Canadians.

High tax levels, a crippling national debt, bracket creep and job killing payroll taxes have all been passed over by the government, despite the fact that these things affect the quality of life in our country, that these things reduce our standard of living.

Canadians are subject to some of the highest tax rates in the world and the Liberals did nothing in the budget to address the situation. In 1993 Ottawa collected $125 billion a year from taxes, but thanks to the Liberals Ottawa will suck $166 billion out of the pockets of taxpayers in 1998. By the year 2000 Canadians will be paying $48 billion per year in higher taxes than when the Liberals were elected. That increase is equivalent to $5,000 per Canadian family. It is these taxes that are sucking the lifeblood out of our economy and forcing many of our highly skilled workers to move to the more tax friendly United States.

In the recent budget the Liberals should have addressed bracket creep but they did not. This insidious tax constantly pushes taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their income remains unchanged. Even the OECD called on the government to eliminate this sneaky tax. Bracket creep represents taxation by stealth since taxes automatically increase each year.

The government has collected an extra $22 billion since bracket creep was introduced by the Tories in 1989. Considering the present government's tax and spend mentality it should come as no surprise that it opted to maintain bracket creep, to maintain high tax levels and to maintain a source of income for its big government programs. The 1998 budget contains $11 billion in new spending initiatives for 25 new government programs.

What it does not contain is real tax relief. It utterly fails to recognize that there is a $583 billion national debt. The debt load costs $45 billion each year to service. That is $45 billion less for important social programs like health care and education. It is $45 billion thrown into the wind each year with no direct benefit for Canadians. That is what our national debt load represents. Yet the Liberals are patting themselves on the back for taxing Canadians to death in order to eliminate the deficit. Meanwhile the monstrous debt load looms over our heads.

The finance minister had nothing to say about the serious debt situation which we now face. In fact budget documents show the national debt remaining unchanged through the year 2000. In typical Liberal fashion the government believes that if it ignores the problem it will go away.

It is not possible to sweep $600 billion under the carpet. Ignoring the debt today means that it will be passed on to the next generation tomorrow, and that is wrong. According to the budget that is what the Liberals want to do. The truth is that there was a surplus in 1997-98 of $3.2 billion but the Liberals blew it on new spending.

If the Liberals had applied the surplus against the debt, we would have had an interest savings of $235 million a year over the next three years. Rather than show a surplus on the books and face questions over excessive taxation, the Liberals simply spent the money.

Speaking of the nation's financial books, the auditor general accused the finance minister of cooking the books. His accusations are well founded in standard accounting practices as a matter of fact, standard accounting practices the government has stubbornly refused to accept.

The amendment put forward by my colleague from Medicine Hat addresses this issue. The problem is that the Liberals have assigned $2.5 billion to the Prime Minister's Canada millennium scholarship foundation despite the fact that not a single scholarship will be handed out until the year 2000. It is not standard accounting practice, except in Liberal circles, to cost future liabilities into current budget figures, but then a lot of strange things go on within Liberal circles such as patronage appointments to the Senate in exchange for certain financial remuneration.

This is not the first time the Liberals have used this method of accounting for purely political purposes. The auditor general twice criticized the government for doing the same thing with the Canada foundation for innovation fund and the $1 billion payment to Atlantic Canada for the HST.

The amendment put forward by the member for Medicine Hat would deny passage of Bill C-36 because the Liberals are cooking the books for pure political gain. I think this is obvious to all members of the House, and I urge them to support the amendment.

I would like to continue discussing the budget by pointing out the opportunity that was missed to lower taxes, particularly payroll taxes. Even the finance minister's department states that payroll taxes kill jobs. When the finance minister appeared before the finance committee in October 1994, he said that high payroll taxes were a tax on jobs and that it was ludicrous. He certainly has changed his tune in the last few years.

The CPP premium hike introduced this year is the largest tax grab in Canadian history. It will kill tens of thousands of jobs. Likewise, the minister has kept EI premiums at artificially high levels and he applied the huge EI surplus against the deficit.

EI premiums for employees are $2.70, but the break even point is $2. EI over the last few years has been taking in $8 billion more each year than it pays out. These high EI premiums represent nothing more than a tax on jobs. To the minister these high premiums have become necessary revenue to apply against the deficit.

The CFIB and small business continually cite high taxes, particularly payroll taxes, as the largest impediment to growth and expansion. If the government wants to address unemployment it must get our tax levels down and encourage firms to hire.

The Liberals just do not get it. Government does not create jobs. High taxes most certainly do not create jobs. Big government and high taxes kill jobs. They are an impediment to economic growth and lower unemployment. The Liberals do not have a plan to create jobs as demonstrated by progressively higher taxes in each subsequent budget since 1994.

However, Reformers have a plan for getting Canadians back to work and strengthening the economy. We would reduce job killing payroll taxes and capital gains taxes in order to encourage investment in Canadian businesses. We would eliminate the 3% and 5% income surtaxes introduced by the Tories and only tinkered with in the budget. As well, Reformers would increase the amount of the basic personal deduction and extend the child care expense deduction to all parents.

In all, our efforts would reduce taxes by $15 billion by the year 2001. This amounts to $2,000 per family of four. This plan is directed toward providing a brighter future for Canadians, a future filled with hope and opportunities.

Unfortunately, when we examine the Liberal government's obsession with high tax levels and its continuing yearly tax increases, the hopes of many Canadians are erased and many opportunities will simply never arise. Therefore, for these reasons I cannot support Bill C-36. I urge all other members of the House to oppose the bill.

[Motions For Papers, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over five months since I placed an order for the production of papers designated as P-8 on the Order Paper. I raised this issue a month ago under another point of order and I am forced once again to ask the parliamentary secretary when I can expect a response from the government on this matter.

[Small Business Loans Act, March 13th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-21, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 1 with the following: “period exceeds fourteen billion dollars or”.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.

The purpose of this bill is to extend the SBLA for another year until March 1999 and raise the government's total liability to $15 billion which is a $1 billion increase. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that while the SBLA can operate until 1999 it will not receive an additional $1 billion.

The SBLA in its present form will expire on March 31, 1998. However the government is undertaking a review of the program. Given the serious findings of the auditor general, the Liberal government says it needs more time to study this. I agree that it is reasonable to provide that time but the government should not be asking for more money. As mentioned, my amendment would deny the extra $1 billion the government is requesting, and with good reason.

When the industry minister appeared before the committee last month, he stated that the current liability under the SBLA program had only reached $12.7 billion. At present the SBLA liability ceiling is at $14 billion. Therefore the SBLA already has $1.3 billion to work with over the next year before it reaches its liability ceiling. Why then is the minister asking for an additional $1 billion? Surely the remaining $1.3 billion and increasing efficiencies within the program as recommended by the auditor general will allow the SBLA to operate until March 1999.

I remind the House that the auditor general found serious problems with this program in his December 1997 report. Therefore we should not take this $1 billion extension of liability lightly. He found that taxpayers will be on the hook for $210 million in defaulted loans for the period from 1993 to 1995.

Studies done by Industry Canada show that 40% of the loans did not need SBLA guarantees. The auditor general also pointed out that job creation figures under the SBLA were inflated by as much as five times. He also said the program was abused by lenders and borrowers and that there is little accountability to Parliament.

Given this damning report, the government comes before the House asking for another $1 billion and promises to do a complete review. That is unacceptable. Why was the review not done earlier? Did the industry minister not have any idea of how poorly this program was being run? Does it take the auditor general to move this government to make programs more efficient and accountable?

Clearly Industry Canada has been asleep at the switch. In the interests of hardworking Canadian taxpayers the official opposition cannot turn a blind eye to this blatant mismanagement and simply rubber stamp another $1 billion payout.

We hear a great deal from the government side about how the SBLA is self-financing and costs to the taxpayer are negligible. That is untrue. Anyone who doubts me need only look at the main estimates.

According to the supplementary estimates (B), 1997-98, the government needs another $90 million to cover bad SBLA loans. In the main estimates for 1998-99 the SBLA program is budgeted for huge increases to cover bad loans.

The industry department itself needs $65 million or 35% more than the year previous. ACOA wants an 87% increase, $8.4 million total. FORD-Q wants 11% more, $92.6 million total. Western Economic Diversification requests a 164% increase over last year to bring it to $44.2 million.

More and more taxpayer dollars are going out to cover bad loans made by a poorly managed program. Does the government think the official opposition can support Bill C-21 in its current form? Of course we cannot. We cannot sign off on another $1 billion for this program.

If the Liberals had any real concern for small business financing and growth and creating jobs in this country, they would not be asking for an additional $1 billion in public guarantees. They would be asking the finance minister for $1 billion in tax relief.

Survey after survey shows that Liberal taxes are draining the lifeblood out of the economy and it is small businesses that suffer.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business found in its October 1997 survey that 80% of small business cited the total tax burden as too high. In its prebudget submission, the CFIB stated that tax levels continued to be the number one concern of small business.

The Liberals have hammered small business once again with a further increase in CPP premiums, a move that everyone knows will kill jobs in our country and force many small businesses into bankruptcy.

Steadily increasing taxes are leaving small businesses with no retained earnings. All of their funds are going to Ottawa. Retained earnings are essential for small businesses to grow. Rather than demand another $1 billion from taxpayers under Bill C-21, why not leave the $1 billion in the pockets of small business owners? Real tax relief measures fall on deaf ears with this government, as witnessed by the recent budget.

The amendment before this House is not unreasonable. It allows the SBLA to operate for another year so that Industry Canada can complete its review of the program. The amendment denies the program an additional $1 billion in liability, but as the industry minister said himself, there is $1.3 billion remaining in the program.

Given the auditor general's findings, we cannot extend another $1 billion to this seriously flawed program. I therefore encourage all members of the House who are concerned with the efficient expenditure and management of taxpayers' dollars to support Motion No. 1.

[Taxation, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the nation's finances are in the black today it is because Canadian taxpayers are in the red.

A constituent of mine, Robyn McGregor, is a single mother struggling to make ends meet because of the high tax policies of the government. Her 11 year old son Nathan requires dental work, but high taxes means no trip to the dentist.

Why is it so easy for the Prime Minister to say no to relief for taxpayers like Robyn but to say yes to lavish spending by his cabinet ministers?

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to recognize the right of every person to own, use and enjoy property; and to not be deprived of that right without full, just and timely compensation and the due process of law.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to lead off debate on Motion No. 269.

The motion seeks to amend the charter of rights and freedoms to include property rights. At present there is no mention of property rights and therefore no protection from confiscation of personal property by the government. There is no requirement for the government to provide compensation to an individual if Ottawa confiscates their property.

This Liberal government has become a master at violating the property rights of Canadians. Whether it is gun control, the Canadian Wheat Board, endangered species legislation or direct to home satellite systems, this government has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the property of Canadians. All Canadians should be concerned that the Liberal government so easily and so quickly tramples on their rights in order to achieve certain specific policy goals.

It is clear from the actions of this government that it has no regard for the property rights of Canadians. As a result I have introduced Motion No. 269.

Red flags surrounding this issue were first raised during the 35th Parliament when the Liberals introduced Bill C-22. This bill dealt with the cancellation of the Pearson airport development contract. The Liberals attempted to annul binding contracts and then exempt themselves from liability. In short they tried to confiscate property and then place themselves above the law.

However, pressure from the Senate, threatened lawsuits and questions concerning the constitutionality of the bill led to its collapse. All the while the former justice minister, now our health minister, insisted that everything was above board and that Bill C-22 was totally conventional. This gives some insight into the mentality of Liberals and their position on the rights of Canadian citizens.

Although the Liberals backed down on Bill C-22, they went on to introduce Bill C-65. This bill dealt with endangered species in Canada. Serious concerns were raised about the effect this legislation would have on the property rights of landowners. Specifically some landowners were afraid that the government would confiscate their property in an attempt to protect endangered species.

Again the Liberals downplayed the legitimate concerns of landowners and treated those questioning excessive government powers in Bill C-65 as environmental terrorists. Thankfully Bill C-65 died on the Order Paper as a result of the 1997 election, however it is still waiting in the wings and there is little doubt that the government will reintroduce the bill in the near future. Before it does so, our debate here today gives all opposition parties the opportunity to go on the record as to where they stand on the property rights of landowners.

Unfortunately the Liberals' legislative assault on property rights did not end with Bill C-65. They went much further with the introduction of Bill C-68. More than any other initiative, the Liberals' misguided gun control legislation has sparked a national discussion on property rights.

Armed with the provisions contained in Bill C-68, the justice minister is able to pass order in council regulations and confiscate the rightful property of Canadian firearms owners. I am speaking of property which has been duly acquired. The owner has paid taxes on the firearm and complied with all other regulations.

Regardless of this, along come the Liberals who say to law-abiding gun owners “We are going to take your property because we know what is best for you. We are socially re-engineering Canada into a gentler, kinder society”. That is what the Liberals say.

It is ironic that these same Liberals have created a justice system where rapists walk out of courtrooms because of conditional sentencing. Young offenders who kill are sentenced to a few months at youth internment centres. Serial killers are given the tools through section 745 of the Criminal Code to revictimize their victims' families. That is the record of this government when it comes to engineering a kinder society. Criminals are given the gold mine while law-abiding gun owners get the shaft.

Members of the House will know that C-68 is being challenged in the courts with respect to its infringement on provincial jurisdiction in the area of property rights. Four provinces and the territories had the good sense to stand against this bill and its attack on the fundamental rights and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians.

Treating ordinary Canadians worse than violent criminals is nothing new to this government. David Bryan, a Saskatchewan farmer who tried to sell his grain outside the Canadian Wheat Board has been led around courtrooms in shackles. His heinous crime: trying to sell his own crop, his own property without the permission of the Canadian Wheat Board. In the eyes of the Canadian Wheat Board, David Bryan does not own his grain, Ottawa does.

Russ Larson who attended Mr. Bryan's trial said “It is like we are peasants who are supposed to grow grain, turn it over to them and shut up”. In other words, you work for the Canadian Wheat Board not for yourself. The grain is the property of the government, not the producer.

Incidentally, only farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are subject to the violation of their property rights. Farmers in other provinces can market their crops however they see fit. That is why farmers on the prairies are increasingly referring to the wheat board as the OWB, the Ottawa wheat board, because it is run by bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians in Ottawa instead of by western farmers.

Motion No. 269 allows all parties in this House an opportunity to rise and defend the property rights of farmers. I also challenge members of this House to rise and defend the rights of Canadians who choose to watch what they want on television.

Direct to home satellite owners have been compared to drug pushers by the industry minister simply because they are using American hardware and services. Direct to home satellite owners have been threatened that their equipment may be confiscated by the RCMP. Customs officials have seized direct to home satellite equipment that is being imported from the United States of America, equipment on which all duties have been paid and which rightfully belongs to the Canadian retailer or wholesaler. “No matter,” say the Liberals, “in the interests of cultural protectionism, that is, government knows what is best for you, we will trample on the property rights of Canadian citizens”.

Without the strong protection of property rights, the social engineers have the upper hand. It is in their power to decree what is acceptable and what is not, what is safe and what is not and what we should do and what we should not do. Property rights are not just about firearms or land or satellite dishes; property rights are about freedom.

But do not take my word for it. Listen to the comments made by our present Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa. In 1985 he delivered a speech in Edmonton where he said “I believe we must entrench the right to property in our Constitution. The right to hold and enjoy property provides one of the checks and balances against undue concentration of power in government at any level”.

Even the creator of big government, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, was an advocate of property rights during the repatriation of the Constitution. However, property rights did not make it into the final draft of the charter.

Members should be interested to know that property rights are entrenched in the United States constitution. Article 5 of amendments to the U.S. constitution reads in part “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”.

Opponents of my motion may argue that property rights are already guaranteed under John Diefenbaker's bill of rights but that is not true. The bill of rights is simply a statute which can be overridden by any government legislation.

The Library of Parliament concluded that “there is no requirement in Canadian constitutional law that compulsory taking of property be effected by a fair procedure or that it be accompanied by fair compensation to the owner”.

In a March 1995 paper on property rights the Library of Parliament determined that “in Canada there is no constitutional guarantee for compensation and that the power of the government in this area is unlimited”. Motion No. 269 seeks to place limits on the government and Ottawa's ability to simply strip Canadians of their personal property.

This is not the first time property rights have been discussed in the House, and I know it will not be the last. My hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville led the charge on this issue in the 35th Parliament. I am pleased to help advance the cause of property rights in this parliamentary session.

I remind all members that this issue strikes at the heart of our rights and freedoms in a democratic system. I look forward to the rest of the debate on this motion. I encourage members to speak in favour of Motion No. 269 so the House can move to protect the property rights of all Canadians.

Considering the importance of entrenching property rights in the constitution and despite the fact that the subcommittee did not find the motion votable, I seek unanimous consent of the House to deem the motion votable so we can have a full three hours of debate instead of one and can put the issue to a vote as to whether or not we entrench property rights in the constitution.

[Firearms Regulations, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has chaired four UN workshops on firearms regulations. Twice I requested that the Minister of Foreign Affairs grant me observer status at these workshops. Both times he denied my request, each time for a different reason. He went on to say that information and access could be obtained if I joined a special interest group. Why does the minister place special interest groups ahead of elected representatives of the Canadian people?

[Motions For Papers, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a Motion for the Production of Papers which I placed on the Order Paper on November 18, 199, Motion No. P-8. It has been four months since I requested this information from the government and I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could inform me as to when I may expect a response.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Blackstrap.

How does he tell his constituents or what does he say to the farmers that he represents? How does he explain that Bill C-4 will apply only to farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, but the restrictions that are placed upon them by the bill will not affect farmers in other provinces? How does he explain that?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will get to my question in a minute. First I would like to say that the refusal of the Liberal government to address the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board means that it will continue to not be subject to competition. It will continue to not have to get the best price for farmers' grain. Canadian farmers will be forced to continue to accept far below world market prices for the grain they grow.

I was raised on a farm. The reason I chose a career other than farming is because there is no money in farming. I was forced to embark on a career other than what I might have had simply for economic reasons and simply because of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board has been keeping farmers poor and not giving them the price for their grain which they deserve.

I resent eastern politicians and Ottawa lawyers telling my family, my friends, my neighbours and the constituents I represent “Here is how you must market your grain. You must accept lower than market value because we are going to dictate how you do it. But that does not apply to Ontario. It does not apply to the people we represent, but you people out west have to accept what we tell you”.

How dare they have the audacity and the contempt to force the bill down the throats of western farmers.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is purposefully trying to link a party based on fundamental values of truth and honesty and democracy with a criminally—