Jim Pankiw

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, to begin I would like to address Motion No. 5 of Group No. 4 with respect to the proposed board of directors for the wheat board, of which five members would be appointed.

To make my point, I would like to embark on a bit of a journey in history. In the dying days of the 1993 election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party made more than 600 political patronage appointments.

The current Prime Minister at that time had a field day criticizing the blatant patronage of the Conservatives, vowing that he would do different, that he would not insult Canadian taxpayers in the same manner as the prime minister of the day.

He said, a direct quote from the 1993 campaign, that the people of Canada will see a big difference with the Liberals in power. Furthermore, he said that the Liberals were elected to serve the people of Canada, not to serve themselves.

If we look at the red book of the time, it said “the Conservatives made a practice of choosing political friends when making thousand of appointments to commissions and agencies, but a Liberal government will review the appointment process to ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of competence”.

The reason I gave that bit of history is that is it not amazing that a few years later, in September 1997, the Prime Minister completely reneged on that promise, changed his tune and said that he appoints people from his party. He said “I am not going to name people who are not Liberals”. This is a complete violation of the promises he made both verbally during the campaign and in their campaign book called the red book.

To illustrate my points, I go back to the year following the 1993 election to give examples for the benefit of all the members of the House as well as all Canadians. Jean Robert Gauthier, Liberal MP, Ottawa-Vanier was appointed to the Senate; John Bryden, New Brunswick Liberal organizer and worked for the Prime Minister in the 1993 leadership race and also ran Frank McKenna's election campaigns was appointed to the Senate; Sharon Carstairs, former Liberal leader and Prime Minister loyalist appointed to the Senate; Robert Nixon, former Ontario Liberal Leader and confidant of the current Prime Minister, appointed as chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada; Royce Frith, former Liberal Speaker of the Senate, appointed High Commissioner to Great Britain. I could go on and on but I do not think it would be fitting to occupy the next several days to list the Liberal political patronage appointments.

The proposed board is another source of potential patronage appointments for the government. That is why it does not want to empower the farmers to run their own board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. It wants to have appointed positions so that it can continue its “patronage party” which it embarked upon in 1993. The government has shown no signs of slowing up its activity in that regard.

Not only is the minister responsible for the wheat board proposing to control the board through these appointed positions, the chief executive officer would also be appointed. The farmer-elected board of directors would not be able to choose its own chief executive officer. The minister responsible for the wheat board would have that authority. This is a real affront to farmers. It should be embarrassing for the Liberal government.

Every chance I have had, I have spoken to the Bill C-4 amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board. Again today and never in the past has the minister responsible for this bill been here to listen to the concerns of the western grain farmers as conveyed by the members of parliament who represent them.

As I speak, there are three Liberal MPs in the House of Commons.

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga West referred to the proposed bill as a spending program.

He said it was not really providing a tax deduction that does not currently exist but a spending increase because anything that provides a tax cut is a cost to the federal treasury. Therefore providing a tax deduction that does not currently exist to him is a spending program. It is twisted, perverse logic. It is bizarre logic. It is Liberal logic. There is really no logic there.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar for introducing this private member's bill. I would like to speak about the fairness of it and his attempt to bring fairness to younger Canadians who this would actually impact on.

Before I do, I am not quite done in my comments about the discussion the hon. member for Mississauga West was engaged in. He was singing praise for the fiscal management of the Liberal government, but the truth is that in the past four years, under this Liberal government, the national debt of our country has increased $100 billion. Those are the cold, hard facts. There it is. It is as simple as that.

Then he referred to not only the member for Portage—Lisgar but to all Reformers as whiners and snivellers for trying to exercise the representation of our constituents here and speak on their behalf in an attempt to gain some tax relief for them.

They are burdened, as are all Canadians, by the level of taxation in this country. We are trying to put forward measures which would provide some relief of the over burdensome government levels of tax, but the Liberals are referring to us as whiners and snivellers.

In other words, they are saying that despite the fact that we are among the highest taxed citizens in the world, we are whiners and snivellers for complaining about it.

Earlier in discussion the hon. member from Kings—Hants, a Conservative member, suggested it was not a good idea to provide this tax cut for first time home buyers because it would increase the complexity of the tax code.

I point out to the hon. member that the complexity of the tax code doubled in the nine years the Conservatives governed this country. I think it is a little hypocritical to suggest what he did.

The most important thing I have to say about this bill is the fairness of it. What I am getting at is that yes, the Liberal government has increased our national debt $100 billion and yes, the Conservative government prior in nine years increased our national debt by $300 billion, and the Liberal government before that, a further $200 billion.

Now we are saddled with this $600 billion national debt that is placed on the backs of our future generations. It is younger Canadians who are going to have to bear that burden, being saddled with high taxes for the rest of their lives to pay off the mismanagement of past Conservative and Liberal governments.

Furthermore these same governments have mismanaged our Canada pension plan so it now has an unfunded liability of $600 billion, for which the younger generation is also going to have to bear the burden.

If the hon. member from Portage—Lisgar is able to introduce a bill that would at least provide a bit of tax relief to the generation now burdened with the mismanagement of past Liberal and Conservative governments, the onus is on us to support that.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey made a comment that I have to say was only half true. He said that the ideas of the hon. member for Kamloops were half baked. I think they are fully baked.

Unless I misunderstood him, he suggested that artists should be tax exempt, that they should not have to pay taxes. All I can say to that is if this is the kind of logic which has been advanced in the House of Commons, it is no wonder our country is $600 billion in debt and the Canada pension plan has an unfunded liability of $560 billion. This is why Canadians are taxed to death.

Is that the kind of logic that has been advanced in this House for the past 20 or 30 years? Is that how we got here? That is my question. I would like anyone who has been here for maybe a term or two to answer that. Is that what has been going on here? I am really curious.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Markham. I agreed with most of what he said, particularly when he used the analogy of the deficit being only the tip of the iceberg and the debt being the submerged portion that could very well sink the country in the event of an economic downturn. He also said that it was incumbent upon government to address the very important issue presented by the debt.

How could the member justify what he says when the Conservative government was in power for nine years and increased the national debt $300 billion in that time period, which constitutes half the total national debt that we face?

[Gun Control, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last year the former justice minister who is currently the Minister of Health said that only the police and the military should be allowed to have guns. Two months ago the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he would like to establish an international treaty to register, control and restrict the use of small arms. Last month the Deputy Prime Minister said that he favoured the development of an instrument to ban firearms throughout the world.

Do you see a pattern here? It is obvious. Beginning with Bill C-68 this Liberal government is committed to the elimination of firearm ownership in Canada. It is wholeheartedly dedicated to harassing law-abiding gun owners and confiscating their property. Registration then confiscation. That is the motto of these Liberals. Shame on the Liberal government for trampling on the property rights of Canadians.

[Points Of Order, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday during debate in the House I made a comment to which the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis took exception. He raised a point of order with the Speaker and indicated that the word was listed in Beauchesne's as unparliamentary.

Although the Speaker ruled to simply continue debate, out of respect for the House and the member for Lac-Saint-Louis I would like to withdraw the remark I made last Thursday.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really know how to respond to that somewhat disjointed and incoherent speech by the hon. member, except to say that when I go home to my constituency what I will tell the people I represent is that I am opposed to increased taxes on fuel, increased taxes not only on fuel for their automobiles but on fuel for heating their homes. I am also opposed to a carbon tax which would cripple the petroleum industry and kill employment in the region of the country which I represent. I would like to see taxes scaled back.

The last thing I want to see this country do is impose a 30 cent or 40 cent tax on gasoline. That would kill even more jobs in this country.

We are already facing increases in Canada pension plan premiums which will take effect if the government manages to ram through its legislation. Payroll taxes will increase. The cost to employers will increase. It will affect jobs. It will affect wages.

I am here listening to a member of the New Democratic Party who is proposing more taxes for ordinary Canadians.

We are crippled by taxes. I cannot even comment on what the man said. It made no sense. All I can say is I am for lower taxes.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute something to the debate that at this point I have not heard mentioned. I am referring to the scientific method.

Repeatedly in the debate I have heard members of the Liberal Party refer to the science of global warming. However, before we can even attempt to purport to have a scientific basis for a theory, the theory should have passed the scientific method which is a randomized, double blinded clinical trial.

In other words, in the case of global warming we would need two solar systems. We would have to give the power to someone to increase carbon dioxide levels on the earth in one of the solar systems. The person would be blinded to knowing in which solar system he or she would be increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

Then we would measure the temperature of the earth in the solar systems, determine if there was any change and report the findings. The findings would show that nobody knew, neither the earth nor the contributor of the carbon dioxide, which one was being contributed or which one had or did not have an increase in temperature. These would be the results. We would see that either increased carbon dioxide caused the increase in temperature or did not, and to what degree. I am not saying that carbon dioxide emissions do not increase temperatures of global climates.

We cannot lay our economic policies on the back of so-called science when in fact there is no science. There is hypothesis, there are suggestions to some observations and what effects may or may not be happening, but there really is no science.

The carbon dioxide emissions of our country apparently contribute to approximately 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Many of the major nations with industries which emit carbon dioxide will not be at the table in Kyoto. What is the point of such a small player in the world, a minor contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions, taking a world leading stance in what should be done when we do not have any real science on which to base our position?

The real disturbing thing is what the Liberals are proposing. The hon. member from the Liberal Party who spoke prior to me made reference to a dramatic increase in energy prices in some other countries in an attempt to curb their carbon dioxide emissions. This concerns me deeply.

Why would we curb the economic growth of Canada? Why would we suppress our economic activity? Why would we increase the price of energy, the cost of heating our homes and putting gasoline in the vehicles of ordinary Canadians? I would add that it could be a very substantial increase depending on what position the Liberals take in Kyoto which to this point they have been either unable or unwilling to reveal.

What would be the point in harming families, increasing the costs of heating their homes and fueling their cars when it would have no demonstrable or significant impact on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions in the world?

To conclude, I would again refer to what the hon. member from the Liberal Party stated when she referred to the fact that Reform members of Parliament are raising concern with this issue. She referred to our position as pseudo science. My point is it is all pseudo science to suggest that the world is heating or the world is cooling.

Last winter in my constituency of Saskatoon—Humboldt we had record cold temperatures. For as long as they have kept records, it was never colder. That in itself is no evidence that the world temperature is not increasing but on the other hand it would tend to suggest that maybe it is not.

I have a real problem. Despite the fact that the impact our carbon dioxide emissions will have is insignificant we may try to be a world leader. Despite the fact that this may not have a basis in science, that it may not be true, and despite the fact that our measures are really not going to have significant impact on the carbon dioxide emissions of the world, we are going to implement serious tax increases for Canadian families on their fuel consumption for heating their homes and fuel their automobiles. This will hurt ordinary average Canadians.

In view of the tax increases which ordinary average Canadians have been exposed to by this Liberal government, the previous Conservative government and the Liberal government before that, I implore the Liberals to use and exercise common sense when they go to Kyoto and not subject Canadian families to yet another tax increase with no basis.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

They continue to insult me when I stand up and attempt to defend the right of farmers to have a wheat board that they can participate in when they want, to have a wheat board that they can be elected to, to have a wheat board that is accountable to them and that they can be represented by and not a wheat board that is run by Ottawa under the dictates of Ottawa from Ottawa politicians.

How about having farmers run the Canadian Wheat Board and have farmers determine what is best for them? Why force that upon anybody?

There is the idea of an inclusion clause. We grow a lot of canola on our farm. What right does anybody have to tell me where I can sell it? What right does anybody have to do that to me?

However, if canola is grown in Ontario, that is okay. That will not apply. They will be able to market it wherever they want. If we apply the inclusion clause to canola in the west, then I am going to be bound to that.

I say—they can insult me all they want—on behalf of all farmers, we do not want that. How much clearer can a guy be?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to draw attention to the fact that they do not care. They are not here engaging in the debate. It is sad to feel that we are here trying to tell them why the farmers are asking for changes to the act, but it is falling on deaf ears. It is falling on no ears.

The other thing I find interesting in the debate today is members of the NDP.

They insult me and make fun of me for saying that I am a farmer and for representing the farmers in my constituency. The member for Qu'Appelle who was going on and on in his Marxist-Leninist rant did not even run in the rural riding that represents farmers. He had to put his tail between his legs and go to Regina.

People who live in Regina also are going to be impacted by this because what hurts farmers hurts every community in Saskatchewan and everyone in western Canada.