Jim Pankiw

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I have to wonder why the Liberal government is bound and determined to ram this legislation down the throats of western farmers? It does not represent the west. How many Liberal MPs come from the west?

We are here representing western farmers. Many of us are farmers and we are telling them plain as day we do not want this. We want the option. Why will they not give us a choice? Why can farmers not have the choice? Wouldn't that be good? Other marketing boards would spring up. There would be competition. The Canadian Wheat Board would be driven to get better prices, to find newer and better markets for farmers. Everybody would benefit. Why will they not understand that? Well I can tell you why. I see one Liberal member in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, coming from a bunch of crooks, that is not a bad comment—

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

There are lots of them.

Indeed, my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni has been an advocate of opening up these organizations to scrutiny. He has advanced private members' bills on the subject and he has raised our awareness about the importance of not allowing government organizations to operate behind a veil of secrecy. I hope that his efforts in this area will continue. I know that his concerns certainly apply to the Canadian Wheat Board as presently structured. I urge all members to consider that when they oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is fair enough. My point is that the blatant examples of patronage from the past leave farmers wondering just how many Liberal cronies this government is going to appoint to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Of course, these appointments will make the appointees beholden to their political masters since the government has ensured that the president of the Canadian Wheat Board will be an appointee. They have ensured their control over the organization of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the fear and the concern of western Canadian farmers.

Furthermore, their ability to appoint the members of the board of directors would ensure that the board of the Canadian Wheat Board is under that type of influence.

On the other hand, if Motion No. 5 of my colleague from Prince George—Peace River would be adopted, that would ensure that the board of the Canadian Wheat Board is democratic and accountable to its electors.

Furthermore, these electors in consultation with the minister would select the president rather than the minister appointing who the president is going to be. This is a fair and equitable amendment which I am hopeful at least the other parties would be able to support.

Neville Nankivell in the Financial Post had some interesting comments about the election of the board as it presently stands under Bill C-4. He wrote that because the government still appoints directors, it will create a quasi-advisory group rather than a proper independent board of directors that should have the power to hire and fire the CEO. The way the bill currently stands, that power will not be in the hands of the farmers, which is just further evidence of the type of control that the minister will have over them.

Nankivell also wrote that there is almost universal condemnation among farm groups of the government's intention to appoint the CEO. Yet the Liberals are determined in their desire to be able to do that. As I stated earlier, it is for one reason. It is so they can continue with their political patronage appointments. That comes as no surprise.

With Bill C-4 the Liberals want a board of directors which is mired in the past, not one that is structured to meet the demands of the 21st century.

In fact when Ted Allen of the United Grain Growers appeared before the committee, he said that Bill C-4 is fundamentally flawed and is an attempt to make time stand still or even turn back the clock.

Western Canadian farmers need to look to the future and not be mired in the past by regressive Liberal policies which are based upon political patronage appointments.

In order to strengthen the measure of accountability, we also need to bring the Canadian Wheat Board under the purview of the Access to Information Act and the auditor general. Bill C-4 does not propose to do that.

The election of the board is certainly important, but of equal importance is the scrutiny of its operations by the public and the federal government's watchdog.

However, this is not the only organization which the government has exempted from scrutiny. Canada Post and a litany of other crown corporations are not subject to access to information requests.

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

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is directly relevant because they are going to be allowed to appoint the members of the board of directors. I think we have to look at past examples of their appointments to see what we can expect.

Therefore it has direct relevance and I am simply pointing out examples such as the former president of the women's commission, Joan Koury, appointed to the IRB and former Liberal MP, Ron Fewchuk, appointed—

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

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 1 is with respect to returns that producers will get for their commodity. This has a direct bearing on that because it will affect the returns.

This debate is perhaps one of the most important debates that will occur in my term in this Parliament as the representative of the constituents of Saskatoon—Humboldt. I find the remark that my comments were straying slightly beyond the scope of what was strictly being debated somewhat obstinate but not surprising considering who it came from.

To continue, the current bill the way it stands, if passed, would allow 10 directors to be elected by the farmers, but the remaining 5 directors of the Canadian Wheat Board would be appointed by the minister, of course one being the president. It would seem logical that there would be opposition to that when a full third of the board is being appointed by the minister. That would ensure that the government's grip on the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board is maintained and the desire for accountability and for farmers to have control and direction over the wheat board through a farmer elected board is circumvented by allowing the appointment of members by the minister.

Furthermore, if experience tells us anything, Liberal ministers have not been shy in the past about handing out plum patronage positions to their party faithful.

To illustrate just how bad this can get, I would like to cite some examples that have taken place so far this year. The Liberals have made 510 prime appointments to date to the Senate and various boards, agencies and commissions.

This practice of patronage was denounced by the Liberals when they sat in opposition to the Mulroney government but now that they are in power, they are not only carrying on the practice of political patronage appointments, but taking it to extremes.

As unbelievable as it is, it seems that they are even worse than Mulroney with their political patronage appointments. I would suggest that the Liberals are truly number one at doling out parliamentary pork.

Here are just a few examples: defeated Liberal MP Mary Clancy appointed to consul general in Boston, the Prime Minister's legislative assistant, Graeme Clark, was appointed as ambassador to Peru and Bolivia—

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today during report stage to contribute the very important debate on this bill. It is important to me for a number of reasons.

I represent the constituency of Saskatoon—Humboldt which has a significant rural portion.

This bill is going to have a dramatic impact not only on the rural component of the constituency but the urban as well. Although Saskatoon is a growing city with a vibrant economy, agriculture is still a core industry in Saskatchewan. Therefore the bill will affect not only the rural part of my constituency but the entire province.

Although I have lived in Saskatoon since the early 1980s and I represent Saskatoon—Humboldt, I am originally from a family farm in Unity, Saskatchewan. All my life I have been actively involved in farming until I got into politics. I believe this bill will impact not only on all my constituents but it goes deep enough to affect my family.

There is a great deal of concern on the prairies about the contents of this bill and of course it is very well founded. The amendments that have been advanced by my Reform colleagues would improve Bill C-4 and address the concerns farmers are raising about the bill.

One need only travel throughout the constituencies of Saskatchewan and into the small towns and coffee shops to hear the discussion on the bill and the widespread opposition to it. The opposition is from many angles. However, I would like to specifically address Motion No. 5 which was submitted by my colleague from Prince George—Peace River. That motion would allow the entire board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board to be elected which along with the minister would decide who would be president of the board.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, according to the 1997-1998 supplementary estimates, ACOA will receive an extra $22 million for government handouts. That is in addition to the pre-existing $250 million for government handouts.

Last month former Liberal premier Frank McKenna stated that the answer to the Atlantic problem is not more government handouts but tax cuts for business. And the next day the prime minister agreed by saying that the problem cannot be solved by sending money. So why now the extra $22 million in government handouts?

Has the prime minister simply had a change of heart or is he trying to buy his way back into the hearts of maritimers?

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a few proverbs here a couple of minutes ago and I have one of my own. When it comes to fiscal management, this Liberal government is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

I was reading a list of ways you can tell someone is from Saskatchewan. The first thing on the list was that the manager of the Payless shoe store in Minot knows you by name. That is a humorous example of a very sad truth in reality. The reality is that the regressive tax regime of this government is forcing Canadians to shop outside their own country. If the Liberal government cannot see that reality and realize that something is wrong, then I suggest it is not just a few sandwiches short of a picnic but the whole basketful.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kamloops earlier this morning gave a very chilling account of the truth surrounding the GST and indicated what a regressive tax it is.

I pose a question to the members of the House. What would you think of a tax on going to the bathroom? Sounds preposterous doesn't it? The truth is we are just inches away. We pay GST for getting our hair cut. Should this not be a reality check for government? Have we now gotten to the point that we are taxing bodily services? I cannot stop my hair from growing.

He very correctly indicated that it is a tax on low income people. Everybody has to get a hair cut. Everybody has to buy clothing and books for children. He said if we did not have the tax that money would remain in the pockets of the people and the people would spend the money. He should have finished that. When you spend the money it stimulates the economy and it creates jobs. That is the whole point.

The GST is a tax on jobs. It is a tax on the economy. That is why it is regressive. Furthermore it drives a massive underground economy. The very people burdened by the GST are the hard working Canadians, people like contractors who provide services for other people. It is a natural tendency to say “I am so overburdened by the regressive taxation system in this country, I will tell you what. I am going to do that for cash”. They make cash deals. So the GST drives a massive underground economy that results in a lot of lost revenue for the government. If the government would lower taxes, simplify the tax system and make it fair, people would not have an incentive to evade taxes.

Furthermore, the GST is a massive burden on small business. Instead of contemplating ways to expand their business and improve the services they provide to their clients, the guy now has to hire somebody to do accounting to help the government collect its taxes. Then the government has a massive bureaucracy in Revenue Canada to collect it. Think of the downsizing we could do if we did not have to administer this ridiculous tax.

The compliance and administrative costs of operating the GST are extremely high. Why do we not have common sense and say “Let us scrap the GST and simplify our tax system”. It makes perfect sense. Why can the government not see that?