Jim Pankiw

[Crtc, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I raised concern that the CRTC violated its own guidelines by awarding a wireless cable broadcasting licence to a telephone monopoly, Teleglobe's Look TV.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage not only avoided my question but displayed a profound lack of intellectual capacity by suggesting that I was somehow in contempt of court.

I would like a sensible answer directly from the Minister of Industry. Why does the Liberal government condone the CRTC violating its own guidelines? Does the government want more power for monopolies or less choice for consumers?

[Bce Inc., October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, monopoly giant BCE wants it all and this Liberal government is giving it to them on a silver platter. Despite the Liberals' commitment to competition and growing small businesses, here are the facts.

BCE's Teleglobe was just licensed by the CRTC to operate a wireless cable system in Ontario. BCE's Bell Canada has been licensed to operate the Expressvu direct to home satellite system.

Now the Liberals have created team Canada to assist small business with exports, and who have the Liberals named as chief of team Canada? Why, BCE chairman Lynton Wilson. Surprise. Surprise. And who has contributed over $70,000 to the Liberals in the past two years? BCE. Surprise. Surprise.

So listen up small business. Here is how to get preferential treatment from the Liberals. Become a subsidiary of BCE and donate liberally to the Liberal Party of Canada.

It should not have to be that way. The Liberal Party is an affront to small business.

[Broadcasting, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC violated its own rules by awarding a wireless cable broadcasting licence to a telephone monopoly.

The CRTC stated that the earliest it would accept an application was June, but it made a special exception and accepted an application in February from long distance carrier Teleglobe's Look TV.

Why does the Liberal government condone the CRTC violating its guidelines? Does it want less choice for consumers, or more power for monopolies?

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member obviously was not listening to my speech. I said there certainly was room for government spending on such things as education, research and health care. That is an exact quote from the text of my speech.

I would also like to correct the hon. member on her position which seems to say the Liberals have somehow done a good thing with health care. They cut health care funding from $19 billion to $10.5 billion. Now they have brought it back up to $12 billion and are trying to say that they have increased funding for health care. I think they need a remedial math course along with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

I just do not understand this thing about negativity. We proposed positive reforms to the criminal justice system and tax cuts that will stimulate employment. On national unity they have kept their ears covered. It is time to uncover them.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is rather ironic to hear a Liberal member criticizing Reform Party proposals for parliamentary reform. We have led the way in proposing freer votes in the House of Commons; member recall, whereby members of Parliament would be held accountable to constituents who elected them; and asking for referenda on issues of national concern. The Liberals have rejected our suggestions for parliamentary reform time and time again.

That brings me to the point he raised about negative remarks. There are no negative remarks coming from members of the Reform Party. We lead the way in providing alternative solutions. If it was not for the Reform Party, the Liberal government, no doubt, never would have focused on the deficit. If it was not for us it would not focus on the debt.

Canadians want their taxes to be reduced and we are going to make sure that is done.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, this is my maiden speech, so I respectfully request the co-operation of the members of the House of Commons, particularly members of my own party, to keep their heckling to a minimum.

I would like to thank the constituents that elected me and placed their confidence in me as their representative.

Today I will speak on the Reform motion and, as a deputy critic of industry, I would like to address the motion from the vantage point of the industry department.

Three large regional development programs, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification and the Federal Office of Regional Development of Quebec will account for nearly $1 billion in government spending in 1997-98.

If we analyse the throne speech and dissect such phrases as “public-private sector partnerships” we should have a grave concern that the Liberals plan to not only continue funding these outdated programs, but actually plan to increase the number of tax dollars to these programs. Throwing more taxpayers' dollars into regional development programs would be an awful mistake. They are inefficient, unaccountable and ultimately they represent, to Canadian taxpayers, money pits.

Let us examine what the auditor general had to say in his report of November 1995. The auditor general examined these three regional economic development programs and what he uncovered did not sound good. As a courtesy to the Liberal members who have this big government, high spending, high taxation mentality, I would like to caution and advise them that they may wish to cover their ears.

The auditor general found that information which the regional development programs supplied to him was inaccurate and incomplete. He discovered that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency had been reporting survey results as actual job creation figures. It had no idea about the actual number of jobs created. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency's rule of thumb is, if you do not know it, make it up.

Meanwhile, at the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec, the auditor general reported that its actions forced the closures of two fish plants, but its records showed a net gain of 250 jobs. At the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec the elimination of workers actually led to an increase in employment. I think it is time for a remedial math course.

The auditor general found that projects had been funded that did not require government money. I guess it does not matter. You fill out the forms, you get the money. This is taxpayers' money, money from ordinary Canadian families.

I do not recommend that the big government, high spending, high taxation Liberals uncover their ears just yet. There is more they will not want to hear.

The auditor general also found that the regional development programs had an inefficient system for determining qualified recipients. I guess that does not matter either. If you apply, you get the money, taxpayers' money, money from ordinary Canadian families. The auditor general also stated “their objectives are not clearly established and performance measuring is inadequate so it is impossible to tell if the programs are meeting their objectives”.

The auditor general is not the only one who has harsh words for regional development programs. In November 1996 the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies published a book about the effects that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has had on the Atlantic region. It concluded that over 35 years of regional development programs have led to huge economic distortions. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency raised costs of producers, slowed private investment and kept unemployment high.

This should come as no surprise. These effects only stand to reason. The government should not be injecting money into the private sector. Wherever this is done an unlevel playing field is created. Someone enjoys a rich government subsidy at the expense of others, at the expense of taxpayers and at the expense of ordinary Canadian families.

The institute went on to say that subsidies handed out under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency provided disincentives to work and promoted the expansion of inefficient companies.

Furthermore, these regional development programs are subject to abuse by pork barrelling politicians. The Liberals refer to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as the MLLM, money for loyal Liberal maritimers. In the past election they were not as loyal as the Liberals expected them to be, were they? This should worry us though. Much of the new increased government spending the Liberals are talking about may go back into these regional development programs. Now that the Liberals have lost support outside of Ontario, they will see these regional development programs as a way to buy back votes.

Liberals wasted taxpayers' dollars throughout the 35th Parliament and now they are promising to waste even more in this 36th Parliament. The problem with the Liberals, which comes back to regional development, is that they believe government spending can create jobs. They believe that massive job creation programs are the solution to the perpetual levels of high unemployment in this country. They do not understand that that approach has been tried over and over again. And guess what? It does not work. It is a waste of taxpayers' dollars, money taken from average Canadian families.

One might think they might learn from trial and error, but the Liberals just cannot seem to shake their big government, high spending, high taxation mentality. We have endured it for over 20 years. Actually that is not quite true. We endured the Conservatives for a portion of that time and they were even worse.

Canadians desperately need tax relief which will in turn spur job growth. It is a win-win situation. But the Liberals have raised taxes 35 times since 1993 and the average family has experienced a $3,000 drop in actual income. The average family spent more on taxes than on food, shelter and clothing combined in 1996.

The government is approaching a balanced budget but it has not been balanced by cutting government overspending. Instead it has been balanced on the backs of taxpayers, Canadian families, and their backs are getting really sore. Trust me, I know because I am a chiropractor and the most common complaint I hear in my clinic is that taxes are too high.

The cries for tax relief from Canadian families are dismissed by the Liberals. As long as they are dismissed, unemployment will remain unacceptably high. There is certainly room for government spending on such things as education, health care and funding for research and development. Canadians believe that governments can play a positive role, but that role does not involve handouts to profitable corporations. It does not involve taxing small businesses into bankruptcy and it most certainly does not involve scattering public money all over the nation in an attempt to buy votes.

Canadians want smaller government. They want lower taxes and they want real jobs. Accordingly, members who favour smaller and more responsible government must vote in favour of this motion.