Jim PANKIW

PANKIW, Jim, B.Sc., D.C.

Personal Data

Party
Independent
Constituency
Saskatoon--Humboldt (Saskatchewan)
Birth Date
August 7, 1966
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pankiw
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=38a85dfb-6380-4740-9325-ec14b610590a&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
acupuncturist, chiropractor

Parliamentary Career

June 2, 1997 - March 26, 2000
REF
  Saskatoon--Humboldt (Saskatchewan)
March 27, 2000 - October 22, 2000
CA
  Saskatoon--Humboldt (Saskatchewan)
November 27, 2000 - May 23, 2004
CA
  Saskatoon--Humboldt (Saskatchewan)
April 10, 2002 - May 23, 2004
IND
  Saskatoon--Humboldt (Saskatchewan)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 88)


September 23, 2003

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.)

Madam Speaker, I am bringing to the attention of the House an issue that I have raised repeatedly. It is the issue of raced based hiring quotas and the government's hiring practices.

I understand that the member opposite is going to respond to my question. I suspect that he has a verbiage of talking points that has been supplied to him by the Liberal government, but I would like him to drop that and listen to what I am about to say.

We can either hire people based on their merit and qualifications, or we can do racial inventories and racial profiling and hire people on that basis. In other words, we can either assure equality of opportunity, or we can legislate equality of outcome.

I am standing here today to say that legislating equality of outcome does not and cannot work. It breeds resentment and is unfair and discriminatory. If the parameter is based on race, then it is fundamentally racial discrimination. It is not possible to discriminate in favour of someone on the basis of their race without simultaneously and unfairly discriminating against someone else because of their race. To give someone else an advantage based on their racial ancestry or their skin colour means that someone else has to be discriminated against. I think it is a fundamental truth.

Furthermore, to have these policies and these racial hiring quotas that discriminate in favour of one racial group and against others is very demeaning to the group that is discriminated in favour of because it basically says that because of their racial ancestry or their skin colour they are inferior and not capable of competing on a level playing field and they need this extra advantage. I think that is insulting, demeaning and offensive. Furthermore, it is simultaneously offensive and demeaning to the people who are discriminated against based on their skin colour.

Does the member opposite not understand that? To me it is extremely simple and obvious. Let us cut to the chafe, put down the talking points and talk about this one on one.

Madam Speaker, I look at you sitting in the Chair. Did you get the position because you are a woman? I would hope not and in fact I know not. You got the position because you attained it and deservedly so.

Should we then say that the next Speaker has to be a man? I would say not necessarily so. Should men begrudge women who sit in the Speaker's chair because they attained it on their own abilities and qualifications? Heck no.

Whoever is sitting in the Speaker's chair of the House of Commons should be there because they deserved it and they earned and attained that right. We should not pre-judge, prejudice or discriminate against anyone based on gender, skin colour, ancestry, race. We should all be equal and let equality of opportunity prevail.

Topic:   Adjournment Proceedings
Subtopic:   Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions
Full View Permalink

September 23, 2003

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-450, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act in order to protect the legal definition of “marriage” by invoking section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill, which would protect the legal definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman by invoking the constitutional notwithstanding clause.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River for seconding the bill and note for the record that I offered the Canadian Alliance the opportunity to second the bill and it declined based on an order from its leader. Not only did he once again act as a dictator, he is a duplicitous hypocrite.

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

Topic:   Routine Proceedings
Subtopic:   Canada Marriage Act
Full View Permalink

September 23, 2003

Mr. Jim Pankiw

Madam Speaker, first, I asked the hon. member opposite to drop the talking notes and talk to me one on one, which she obviously did not do.

Notwithstanding that, she talked about under-represented groups. If we look at the ads from the federal Government of Canada, many of them make exclusions. They say that one has to be of aboriginal descent or things like that. That makes exclusions in my view.

If we want to talk about visible minorities, I would say that Japanese or Chinese people are visible minorities. Why are they being excluded from those ads, from those job opportunities?

There is a fundamental thing. I would implore the hon. member opposite to think about this, drop the notes and answer this question. I do not know if she has children or not but she probably has loved ones in any event. Let us say they are flying on an airplane, and I ask her to drop the talking notes. I want a yes or no answer. Who does she want flying the airplane?

Topic:   Adjournment Proceedings
Subtopic:   Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions
Full View Permalink

September 16, 2003

Mr. Jim Pankiw

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the keeper of the House, if you will, I believe it is your obligation and duty to uphold the keepings and the will of the House of Commons. We voted in 1999 to entrench and reaffirm the definition of marriage which in the dictionary is the union of a man and a woman. Therefore, I would ask you to revisit your vote because as the keeper of the House you should reflect what it is we are doing here.

Topic:   Government Orders
Subtopic:   Supply
Full View Permalink

September 16, 2003

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ind.)

Mr. Speaker, this is of course in follow up to a question I previously asked the Minister of Finance, to which I did not receive a satisfactory answer or explanation. Let us cut to the chase here.

The Liberal federal government is imposing a tax regime upon municipalities that extracts money out of the property tax base. It makes municipalities pay the GST. It makes them pay excise taxes on fuel. The excessive employment insurance rates of course burden every business in Canada but I am coming at this from a particular perspective.

It all sucks money out of the property tax base of municipalities and it does not make any sense to do that, does it? What it is doing is diverting money straight out of the pockets of property owners into the federal government's coffers. What happens is that the money is then used to pay for Tequila Sheila's programs. Okay, that is off base a little bit.

Topic:   Adjournment Proceedings
Subtopic:   Chief Actuary Act
Full View Permalink