Rick Borotsik

[Divorce Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for the non-partisan position taken on a piece of legislation that is so vital and important to the House and to the many people it affects. The member for Sarnia—Lambton always has a spot over here if he wishes to pursue the government the way he has.

Believe me, I hope beyond hope there are more members on the Liberal backbenches who will look seriously at this legislation, dissect it and see what it is doing or not doing for what I consider to be one of the most serious issues facing us as a society today. There are pieces of legislation that come before us, in fact we have five or six today, that deal with very important issues. In my opinion, this is without question the most important issue that will be dealt with in the House of Commons.

I am very fortunate and very happy that I have never had any personal experience in dealing with divorce. However, if members looked within their own personal lives, they would find someone among their family or friends who has experienced divorce. It is one of the most acrimonious circumstances anyone could possibly face.

Bill C-22 is supposed to put into place legislation that would allow this particular circumstance, divorce, to take place between two people with some protections.

The history lesson by the member for Sarnia—Lambton was wonderful. As was mentioned earlier, there was a special joint committee which issued the wonderful report “For the Sake of the Children”. It had 48 recommendations which, if the House wanted to follow, would put into place legislation that would deal with the singular issue that it attempted to do, and that was for the sake of the children, protection for the children.

Some of the 48 recommendations have been implemented. I will not be as strongly opposed to the legislation as the member for Sarnia—Lambton. Some have been included in the legislation. However, there are approximately 13 recommendations, very important and strong, absolutely stand-alone recommendations that have not been included and because of that, the legislation has faults. The legislation is not the right piece of legislation to go forward.

There are two issues. First, in any kind of divorce proceeding, we recognize that there will be acrimony. Once people have reached that point in a marriage, there will be acrimony. There will be, unfortunately, too many things that will not be negotiable between a husband and a wife. Unfortunately there has to be a mediator. There has to be legislation put into place to mediate that. Unfortunately as well, when people have reached that point in a marriage, it is usually most detrimental to the children of the marriage.

In “For the Sake of the Children” there are two issues. One is shared parenting. This is a simple concept. When two people are involved in a marriage and from that marriage come children, then in my opinion and certainly in the opinion of the committee and the opinion of the majority of Canadians, both parents must and still have a need for the opportunity to develop those children throughout their childhood. They must have access. There must be shared parenting.

The Minister of Justice does not like the term “shared parenting” and he does not like the terms “custody” and “access”. The term he will be putting in is “parenting orders”. A word is only a word. Shared parenting means that each individual parent has the right and the responsibility to raise the children.

The committee also said that as part of shared parenting there should be a parenting plan. What a great idea. A parenting plan would be negotiated and worked out between two adults which would allow the children to have as close to a normal upbringing as they could possibly have. But no, that is not dealt with in this legislation.

Instead, as was mentioned, they go off to the courts to decide what is going to happen with joint custody and what is going to happen with sole custody. For the sake of the children, it is necessary to have a mandatory piece of legislation which states that in divorce proceedings it is imperative that the first thing is to say that the children are going to have shared parenting, that they are going to have equal access to both parents. That is the equality and that is the fairness that should be developed in this act.

The second issue, needless to say, is financial, obviously whether there is going to be spousal support, child support, or a financial contribution from one partner to another. In general terms it should not be a gender thing. There should be fairness. There should in fact be a simple, basic premise which states that one member of the marriage should not be a beneficiary to the detriment of the other. One member of that duo should not receive substantial financial support to the detriment of another and have his or her lifestyle change so dramatically that he or she cannot cope.

I have reams and reams of the information provided to us as members of Parliament which speaks of the tragedies with respect to so much being demanded of one parent by the courts that the individual just could not cope. When that individual could not cope, unfortunately in some cases it resulted in suicide, and this is not fearmongering, this is a reality. This is an issue we have to deal with and it can be dealt with in fairness and equity in a piece of legislation.

I am disappointed that the Minister of Justice would bring forward this bill without more thought being given to it, without the ability to put into place a piece of legislation that is going to allow divorce to happen in a much fairer and more equitable fashion.

The issue here is not to try to stop the divorce. We recognize that in our society today there are those who, in their own judgment, do not wish to be a married couple. That is a reality. The reality is there. What we must do as politicians and legislators is make sure that the rules are put in place to make this happen in the most fair and equitable way possible.

As I said, there are two issues. One of them is shared parenting and making sure that there is equal access to children. I cannot think of anything worse than being the father of children and not being able to have access to those children, for whatever reason but in this particular case divorce. As part of that, there has to be the opportunity for access for the extended family. We can talk about rights, whether that be rights for grandparents, and we also know that now we have extended families that in fact should have access, either to grandchildren or to nieces and nephews. That has to be protected in this act.

The other issue is support. There has to be fairness with respect to support, and from both parents, from both sides of the equation.

We will see this legislation go forward to committee. I do not think the member for Sarnia--Lambton has in fact convinced the members of his party to stop it at this level. I wish he could, and I hope he can, but if he cannot it is going back to committee. The only hope and wish I have is that members of all parties, and this is not partisan nor should it be, simply listen with an open mind as to how the legislation must be changed, not should be or could be but must be, changed for the sake of the children.

That is what it is about. It is for the children who are going to be growing up in a home divided, but that home divided does not necessarily have to be an acrimonious home. It does not necessarily have to be a home that is going to have one winner and one loser in a relationship. In fact, that is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to children growing up in a family.

From my party's perspective, we will be at the table at the justice committee. We will be putting forward what we consider to be the necessary amendments to make this legislation so much better. Or perhaps we can start from scratch, by pulling the legislation altogether, and try to put into place what is best for the children.

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents of Brandon--Souris to speak to a piece of legislation that I believe is important for many of the same reasons that the member from Mississauga just talked about.

There is no question that Canadians are looking for accountability and transparency, and for politicians they can trust. As the member just said, we have lost that trust to a great degree. If we look at the polls I think politicians are on the same level as lawyers or used car salesmen. I must be careful about this one, but the point I am trying to make is that the public sees politics in a tainted view. I look at this legislation as being an opportunity to regain some of that trust from Canadians in general.

I will veer a little and I know the member will not be pleased with the tenet I am about to take. When I first came to the House I was perhaps a little naive. I had all the experience at the local level that the member talked about and I felt comfortable coming here and suggesting that we could make a difference, whether it be in the government backbenches or in the opposition. It took some time for me to become the cynic that perhaps I am today. I am not terribly cynical but still cynical enough to recognize that one cannot judge a piece of legislation by just looking at the surface, one must dig underneath to find out what the real motives are and what the driving force is.

The Prime Minister brought this piece of legislation to the House of Commons which I find ironic. The Prime Minister has lived under the terms of the system for the past 10 years and now all of a sudden has found religion. He has seen the light and says we must change the system so that Canadians can now better trust the politicians and the politics. I find it ironic that it took that length of time for him to bring forward a piece of legislation that would fix the problems that he has said for the last 10 years obviously did not exist because he lived under that system.

I find it interesting that this legislation came in the form of a bill. It could have come on the back of a cocktail napkin, as we have seen other documents tabled in the House before with perhaps not quite the same acceptance by the House as being a legal document.

I looked below the surface and I would like to indicate what the bill would not do. It would not instill the trust of Canadians into the political system. It would not stop ministers from accepting chalets from an individual or corporation that does business with the government. The bill would not stop that. It would not stop the political patronage that goes on in those benches. It would not stop a minister of the Crown being sent to Denmark after being able to treat his friends and relatives with largesse. It would not stop the political pork-barrelling simply because the government would have reduced the level and limits of corporate donations.

What would stop that is a complete change in political attitude on that side of the House where the government would treat Canadians with the respect they deserve. That would allow Canadians to be a better part of the political process.

The Canadian Alliance was railing about the fact that Canadians would be forced to contribute to parties with which they had contrasting beliefs in ideology or direction. I find this rather interesting coming from a populist party that puts the rights of the National Citizens' Coalition above those of the people. I find it interesting that the rights of the National Rifle Association are put higher than the people the Alliance is here to represent.

I find it difficult that a populist organization like the CA now says it is not fair that people must contribute to parties that they do not want to. It also mentioned and I believe reference was made to “that French party”. No, it is the Bloc Québécois and it will also receive contributions from the public. There are still people in this country who do support and vote for the Bloc, and they have the right to contribute to the Bloc in any way, shape or form.

Let us get down to brass tacks. What is happening now is that Canadians are becoming disconnected with politics. Voter turnout has gone from 75% in 1988 to a low of 61% in the year 2000. That is deplorable. We must get people back and connected with politics. How do we do that? We try to become honest and become what we should be in the House, the representatives of the beliefs and thoughts of our constituents.

The financial package contained in the Canada Elections Act may help that. What does it do? The nomination process would allow people to get involved in the nomination process with limits on expenses during that nomination, half of what it would be for a candidate in an election. That is fair. We all ran under the existing legislation and laws, and found that in our cases it was successful.

We were allowed to spend a limited amount of money during the election campaign with contribution back from the federal government of 50% of our expenditures. That was fair and easy to do. We are now asked to continue with that and have some constraints placed on us as candidates in the riding. Those constraints are limits: $1,000 from corporations and $10,000 from individuals.

I do not know about the rest of the members in the House, but when I go out on the streets I tell people those numbers, both the people that support me and do not support me. When I tell them it is $1,000 corporately and $10,000 as individuals they say that I must be wrong, that those cannot be the numbers, and that they must be reversed. I tell them no, the proposed legislation is $1,000 corporate and $10,000 individually.

They say that does not seem right. Corporations obviously have a better opportunity to make those contributions than individuals do. I tell them that was the reason why the Prime Minister brought in this legislation, to get away from the perception that corporations in fact have undue political influence because of their deep pockets. Whether that changes or not, I believe I am still cynical on that point. I do not know if that will change. Perhaps we can listen to more of that debate in committee.

There is the $1.50 per vote. We have heard from one of the parties that says absolutely not. It should not be done, it cannot be done, and citizens should not have to spend dollars that they do not want to spend on political parties. It is happening now.

Currently, we contribute approximately 60% of the total expenditures regardless of contributions having tax deductibility. Our contributions are coming forward through the public purse because of the 50% or the 22.5% reimbursement to parties after elections. It works out to about 60%, which in fact could be raised to about 80%. We now have a public that has more say in how the system actually operates than perhaps the corporations and individuals.

If the Prime Minister wants to deal with this honestly and forthright, he must resolve one glaring omission dealing with trust funds. If he has simply appeased his backbenchers by saying we are not going to deal with the trust funds that are out there, then the legislation is wrong. There must be an opportunity to deal with those within this legislation. If there is going to be a back door, then the mistrust and the cynicism of the Canadian public has not been stopped. We must ensure that aspect is dealt with in this legislation. If the government is not prepared to deal with that in this legislation, then it is not prepared to deal with the true problem that is out there in our society.

Regardless of what I or my party say, although we have as a party put forward some suggestions as to how we can better bring contributions into the system, this will go forward to committee. Here I go back to my cynicism. I honestly believe that in committee, with the help of members of the government, we could change the legislation to have it come forward as a better piece of legislation.

I hope beyond hope that perhaps on this particular piece of legislation that backbenchers and the Liberal members would be prepared to listen in committee and would be prepared to put forward the necessary changes to make this a better piece of legislation. If they do that, they would have made a huge step in getting Canadians to trust politicians.

I will by the way, as I sit on the committee, have a lot more time to speak, not only to the witnesses, but to the government.

[Government Spending, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, gasoline and home heating oil prices have reached unprecedented highs. Ordinary Canadians are suffering. Last time this happened was just before an election and the then finance minister happened to find $1.3 billion just like that.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to tell the current finance minister to help with a similar program or do we have to wait for another election?

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the right hon. gentleman's comments. I certainly believe that no one in the House has more experience, statesmanship and ability in regard to putting forward comments to the House of Commons.

The member mentioned at the very close of his dissertation that the status quo is simply not the way to go. We also heard from the Canadian Alliance, which wishes us to maintain the status quo with no changes whatsoever.

We agree that the House of Commons has to reform political contributions. Certainly the concept of that not being the status quo has been put forward. The right hon. member has indicated that we are prepared to take this forward to committee. However, he talked about some problems that we should be able to deal with.

Does the right hon. member believe, from past experience with this government in particular, that the government will be open minded with respect to changes for some of the flaws in this legislation? One we talked about today and which was not mentioned in the right hon. member's speech is that of the trust funds. That seems to be a black hole that still remains.

Does the right hon. member honestly believe that we will be able to convince the governing party of the day to make this legislation better so that Canadians would accept it for what it really is, a reform for the betterment of the way we operate the House of Commons?

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the comments from the member for Palliser. He mentioned one particular item that may have fallen through the cracks and that was about the control of the trust funds, the members' trust funds that are there or not there. I have looked through the legislation and cannot see any of those controls that we should be talking about with respect to some members of Parliament who have trust funds, I am told, and fairly large trust funds at that.

What is the opinion of the member for Palliser as to why that has not been dealt with? The Prime Minister stood in the House and talked about transparency. He talked about how Canadians want to make sure that their members of Parliament are accountable. Why is it that this, in my opinion, glaring omission has happened in this piece of legislation?

[Public Service Modernization Act, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today in response to the President of the Treasury Board who has brought forward what I believe to be very positive proposed legislation which neither I nor my party have had an opportunity to look at yet. The public service modernization act is something that is direly needed in the House and could assist in developing a public sector within government.

First, I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for making the statement in the House. I heard the House leader of the government cry crocodile tears when he suggested that some of the information was perhaps put forward prior to the minister's statement. That statement should have been made here and dealt with in the House. However I should also say I have seen too many statements and too many ministers of the Crown make public statements at a press conference as opposed to in the House. I congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for doing it in the right place, at the right time, and I thank her for that.

There is a very simple philosophy. Too many people in our society today view a public servant as being an individual who has a government job and is just walking through the motions. That is not the case. I can assure everyone that as a member of Parliament I deal with the employees of the public service on a regular basis. For the most part, the majority of them are there for the right reasons. They want to do a job on behalf of Canadians. They have a job, they have an outline of what they are responsible for and they try their darndest under those circumstances to ensure Canadians are served to the best of their ability.

For the most part public servants certainly are there for the right reasons. However I also follow a management philosophy that I learned a long time ago in another life; that direction comes from the top. Direction comes from their political masters. That is perhaps something that is missing in the legislation. Too often the public servants, and the public service, are the ones who take the brunt and the controversy for positions taken by the departments, the ministers particularly, and managerial positions of a higher level than the individuals providing the service. Unfortunately, in the past the government has gone down the wrong path.

I can talk about things like the gun registry. This is a policy of the government and it has been terribly mismanaged. Do not blame the public servants. Blame the leaders, the political masters, for that particular direction.

I can talk about the HRDC. Decisions were made not by the public servants who were supposed to manage those portfolios but by the political masters who sent them down the wrong path.

I think of the sponsorship scandals. An individual, who is no longer with us in the House, was given a reward by being sent to another country, but the public servants took the brunt of that.

I thank the minister for bringing forward perhaps some legislation that could put better into place some protections for those public servants as opposed to having to take the brunt for political masters.

I also am very pleased with some of the broad outlines as put forward today by the minister. Of course the public servants should have the ability to compete with private sector compensation packages. There is no question about it. We have to get the brightest and the best to ensure that we provide the best services to Canadians, and that is by way of compensation packages.

We have the labour management relationships. From another life again, I can honestly take great pride in suggesting that the best labour management relationship is one that is working toward the same goal. Yes, there will be disagreements, but sit at the table and make those disagreements go away so that everyone achieves a win-win situation. That is very positive. We have not seen that in the past. It is important that we develop those relationships, ones that are better than what they are currently. I and my colleagues will be very happy to sit at the table, to sit in committee and to listen to the positive aspects of this legislation going forward.

There are others things such as whistleblowing, as was mentioned. That is something with which we have to deal. We need to have some protections in place for those people who come forward for the betterment of the public service.

Again, I congratulate the minister and look forward to working with her at committee to ensure that we put the best legislation forward on behalf of the public service.

[Specific Claims Resolution Act, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will vote no to the motion.

[Divorce Act, February 4th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, first, I congratulate the member for Winnipeg North Centre. She is consistent and puts her positions forth with passion. However I have a couple of questions.

She talks of the gender analysis, and I agree with that. However she also talks about seeking balance. In cases of divorces there is more than just simply abuse and violence. There are other areas that have to be dealt with which also have to seek that balance. Those areas obviously are financial supports and shared parenting and custody. We are not necessarily in all cases dealing with violence and abuse.

My question is twofold. In dealing with the gender analysis and issues of violence and abuse, is she prepared to keep that same open mind to seek balance with respect to both parties in divorce when dealing with other criteria such as financial support as well as shared parenting and custody? It is imperative that we ensure that we have that balance between the mother and the father in a situation that deals with children and divorce.

The second question is probably more of a rhetorical question. The member said initially in her debate that she was prepared to send this forward to committee. I concur with that but she perhaps gives committee a bit more confidence than perhaps I share by going to committee, trying to develop some better changes to the legislation, then bringing it forward to the House so that all factors can be dealt with. Does she believe that the committee is prepared at this time to have an open mind and listen to amendments that make this better legislation than what is being proposed right now in Bill C-22?

[Agriculture, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is living in a dream world. Believe me, the stakeholders and the farmers are pulling away from the minister and his APF vision. As a matter of fact, one of the planks is going to be crop insurance. Farmers are going to be asked to pay 30% more for less coverage.

Why does the minister think that these programs are going to be accepted by the farmers, who right now are not going to buy into that program because of extra cost and less coverage? Why?

[Agriculture, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has 60 days to develop a replacement safety net program for an industry that is on life support.

He has bullied and intimidated the provincial ministers into accepting his destructive vision for agriculture, but farmers are not buying what he is selling. They want the minister to hold off and maintain the existing programs for one year.

Why will the minister not do what farmers want him to do?