Rick Borotsik

[National Defence, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, actually the Minister of Defence said today that he was making respectful requests of his colleagues in cabinet.

Could I ask his colleagues in cabinet, has he made that request forcefully enough? Will the acting Prime Minister please tell me that in the next budget there will be funding for the military? Will the acting Prime Minister please answer that question?

[National Defence, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in his first major policy address last Friday, the Minister of National Defence stated “It is wrong to continue overstretching our military people and their families”.

Finally we have a minister who is prepared to acknowledge what has been apparent to the rest of us for years. The minister has finally seen the light. We know that this is the position of the Minister of National Defence.

My question is for the acting Prime Minister. Was the minister speaking for the Government of Canada and has the Government of Canada finally seen the light?

[Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.

[Member for Cardigan, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, despite allegations of corruption and political patronage, the Solicitor General has feebly maintained that the good people of Prince Edward Island have benefited from his patronage contracts. The Solicitor General would have us believe that the patronage contract to his brother, the patronage contract to the president of the P.E.I. Liberal Association and the patronage untendered contract to his personal friend are in the best interests of all. How can the benefit to a few be so advantageous to the P.E.I. masses?

It is the Solicitor General's blatant unethical behaviour that gives all politicians a black eye. When we put our names forward to the public, we are expected to fulfill our duties with the highest of integrity. Those who hold public office know that if something has any scent of impropriety it must not be done. The Solicitor General has not passed this litmus test. The Prime Minister must replace this minister right now and he must do it for the good of the government, for his party and for this country.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the right hon. member for Calgary Centre for applying for this very important emergency debate in the House.

I have had the opportunity to travel across western Canada with the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. I find that he understands the issues and the seriousness of the issues. He understands how it affects people in communities far afield from Ottawa and urban centres. I do appreciate his assistance in bringing this issue forward to make sure there is a profile and that people do understand the seriousness of the issue.

I would also like to thank the Speaker who ruled in favour of having this emergency debate. In his jurisdiction he believes very strongly that there is a need to make sure that we put forward some positive ideas to the Minister of Agriculture who I appreciate is listening to the debate on these issues and opinions this evening.

I have been a member of the House since 1997 and nine emergency debates have been allowed. I can assure hon. members that every one of those debates were taken on the seriousness of the issue. Since 1997 six of the nine emergency debates in the House dealt with agriculture. Is that because of bad luck? Is it because of mismanagement? Or is it because there is no direction with this particular department?

The emergency debates were not about health. They were not about justice. They were not about immigration. There were about agriculture. One has to ask the question: Why is it that department particularly has not been able to deal with the issues? These issues continually come forward and yet nothing has been put into place to deal with it.

This debate is going on today for two reasons. First, it is to raise the profile and recognize that there is a serious issue in agriculture, particularly in those areas that have been affected by this severe drought, which some of my constituents have said, that has never been seen before in the history of the country. We succeeded in raising that profile.

Unfortunately, members who live outside my constituency or constituencies in western Canada, particularly in urban areas, believe that the problem has been fixed. The minister and the Prime Minister stood up and said that $5.2 billion would be going to agriculture. People came to me and asked me what the problem was. They said that the farmers received $5.2 billion in the APF fund and that should be enough to satisfy them.

What they did not tell us was that they played with numbers. It is a five year program. It is a program that has only $600 million that will be applied toward the drought assistance that is necessary in western Canada. Alberta alone put in $325 million for one province because that was needed in that particular area with drought assistance. That $600 million sounds like a lot of money but across the country it does not work.

Hay West did a wonderful job of bringing forward the profile of what was required in western Canada. The problem is that when people saw that on television they said that must fix the problem. An hon. member was very instrumental and involved in the Hay West program in Alberta. The fact of the matter is that is less than 1% of the problem is being repaired by Hay West. We thank them very much but where was the government with some sort of disaster assistance, with feed requirements and feed subsidies, so those people could feed their cattle and in fact look forward to maintaining their herds this year and perhaps into next year?

The major reason for this debate is so we can profile this and tell Canadians that the problem have not been fixed. The $600 million is not even a start to fixing the problem.

The second thing was NISA. We heard the minister say that he would put $600 million in the NISA accounts of producers and that would be the save all and be all. NISA will probably end up at about $6,500 to $8,000 per user, which is peanuts in the big scheme of things, particularly when Alberta put $325 million itself into one particular jurisdiction.

Let me tell hon. members what the stakeholders think about NISA accounts.

“There continue to be serious accessibility problems,” committee co-chair Bob Friesen said Sept. 28. “The government needs to respond to this”.

On September 28 the minister announced that he was still going ahead with an ill advised distribution of money into NISA accounts. I have a letter from a constituent in my area who says that because he had not shown a profit or had any income over the last three years he could not get a NISA account. If people cannot get a NISA account they cannot have part of the $600 million that the minister is so generously putting into the farm account. What we would like to do today other than bring profile to the issue is convince the government that there has to be a change in attitude.

My leader talked about a disaster relief program. There has been a disaster in agriculture every year for the last five years. Every year there has been an ad hoc program from the government that resolves nothing.

I would like to share something with the House which comes from a member of the minister's own staff. I hate to say it but I was a bit of a prophet back on April 30. I asked the staff member if the government was looking at the possibility of a mitigating program for the potential drought that could happen in western Canada. I told the staff member that there may not be a drought, but asked if we should not be proactive. I asked if there should not be a plan in case there was a drought. The answer was that crop insurance would look after everything.

I then asked the same staff member if he had approached the government to ask for more money in case there was a drought. His answer was no, there was enough in programs right now to satisfy the problems that would be created by a drought.

This year there will be in excess of $3 billion taken out of crop insurance. In Saskatchewan alone there has been an uptake of claims of $1 billion. Saskatchewan has, through reserves and through premiums, about $500 million. There will be a shortfall in Saskatchewan alone of $500 million this year in crop insurance. How is crop insurance going to cover off a $500 million shortfall? The last time there was a shortfall in the Saskatchewan crop insurance it took 13 years to pay it back. It was a loan from both the provincial and federal governments. There is a $500 million shortfall and it is not over yet, and there could well be more claims. In western Canada $3 billion will come out of crop insurance this year. Although there is no money in crop insurance this staff member says it can take care of everything.

The government has to think out of the box. We have had a serious problem in agriculture and it has not been resolved by the government or the ministry. The government needs to get a natural disaster program and make it available to the people who really need it on an annual basis. That is what we are talking about. Until that happens the government will continue with an ad hoc program that will not resolve any of the issues.

We need to have an affordable safety net program available to the provinces as was alluded to by my leader. Provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Manitoba, cannot afford to put dollars into a program when they are not generating revenue from their agricultural economy. There has to be some thinking outside the box. There has to be some sort of an equalization program with provinces that cannot do that. Alberta gave $325 million because it can, and good for it. It recognizes the need to support its agriculture industry. Ontario did the same thing recently. It came up with $73 million to put into the hands of farmers because it can do it. Should we, as a government, not allow other provinces to support their agriculture industry even though they cannot financially support them right now? That is a responsibility of the government and the ministry.

I have to get a comment in from my good friend from St. John's West. There are issues not just in western Canada but issues across this country. The environment is a major one in my colleague's constituency as well as mine. There are also some issues with land costs, and I know we can deal with those. The real issue is to get the minister and his ministry on side so they can support agriculture like it has to be supported or we will not have it in this country in the very near future.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party will vote no to this motion. I would also ask that the member for Fundy—Royal be included in this vote as no with his party.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the amendment tabled by my colleague. I would also wish to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River.

I sat patiently and listened to the eloquence and passion of the previous speaker from the government side. The only question that comes out of that last dissertation is that perhaps prorogation would not have been required in the first place if the hon. member had spoken so passionately and eloquently then. If the time and energy had been spent on Bill C-5 to which the hon. member referred to, then we would not be here today debating this motion and amendment.

Canadians recognize there was no real need or reason to prorogue the House. Canadians come to me and ask what does prorogation mean and why was there a change in what was happening in the legislative agenda of the House of Commons. They do not understand, nor should they, because it is an issue that we deal with in the House and not something that is on the lips of every Canadian from coast to coast when we talk with them.

My answer to them is that the Prime Minister did not want to deal with the business that was then before us on the floor of the House of Commons. He had the right to prorogue, effectively stopping Parliament, and when that is done the rules are very specific. When it stops, everything stops. The legislative agenda before the House dies. It goes away and the House starts fresh. That was the whole rationale for prorogation. The government was going to start fresh. It was going to put forward a throne speech that would indicate to Canadians a fresh direction that the government was going to follow.

Let me say two things. First, the government wants to bring back its old tired, worn out legislative agenda at the same stages it had left them at prorogation, which means it can stop the House at any point in time and suffer no consequence for it. It is a total manipulation of the House where the government would like to be able to stop the business and bring issues back that it feels are the important issues facing Canadians right now.

The motion before us allows ministers, within 30 days, to have the ability to come forward and make a request to have legislation come forward at the same stage at which it was left. The amendment, and we agree with the amendment, is that there are a couple of pieces of intrusive legislation that we recognize and know that Canadians do not necessarily want to have as part of the ongoing business of their lives. These two pieces should be excluded from any types of motions coming forward to allow ministers to choose which legislation they would like to come forward. We agree with the amendment that there should not be an opportunity for the ministers to bring back what they wish.

We had a throne speech after prorogation that said the government was going to change the direction in which the government and country were going to follow. I had the opportunity to read the throne speech and listen to it on the occasion of the Governor General reading it to the Canadian public. In looking at this throne speech and the previous ones in 2001 and 1999, nothing has changed. The same issues are brought forward in this throne speech as were in the other throne speeches.

The government talked about reinforcing and rebuilding the Canadian military. It has not happened in the past. I see no reason to believe that the government will allow it to happen in the future.

The government talked about additional abilities for first nations to be able to govern themselves. It talked about more resources for first nations. Let me say that the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, at a meeting just recently, indicated that this was the case. However I should also say that it is difficult for me to understand how the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard can suggest that there should be more consultation and thought process put in to the first nations self-government legislation.

I should say that the member for LaSalle-Émard has said that this needs more consultation. Now we understand today from the House leader of the government that in fact that legislation will come forward with no more consultation, with no more ability to have the first nations' put their beliefs and thoughts into that legislation. How do we have that contradiction? Does that mean that the member for LaSalle-Émard will come into the House when it is time to vote on this motion and stand in support of the motion to bring back that legislation without having it put aside and in fact perhaps even redraft it or consult with individuals of the first nations individuals?

There is a lot of difficulty with not only the motion in the first place. There is more difficulty with the need for prorogation. There is even more difficulty right now with bringing back legislation at the whim of the ministers, even though we recognize that Canadians as a whole do not wish to have these intrusive pieces of legislation coming back to the House.

I really appreciate the comments from the previous speaker but, again I repeat, it would have been much better had that passion been passed on to her Prime Minister and cabinet to suggest that this was not necessary. Prorogation in the first place was not necessary and this motion is not necessary.

What has the government done? It has prorogued unnecessarily, has brought back legislation with no consequences at all and has now put closure in so we cannot talk about it. Not only can we not talk about a very valid amendment that has been put forward by the official opposition, but now it will close debate so we cannot even talk to the Canadian public as to why it was necessary that it put us in this position in the first place. Why did we not come back on September 18 like we were supposed to do? Why did the Prime Minister feel it was necessary to put forward what I believe to be a rehashed, recycled throne speech with no thinking put into it at all?

I hope Canadians are listening and watching the manipulation of the House today. I hope they are saying to themselves that this really was not necessary and, by the way, if it is going to go through the exercise it should do so the way it was meant to be. It should start now with a fresh legislative agenda, bring back to the House the pieces of legislation that are on the table right now from square one and let us debate them honestly, openly and let us consult with Canadians the way it was meant to be. The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot manipulate the House and bring back the legislation that should be dead on the floor right now.

At this time I will turn over the rest of my time to the member for Dauphin--Swan River.

[Ronald Duhamel, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in the House today to mourn the loss of a fellow Manitoban, a colleague of this House and, most recently, a colleague of the Senate.

Senator Ron Duhamel passed away last night at the much too young age of 64. I had the personal opportunity of knowing Mr. Duhamel as the deputy minister of education and as the senior cabinet minister of Manitoba. His tireless work on behalf of the people of Manitoba speaks for itself. His conscientious work and approachable manner, despite the carrying of a different political stripe, gives ample witness to his dedication, to his beliefs and to the people whom he represented.

On behalf of my constituency of Brandon--Souris, which he also helped on numerous occasions, on behalf of all Manitobans and on behalf of my party, the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party, I offer my deepest condolences and sympathy to his family and to all those who knew him. He will be desperately missed. Au revoir, mon ami.

[Agriculture, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has done absolutely nothing to offset the devastating effects of the U.S. farm subsidies. Even worse is the government's inability to deal with the devastating effects of the country of origin labelling contained in the U.S. farm bill. Country of origin labelling applies to all agricultural products, including beef and pork. Already Canadian livestock producers are losing American markets.

What is the government doing to achieve a Canadian exemption to the U.S. country of origin labelling? Failing that, what is the government's contingency plan when we can no longer access American markets for our beef and cattle?

[Main Estimates, 2002-2003, June 6th, 2002]

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