Rick Borotsik

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. John's is a defender of the province of Newfoundland and I give him full marks for that. He is absolutely correct. There has to be a consistency within the programs across the country. There has to be a fairness. I have talked about fairness and equitableness. That is what has to come.

There is a real serious issue right now with the resource issues in the Atlantic provinces. As I said, there has to be a consistency. What is good for one side of the country and one province must be good for the other side of the country and its provinces. Specifically with the resource sector, specifically with the oil and gas, it should be that the Atlantic provinces have the same ability to retain those revenues within their own boundaries so that they can then pass on those services through those revenues to their constituents.

The problem is with the equalization and the transfer. We have seen this in other levels of services. When a dollar is gained from that resource and that source, a dollar is taken away with respect to the transfer and the equalization. Unfortunately the provinces never get ahead. They are simply saying that they should be given the opportunity to compete and the opportunity to have the same levels and standards of service as other provinces in the country. They are asking for the opportunity of reducing their taxes.

The CA has consistently said to reduce the taxes and make sure that there are lower tax levels and we will have the economic activity. That is true, but if the money is taken away on one hand when a province develops a dollar on the other hand, it does not have the opportunity of reducing the tax levels and being able to compete on that level playing field. There has to be a consistency. There has to be equity in this area. I could not agree more. That is the way this country was developed and built. That is what our cornerstone is. That is the equalization that we talk about constantly in our constitution. I believe very seriously that we have to be more fair and more equitable with regard to the Atlantic provinces.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

I am sorry, a thousand millions. You are right. I get confused with the big numbers.

That is $2.8 billion that will be reassessed to the province of Ontario. I want those members across on that side to substantiate that being recharged by the federal government. They can stand up and tell their constituents that there will not be more money for, are members ready for this, water services. There will not be more money for the highway systems. There will not be more money for the hospitals. There will not be more money for the school systems. All of that will be because $2.8 billion has to be paid back by the province of Ontario. Let them tell their constituents that the federal government, although it was the government's error and the government was made aware of it and was not charging it, now will enforce the fact that they have to pay it back. I would like to be there when they stand on that podium and on behalf of the federal government ask for the money back from their Ontario constituents.

I have a couple of quotes, but first let me say $3.3 billion is a lot of money. Let us make no mistake about that. It is a substantial amount of money. That $408 million for the province of Manitoba means as much as this does to the province of Ontario with the different levels of population and, as I said, with revenue centres available.

We have had examples of the government's largesse in the past with respect to taxpayers' dollars. Just recently we have talked about other ad contracts that have gone to certain corporations, with millions of dollars attached to them. We had a program that was implemented by the federal minister of finance of the day just prior to the last federal election, the energy rebate program. Do you remember that one, Mr. Speaker? It was $1.3 billion that the minister of finance put into place in a very short period of time and distributed to whole numbers of people across the country. The reason I mention it is that it was $1.3 billion that automatically or simply came in and was expended, half of what is being asked to be retained by the provinces here. It is not really an issue of money. It is an issue of the political will to be able to say that the government should leave the money where it is, where it went to with the provinces.

Also we have heard just recently that there will be surpluses. When there is a surplus on the federal side and then the government insists that money be paid back by the provincial side, particularly by my province of Manitoba, the government is saying that on the one hand it has the money, the provinces do not have any, it wants the provinces to pay back what they do not have, but that is too bad, it will take the money and spend it whichever way it as a federal government wants to. Quite frankly, there are a lot of people out there who do not have a lot of confidence in how the federal government is spending their money right now, let alone more money that they want to ask for from the provinces to spend in other areas and in other ways, shapes and forms.

In fact, the province of Manitoba, in its previous administration as well as the current administration, in my opinion has done an exceptional job in balancing its budget. It now has a very small, minor surplus going into this fiscal year but it has done so with caution and carefulness. It has been done by two administrations, by two different political parties. I believe it has been done to the betterment of the citizens of the province of Manitoba, but if the government starts asking for more dollars to come back from the provinces, it will have a very serious impact.

As for the Manitoba solution, I would like to quote the Manitoba finance minister of the day, Greg Selinger. He stated:

Manitoba proposes that the solution to the problems arising from this error should be based on the principles of comprehensiveness and fairness, responsible action, and a concern for fiscal stability.

What he is saying is that Manitoba knows it has done a good job provincially to try to have that fiscal stability and the federal government should not throw in a monkey wrench that will cause the provincial government some serious concerns and fiscal instability.

He went on to state:

The full facts must be known, and the full effects of the decisions on transfer payments must be factored in. Any correction to tax payments for previous years must result in parallel corrections to transfer payments in order to provide equitable treatment and assure the integrity of these programs.

What he is saying there is that the government simply cannot ask for the $408 million back unless it goes back to 1993 and factors in what would have been paid in transfer payments had these calculations been made properly back in 1993.

This is not a simple issue. What is simple is co-operative federalism. What is simple is fairness and equality. What is simple is this: do not impact the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba, particularly to the extent where they will pass on those effects to their constituents when in fact those constituents are our constituents as well federally. I ask, please do not do this to the province of Manitoba, the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester for his excellent comments, particularly when he indicated that if this were to come to pass in regard to moneys being collected from the provinces, money should be returned not only to the provinces but to other individuals, certainly with respect to EI. I never thought about that but there are literally tens of billions of dollars that have been taken out of the pockets of his constituents and my constituents that should be returned if this is the kind of philosophy that now is going to be carried on by the government.

However, first I would like to thank the Canadian Alliance for bringing forward the motion. I do support it, coming from the province of Manitoba. It is an excellent vehicle and opportunity for me as well as others to put forward our position with respect to this overpayment to the provincial governments of Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario in particular and how the government is going to resolve the problem.

I would also like to say that in a previous life I did have an opportunity to deal with budgets. On the municipal side, those budgets were very dependent upon provincial budgets. There were grants that were given to the municipalities and we waited for those grants and those dollars flowed. Once we received those dollars, we spent them on services for our own constituents.

The same is true with the provincial governments. They depend on the federal government, in some cases through their equalization and transfer payments, to be able to make up their budgets and put forward those dollars, through CHST for example, into services provided for their constituents. This is exactly what the province of Manitoba did. From 1993 until now, it has been putting those dollars it has been receiving into services for its constituents, into health care, education, social services, highways, you name it. Provincial governments are responsible for a lot of those services and now suddenly the federal government is suggesting that because of the 1993-99 overpayment, there has to be a payback.

It is nice to have Manitoba finally lumped into being a have province, Alberta and Ontario being the have provinces. Unfortunately, Manitoba being not quite as fiscally fortunate as to have the resources of Alberta and Ontario, we have in the past been seen as a have not province. That does not mean defeatist. It simply means that we do not have the resources that the other provinces have and we do depend on that equalization, but that is the cornerstone of our federation. That is the cornerstone of Canada: that we as citizens share and that we share with other provinces, including Manitoba, so that we can have similar services in all our areas.

The province of Manitoba brought this to the attention of the federal government a number of years ago. The federal government continued, right through this government from 1993 to 1999, not to assess the proper capital taxes on mutual fund trusts. In fact, Manitoba currently has a cost associated to it of $408 million. As the member for Winnipeg Centre indicated, however, over the other years that has amounted to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700 million.

A comment was made by, I believe, the Minister of National Revenue. She stated:

The error doesn't affect taxpayers...because it was a government-to-government transfer of personal income taxes it collected on the provinces' behalf.

Basically she is saying that because it is province to province there is really no impact.

There is a substantial impact. When those dollars already have been spent and now are being calculated and recharged to that province, my province suffers because we do not have the ability to put forward those revenues in any other way, shape or form to support those services. So when the minister of revenue says that I take great exception to it, because it is not just province to province, it is the people, the taxpayers of that province, who ultimately are going to be impacted.

By the way, I will speak on behalf of my province of Manitoba. There are 99 members of parliament on that side of the House who come from Ontario. Ontario will be assessed somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.8 billion. As my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester would say, it will be 2.8 thousand thousands--

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have been looking at all the information that I have which has been gleaned from the province of Manitoba. The number I come up with, between the years 1993 to 1999 for Manitoba, is $408 million. The hon. member from Winnipeg indicated that this number was not the proper number, that it was over $700 million. Is that the number that extends into the budget year 2002? Where did this number come from?

[Government of Canada, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this brouhaha between the Prime Minister and his ex-minister of finance has distracted from the government's policy issues and focused instead on Liberal infighting.

How surprised I was this morning when I heard the Prime Minister's senior policy advisor tell us that this government was focused on a policy agenda. Eddie Goldenburg said:

I think the agenda of this government on health care, the agenda on agriculture, the agenda on a whole host of issues, is a very important one. The government has a terrific record, every government goes through a rocky period.

The government has done nothing to forward this agenda or in fact any agenda. The government has left it up to the provinces to deal with the crisis in health care. The government turned down a motion that would have worked toward reducing student debt. The government has ignored the dangers of U.S. protectionism, ignored the dangers of yet another drought and ignored the falling farm income.

Where is the agenda that the Prime Minister's staff is referring to? This government of broken promises has--

[Agriculture, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of agriculture appeared before the agriculture committee. Despite our best efforts to get a commitment for additional support for agriculture, there was no commitment forthcoming.

He did indicate there would be another ad hoc program, a feeble attempt to offset the U.S. farm bill. What he did not, could not, or would not tell us is how much it would be, when it would be forthcoming, and how it would be distributed. This is probably because the last time he promised a program he was blindsided by the Prime Minister. He promised $900 million and only delivered $500 million.

Another serious issue is how Canadian agriculture will be affected by country of origin labelling now proposed in the U.S. farm bill. At the meeting yesterday the minister had at best count about 50 members of his ministerial and departmental staff there.

When I asked the question if they knew how this would impact Canadian producers, the answer was that they knew how it would affect American producers but not Canadian producers. Does the minister need to hire another staff member to give us the answer regarding Canadian producers?

[Royal Assent Act, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle for two reasons, first for allowing my brief intervention before we go to question period and also for the thought provoking comments he made with respect to democratic reform.

I say that because we as the Progressive Conservative Party have just put out a discussion paper on democratic reform. The member could have helped us write that paper. I will send it to him, because a lot of what he said with respect to parliamentary reform as well as electoral reform is encompassed in the paper.

I agree that there is a need. We see it more every day with the ability of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office to take the government and the country in a direction that the majority of Canadians really do not want, yet there are no checks and balances.

I will take a little exception to the comments of the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle, because there is a need for a backstop. The only backstop we currently have in our system is that of the Senate. It may not be a perfect backstop but certainly it is the only institution we depend on for that sober second thought, because we see across from us right now a majority government that is not prepared to listen to the opposition, not prepared to listen to committees and not prepared to listen to the general public. It simply will push through legislation that is not right. The only backstop we have now is the Senate.

I say that because Bill S-34 was brought forward by the Senate. By the way, it was first brought forward by Senator Lynch-Staunton, who is the opposition leader in the Senate. It was brought forward on numerous occasions, but at that time the Senate decided that because it was a thought coming from some other individual in the institution, it probably did not have any real bearing to it. However he persevered. In fact the legislation that now has come forward looks an awful lot like the legislation that was proposed by Senator Lynch-Staunton. I give him full credit for at least making this small step in trying to adjust the traditions we have in the House.

The second thing I would like to say is that this is probably one of very few pieces of legislation that will have the total support of all parties in the House, which means that all parties have a desire to move forward with this type of reform. This is a small step. It is a very positive step, but small nonetheless.

As was mentioned earlier by a lot of members in the House, the bill has to do with royal assent, a symbolic process we have whereby we walk from this House to the Senate to get royal assent for bills that have been passed. There are a number of reasons why this tradition has outworn itself. We know full well that in the Commonwealth we are the only ones to still have this procedure and formality. There are ways to make the House more efficient and the legislation would in fact do just that. It would make the House more efficient.

We should take this as an example. We should take this as the ability to have all party consent in other areas of making the House more efficient. The member for Regina--Qu'Appelle mentioned that perhaps we should look at committees being much more efficient. Perhaps we should be looking at making voting in the Chamber much more efficient. Perhaps we should look at the possibility of electoral reform in Canada, which certainly would make our system more efficient .

There are four problems, but I know I do not have a lot of time before question period. The problem with this obviously is that the tradition has worn itself out. There is very little support right now for the tradition of royal assent. I am happy to say that there is all party support for this. Certainly our party, because of the ability to develop some efficiencies in the House, will support it.

In closing I once again would like to thank Senator Lynch-Staunton from the other place for putting forward the bill. Perhaps if we do get other bills coming from the Senate that speak to democratic and parliamentary reform, we will look at them in as favourable a light as we look upon this piece of legislation. The Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting this legislation.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

My colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, who put forward a wonderful amendment, asked whether we trusted the government. Do Canadians trust the government?

I think if we were to do a poll today on Sparks Street, on Main Street in Virden or in the Atlantic region we would get the same answer. Canadians have no trust in the government. There is no trust in its ability to manage its own portfolios. We have seen no trust in the government's ability to manage taxpayer dollars. We do not believe there is trust in the government to manage this very serious piece of legislation.

What would the bill actually do? The bill would grant the cabinet a whole host of new powers, including the right to arbitrarily declare certain military zones off limits to Canadians. It would also violate the rights of Canadians by supplying passenger information to the RCMP without any cause. Can anyone believe that the legislation would give cabinet the ability to pass on information about all of us, our families and the people in our constituencies? It would arbitrarily allow them to pass on that information to the police.

We are a free country. We have the right to travel. We have the right to practice our religions. We have freedom of speech. We have the right to stand and say what we will about the government. What would happen if I were to make some comments that the government did not like? Would they pass on information about me to the police? The legislation that we have before us would allow the ministers to do that.

Other pieces of legislation that granted similar powers were all withdrawn, some over time, such as the War Measures Act and even Bill C-42, but they were withdrawn because we recognized the danger. However Bill C-55 came forward and it is still here. The bill would grant the government both the power to protect and the ability to abuse this power. Unfortunately it is most likely the latter that will prevail.

The existing law, the Emergencies Act, ensures this does not happen by protecting the principles of a free and democratic parliament. Something which Canadians may not even know or realize is that legislation already exists that allows the government to do what it has to do. The Emergencies Act, which is in effect now, allows the government to do what it wants to do but it does have checks and balances.

We have the checks and balances that parliament applies under the Emergencies Act but those checks and balances would be taken out by this act. Why do we need Bill C-55 when the checks and balances are already available under the Emergencies Act.

The Emergencies Act provides a system of checks and balances which not only ensure that emergency power is used appropriately but it gives Canadians a sense of comfort knowing that their government cannot overstep the boundaries of this free and democratic society.

Parliament would have no say under the bill. Bill C-55 would make parliament irrelevant during a time of emergency. It would leave the rights of Canadians unprotected and at the beck and call of cabinet and the ministers. They would have the right to imply and impact Canadians with whatever they felt was right and necessary, which would not necessarily be what is right and necessary for us as Canadians.

Bill C-55 would permit the government to enact a security measure without the consideration of the House of Commons, whereas the Emergencies Act, which is already in place, allows parliament to review any order issued under that act. As Bill C-55 is written right now, parliament would become totally irrelevant. It would be taken out of the picture and would have no opportunity to speak to whatever those ministers and the cabinet table felt was necessary to enact.

The most serious concerns lie with the provision that allows for interim orders, and it is where our most serious objection to Bill C-55 can be found. Ministers should not be granted new powers that will exist outside parliamentary scrutiny.

There are quite a number of ministers who are given this power. I believe the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle talked about the Minister of Transport.

I see I am running out of time so I will wrap up. I will have an opportunity to talk about the other ministers who may well go beyond their bounds of power. However I will do that when the subamendment of the Bloc is approved and then I will to speak to it at that time.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I again rise in the House to give my comments to Bill C-55. I would first like to congratulate the previous speaker from Regina--Qu'Appelle. He has been in the House much longer than I and probably the majority of people in the House. He can certainly speak from experience with respect to the protection of the civil liberties and civil rights of our constituents and all citizens of the country. I thank him for his historical comments which were as a result of his long tenure as a member of parliament.

I also want to congratulate my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who has put forward what I believe is a very necessary amendment. I would ask all members, not only those in opposition but those thinking members of the government, to seriously consider the amendment which states:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55...because it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians.

Some may think that is harsh language but when one looks at the actual wording, the actual nuances, the actual clauses and the actual power that the legislation would give to members of the government, particularly certain ministers of the government, that language is not strong enough. The bill would provide an opportunity for some minister to take this power way beyond what it is that Canadians wish to have implemented.

I would like to go back a stage to Bill C-42. This was legislation that was brought in by this same government and was a total knee-jerk reaction to a very serious situation, make no mistake about that. Our party has stood time and again in the House stating that we did not condone terrorism or any type of action taken against citizens. However we still do not condone the power grab the government is trying to put in place that would cut off all the civil liberties that we share as Canadians.

Bill C-42 was a knee-jerk reaction to September 11. People on that side of the House and officials in departments had lights burning late into the night trying to put together what they thought was a package that would quell the issues that came out of September 11, the terrorist attacks that we deplored.

People put clauses in pieces of legislation that when they rethink them are obviously very wrong. We recognized that in this particular bill. I have to admit that the government, and it was probably the first good logical thing it has ever done, listened not only to members of the opposition and members of committee but to hundreds of witnesses who came before committee. Those witnesses said that the bill was wrong for certain reasons. No one accepted what was written in Bill C-42. None of the people who came forward, who wrote to my office or who visited my constituency office or my office here in the House said that Bill C-42 had to be passed because it was good legislation.

On the contrary, everybody said that the bill should not be supported nor passed because it was terrible and draconian. The Liberal government of the day pulled the bill. It did not let it go through. It let it die. The government asked if we would mind having it removed from the order paper. That was probably the only good thing that has happened in the last nine years of this government but it was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately the government has massaged and manipulated the legislation. It has changed some words and put in other words. In effect, Bill C-55 reflects the mentality, the psychology and the ideology of the Liberal government, and that has been brought forward in the bill. It has not changed the concept of too much power which would go to the ministers.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the member for Egmont here who can perhaps learn something with respect to what is or is not happening in his own government with respect to Bill C-55.

After September 11 the government demonstrated its inability to govern and put forward legislation that was necessary at the time. It had this knee-jerk reaction that brought forward a piece of legislation that was not well thought of and not well thought out. It was drafted over a short period of time by people who did not know what it was they were trying to achieve.

Bill C-42 was introduced in the House and went to committee. Everyone suggested that it was nothing more than simply a difficult way to put forward legislation to appease the situation of September 11. Everyone that came forward in committee spoke against it, yet the government was intent on bringing it forward, pushing it through and suggesting it was necessary in order for Canadians to cope with terrorism within our borders.

Better minds prevailed and, because the legislation was so terribly flawed it could not even be dealt with by amendment, Bill C-42 was pulled from the order paper. That was probably the only good thing that the government has probably done in the last nine years. It was a step in the right direction. The government admitted it had made a terrible mistake and had drafted some terrible legislation. In fact it listened to the opposition and the people who made presentations to the committee and pulled that terribly flawed piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, it did not totally learn from that mistake. The government then came forward with a replacement to Bill C-42, which is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-55. It brought it forward and made some changes to it. It made changes that make it worse than what it was when it was Bill C-42. It brought it forward and, believe it or not, suggested that it be referred to the transport committee. What a silly thought.

The government wanted to refer the bill to the transport committee when in fact the bill dealt with dozens of laws, the least of which would be transport. Yes, there was the innocuous little area of the Aeronautics Act but that was not really the here nor there of it. However, the government suggested that it be referred to the transport committee, again making a serious mistake.

Members on this side of the House who objected to the piece of legislation suggested honourably and seriously that it should go to another committee, a committee that encompassed more than just transport. In fact it did. It was referred to a newly struck legislative committee which was just passed today in the House. I received notice that the legislative committee had been struck. We have a member on it, as do other members of the opposition and the government. That is a pretty positive thing.

What is not positive is that the bill is still the wrong piece of legislation to deal with terrorism. Members should make no mistake about it. We have stood in the House and said time and time again that we absolutely do not condone terrorism, especially within the borders of our country. There has to be a consequence to any kind of terrorist action in this country. We believe we have that legislation right now with the Emergencies Act. If it were put into force it would provide everything that would be necessary to the government. However, the government decided that it would go beyond that.

Bill C-55 is a serious threat to the freedom of Canadians. Let us make no mistake about that. Canadians out there do not often pay a lot of attention to what is happening in this House. Canadians must pay attention to this piece of legislation because it impacts their civil liberties. There was a comment made the other day on a newscast I was watching that said if governments keep nibbling away at civil liberties, eventually they will become difficult to get back.

The government has no checks and balances. We have seen in the past, as we have seen recently, all the allegations that have been going on with respect to sponsorships, pork-barrelling and patronage. It seems the government is prepared to go to any lengths to take and grab those powers that it thinks is necessary for it to continue on that path.

This legislation is not the way to do it because this would seriously impact Canadians. The bill would grant cabinet a whole host of new powers, including the right to arbitrarily declare certain military zones off limit to Canadians, and to violate the rights of Canadians by supplying passenger information to the RCMP without any cause.

As was said earlier today in question period the police must be totally impartial in a free and democratic country. It cannot be given specific rights against the people it is policing. This legislation would allow it to do that.

Other pieces of legislation which granted similar powers were all withdrawn, some over time, such as the War Measures Act, while others were never made into law, and I refer to Bill C-42.

Bill C-55 would grant the government both the power to protect and the ability to abuse this power. Unfortunately, it is most likely the latter would prevail. The existing law, the Emergencies Act, ensures this does not happen by protecting the principles of a free and democratic parliament. This law would take parliament totally out of the picture. It would not allow parliament to be a part of any of the decisions that would be made based on this particular piece of legislation.

There is a clause in the legislation which would deal with interim orders. Eight parts of the bill would amend various statutes to provide a new power, permitting the responsible minister to make interim orders in situations where immediate action would be required. Two other parts which would deal with the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would extend the power of the minister to make such orders.

The statutes that would be amended to introduce the power, and respective ministers are those of the department of health, food and drugs, hazardous products, navigable waters, pest control, and quarantine. The ministers would be given power over every ambit of Canadian lives and Canadian law at the present time.

The extension of these powers unfortunately would have no backstop. They would not be able to come back to this parliament and have those interim orders removed. The ministers would have the ability to extend those orders if they feel it were necessary.

We talked about confidence. There was a motion yesterday in the House about how Canadians have lost confidence in the government. They lost confidence not only with respect to trade, but also in the government's ability to govern.

Can we have confidence in a defence minister, who unfortunately or fortunately for us as Canadians is no longer in that position, who would be able to have such extraordinary powers that no other Canadian, and parliament, would have any ability to take those powers away from him or from the government? Do we have confidence now in the Prime Minister when he leads by example? We see that day after day. In fact they, the Prime Minister, his ministers and his government, have no one who can take the ability of their incompetence away from them.

Bill C-55 will be going to a legislative committee. My hopes, wishes and desires are that every academic and non-governmental organization and individual being affected by this piece of legislation would appear before that committee and tell government why it is absolutely mandatory that this legislation be defeated and not go forward.

We have a piece of legislation now, the Emergencies Act, that will allow us to do what has to be done with respect to terrorism. We should not give government any other powers or any other ability to impact Canadian civil rights the way they would be impacted by this piece of legislation.

I will have the opportunity to speak to this again after speaking to the amendment. We will also have the bill coming back from committee with plenty of amendments because that is necessary.