Rick Borotsik

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

You have opposed free trade? That is the reality.

[Tax Credit, May 21st, 2002]

It is awful. It punishes performance, as the member for Fundy--Royal said.

Let me say a couple of things. First, yes, we are a resource based country. However we recognized a long time ago that the real value we have in this country is the value that is between our ears and the students' value between their ears. Therefore we insist and encourage students to get their education so they can be a contributing member of society. However there is a reality.

The reality is something that the government is sticking its head in the sand and trying not to realize. The reality is those students have accrued huge debt to invest in themselves. It is an investment in themselves and I appreciate that but should we not assist them? We have heard in the debates here that tuition fees in this country have gone up by 125% over the last 10 years. They are going up more every day and will be somewhere around 200% by the year 2008, over the last 10 to 12 years. That is only part of the cost that students incur when they go to school.

Students in my community, if they come to my community, come from some place else. There is housing, food, transportation and clothing. Those are the expenses of students while they go to school. These costs on average generate about $10,000 a year in costs. The tuition is a major portion of that but certainly the other costs are also major.

In order for them to pay those costs they incur debt. That debt over a four year degree could be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40,000. I had an opportunity to go to a presentation from Canadian Bankers Association, which is also concerned about the debt students are accumulating.If we run the numbers on that $40,000, it effectively means a $500 monthly payment for the student. That is a mortgage payment for a lot of people. That mortgage, without a house, as has been mentioned, is something that will go on for a number of years. All we are saying is let us help them with that $40,000 debt. The suggestion of this party and the member for Fundy--Royal is to allow them to use 10% of that debt as a direct write-off to their income taxes over 10 years, as long as they reside in this country. They will be much the better for it.

There would be a very small capital cost for the government. This is a very good, solid, sensible idea. The government speakers against the motion are saying that the government already is doing enough and therefore we should not listen to anyone else.

In fact, everyone in the House should be voting for the motion. I would encourage them to do so, and when they do so to think about the students, the people they actually are helping with this motion.

[Tax Credit, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments. First, I thank the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands for his intervention. It sounds like maybe he wants to renew his old acquaintance with the Progressive Conservative Party. He is always welcome. He recognizes talent when he sees it. He certainly recognizes the ability of members to put forward legislation that should be accepted by the House.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Fundy--Royal for dealing with an issue that is so very important in Canadian society today and so very important to the hundreds of thousands of university and college students who recognize that there is a serious problem. Unfortunately they also recognize that the government is doing absolutely nothing to resolve it.

Therefore it takes someone like the member for Fundy--Royal to take the initiative to bring forward some really good, solid ideas that the government could latch on to and say, “Isn't it absolutely wonderful that we now have the ability to do something to assist these students”. What do the government members do? I heard some comments from members on the government side.

I was here when the member for Etobicoke North rose and talked about how this motion should not be supported. One excuse he used was that we should not be rewarding individuals by discharging their debt.

That totally amazes me. I hope all students were listening to that, that we should not reward them by discharging their debt. We should be rewarding them for going to school and for making sure this country has properly educated people in place. We should be rewarding them for staying in this country and putting forward their ability so that we can generate an economy that will maintain our standards.

However, what does the government do? It says that it is doing enough, that it is wonderful and that we should not listen to anyone else who has ideas. The member for Etobicoke North said that we have the millennium scholarship fund. Whoop-de-do. The millennium scholarship and $1.50 will buy a cup of coffee. It is not doing what is necessary right now to assist students.

What else did the hon. member say? He said that there was enough assistance right now from the government. If students are so good and because of their abilities they get scholarships, the government taxes the scholarships. Not only is the government not assisting students to go to school, not only is it not assisting them in discharging their debt, but now it is charging students more taxes because of their ability and initiative. That is absolutely scandalous.

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Be honest with us, Don.

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are just too many skeletons in the Liberal closet. The government has rewarded its closest friends and political allies with lucrative government contracts. Political patronage is rampant.

The auditor general said that the government broke every rule in the book when doling out public money.

The government has mismanaged Canadians' hard-earned money, but there is more. It has also removed the powers of elected officials and put it in the hands of the Liberal cabinet and the PMO.

Instead of admitting its mistakes, the government simply sweeps the sleaze under the rug. The government sends its corrupt minister to Denmark and hides its gerrymandering ministers in the back benches.

No wonder 70% of Canadians think politicians are corrupt, the Liberal government leads by example. Canadians are tired. Now is their chance to send a powerful message to the government. Canadians must not reward Liberal patronage and neglect in the upcoming byelections. In the byelections on May 13 it is their responsibility to send a message to the government: no more Liberal corruption.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Churchill for allowing me to speak and, through the Chair, let me say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Chair, and I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree with a lot of what was said earlier by the member for Churchill. Canadians take a lot of their rights for granted. We seem to be living in a world where we just assume that all the rights we have had in the past will simply continue in the future. Bill C-55 speaks to some degree, perhaps, about the impacts on some of those rights. I think it is very important that not only do we have the debate today but that we continue with the debate and certainly with the ultimate opportunity of either changing the bill or not having it come forward, because it is a very dangerous bill, which in my opinion certainly presents the opportunity for impacting on civil liberties and rights. We are becoming too complacent. We are putting too much faith in the government, which is unfortunate because the government certainly has not done anything to allow for that faith to be put in it.

There are a number of areas in the legislation which I want to talk to, but first I think it is necessary to say that all of us in the House abhor terrorism. We abhor what we see going on around us right now and we certainly abhor what happened on September 11. We understand that there must be certain laws and opportunities for our police and governments to take swift action when necessary, but there has to be a check and balance. There has to be a piece of legislation that is well balanced and which absolutely ensures that our civil rights as Canadians are protected when we are trying to control terrorism around us.

We have had the piece of legislation that came forward as Bill C-42. We on this side suggested at that time that Bill C-42 was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction of the government. After September 11, a whole bunch of people cloistered themselves in some smoke filled room and decided to put forward legislation that would allow the government to go forward, with an impact on all our rights and civil liberties.

When it went to committee, Bill C-42 got no support. It had no support from any of the witnesses who came forward. It had no support from any of the stakeholders. In fact, not only did it have no support from the opposition, but there was no support from government benches. Bill C-42, which the ministers on that side of the House had argued was absolutely, functionally necessary in order for the government to do its job, was simply pulled from the order paper.

Why, then, should we believe the government today when it says that Bill C-42 was flawed but Bill C-55 is absolutely perfect? I can assure the House that Bill C-55 is not absolutely perfect. If anything, it probably is no better than the Bill C-42 legislation that has been pulled by the government. I assume Bill C-55 will be pulled as well at some point and, thankfully, will not be passed by the House.

Those people who had the opportunity to listen to my leader, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, heard him make the argument that in fact we already have legislation in place in the House with the government and it does have that balanced approach with respect to terrorism and civil liberties. That obviously is the Emergencies Act, a 1998 act that speaks to the necessity to have legislation and to have legislation that still protects the rights of individuals.

There are four areas I want to talk about. The first area, in which there has been a correction, is the fact that Bill C-55 was to go to the transport committee. It was our belief, and ultimately the belief of the rest of the House, that the transport committee was not the right place for a very serious piece of legislation to end up. By unanimous consent of the House it was agreed that it should go to a special legislative committee, a committee that will be struck simply to look at this piece of legislation. As a matter of fact I am told that the Speaker will be appointing the chair of that legislative committee. As far as I understand it, the chair will be an individual respected by all of us in the House, although the chair probably has not been named yet since this was just put in place yesterday. It will be a good first step to have the bill go to the legislative committee, not the transport committee.

The second point, which I have already alluded to, is that the legislation is absolutely not necessary. We currently have the Emergencies Act to fall back on, in which the police are given the proper powers and the civil liberties of Canadians are still protected.

The third, and probably the most poignant, point of this legislation is the amount of power it puts in the hands of individual ministers, heaven forbid. I know that Canadians have a great deal of respect for politicians: A recent poll has shown that 70% of them believe we are corrupt, but the Prime Minister has sent out his little minions to tell them politicians are not. However, we lead by example and unfortunately the example at the top, the current government, has a tendency to show that corruption pervades it.

I say that not necessarily in a derogatory way. The fact is that Canadians do not trust politicians. Seventy per cent of them have already said that by poll. Why would Canadians trust one minister to be able to put in interim orders with no checks and balances and which parliament will not be required to debate and agree to? Both the minister of defence and the transport minister will be given powers that are not seen today in this legislative government.

The Minister of National Defence has not really endeared himself to the Canadian public. They do not see him as a terribly competent individual and they do not have a lot of trust in him, but this man would be allowed to file an interim order that would be in effect for 23 days without anybody knowing about it. It could be in effect for 45 days without any cabinet approval. This interim order, unless specified in the order, could be in effect for one year. A minister of this House would have that power.

As the member for Churchill said, honest Canadians will ask themselves why they should have concerns about this power. I am sure that each and every one of us in the House believes that we are honest people, but that still allows the minister to put an interim order into effect that could affect each and every one of us. I find that absolutely abhorrent and certainly I feel that it is way beyond what people in our country really need.

The legislation itself is a grave danger. It is an abhorrence to me and to my party. We will fight this every step of the way, not because we do not believe there is a need to control terrorism but because we seriously believe the legislation is already in existence in the House, legislation with checks and balances.

The privacy commissioner has already fired off alarms about the legislation specifically with respect to the area of airline travel, but there are many more areas within the legislation that we have to deal with. I am glad it is to go to a legislative committee. I really wish and I hope beyond hope that all stakeholders will make their voices heard. I hope they come to committee and put forward their concerns about how they see a government out of control.

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, those are policies that will absolutely devastate Canadian agriculture. The Liberal government is made up of a bunch of trade powder-puffs.

Neither the Minister for International Trade nor the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have backbones, or maybe they just do not care.

I will quote Larry Combest, republican U.S. ag committee chair, who yesterday said that the farm bill “is for rural America. It's not for rural Mexico. It's not for rural Canada. It's not for rural Europe”.

When will the government and the minister stand up for rural Canada. Why does he not care?

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that the government did not know that the U.S. farm bill was coming. Now Canadian agriculture is devastated: $180 billion in U.S. subsidies; inclusion of pulse crops; and country of origin labelling. This is the final nail in our agricultural coffin and our minister has no plans.

I have a suggestion: match the U.S. subsidies. Will he?

[Agriculture, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this statement is meant as a wake-up call to the minister of agriculture and the Liberal government.

There is a real possibility, even a probability, of a serious drought again this year. One-half of the farmland in western Canada has received less precipitation this year than ever before. In fact five counties in Alberta already have declared themselves disaster areas. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are not far behind.

One would think that with this knowledge the department of agriculture would be looking at a drought program just in case the rains do not come. Not so. I asked the agriculture director of financial programs if he had developed a drought plan. His answer simply was no. I then asked him if he approached the government for additional funding and additional money in case those rains did not come. His answer was no.

To make matters worse, the PFRA spends only $5.5 million on water programs and $15 million is spent on a PR program.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 2nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for such a wonderful job of comparing Bill C-55 and the War Measures Act at the beginning of his dissertation yesterday. He was in the process of getting to the requirements of the committee and his beliefs as to where the bill should go with respect to study and witnesses.

The member for Churchill yesterday indicated her displeasure with the bill going to the transport committee and the amendment speaks to that. Could the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough expand on that? He talked about justice and human rights. There is a real opportunity for the defence committee because there are more security issues in defence in the bill than there are of transportation.

What would the benefits be to either the justice and human rights committee or defence committee and which one would he feel is better suited to hear this particular piece of legislation as opposed to the transport committee?