Rick Borotsik

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 23rd, 2002]

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

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes to the amendment.

[National Defence, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in the House today.

I have had the opportunity of gaining a personal appreciation for the men and women of the Canadian armed forces through my association with Canadian Forces Base Shilo. I have learned that the military is a big family and that military family has suffered a terrible loss.

This country has suffered a terrible loss not here at home, but almost half a world away. Today Canada mourns the four soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. We also hold hope for their eight comrades for a full recovery. Today we are reminded of the men and women who serve to protect our security and our freedom.

I know I speak on behalf of all of my constituents, particularly those residents of CFB Shilo, when I express my deepest sympathy to the friends and families of those lost soldiers. We open our hearts and we offer our most sincere condolences.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that message being passed. I have a lot of respect for the hon. gentleman who just spoke. I also suggest, however, that it does not just necessarily have to be members of the government who sat in the committee who could speak to this legislation. It can be any member of the sitting government that can speak, and speak favourably, to the committee's work. That is to what I was alluding. I was suggesting that the committee actually work the way a committee should work.

First, I would like to congratulate our member who sat on that committee for hours on end listening to stakeholders, witnesses and to people who had some very valid points to bring forward. The member for Fundy--Royal was very excited that even government members on that committee accepted some of his amendments in the committee stage. That is how a committee should work.

Unfortunately, somewhere between the time the committee accepted those amendments and the time they hit the House floor other amendments were put forward that changed the whole legislation. We will speak to those because that indeed is what we are talking about today with respect to Group No. 4. I know the hon. member from the government side who just chastised me would be very happy to realize that one amendment the committee asked for was a five year review of the legislation.

That is not an unheard of request. We have asked for sunset clauses on other pieces of legislation, but in this case the committee suggested that there should be a five year review of this legislation. Is that so terrible? We do not know how the legislation will affect endangered species or species at risk five years from now, so let us go back and review it. However coming forward in Group No. 4 is a government amendment suggesting that that not happen.

For what reason, I do not know. I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that it was a good idea to bring the legislation back for review in five years. However the government has decided it is not necessary, that it knows best and that the legislation can go on in perpetuity or until it decides to bring it forward.

This is the third kick at the cat in bringing this legislation forward. The first two kicks at the cat never happened because it was defeated on the order paper. In effect the government has had 10 years to bring the legislation forward but it does not want to review it in five years. To me it does not make any sense, especially when the committee suggested that that happen. To have a Liberal government member vote against this suggestion from the committee is, in my opinion, voting against the committee and the committee form of government that presently exists.

The second thing is that the committee put forward an amendment, and the hon. member will remember this, to establish a council of first nations members to advise the minister. A committee suggested that the amendment come forward, yet it has been changed. The hon. member is going to stand now in the House and explain why he and the rest of his government colleagues are going to vote against the absolute opportunity to have a committee of first nations members come forward to advise the minister on issues of species at risk. The government has gutted it out. The committee wanted it to happen.

The first nations who were given that opportunity are mad, as they rightfully should be. They were the ones who suggested that this was a very good change to the legislation. It was agreed to at committee and now it is not going to happen. In fact the member for Churchill River has tabled a compromise, an amendment, that the government should accept.

The committee said as part of Group No. 4 that the government must consult with the provinces and the territories. That is what the committee said.

These are species at risk. These are endangered species. What is co-operative federalism if not discussing these very issues with the provinces and territories that it serves? That came from the committee. What a great idea. Let us actually sit down and talk to the provinces that have legislation with respect to endangered species. Let us sit down and talk to the territories that know more about their property and the endangered species of their particular areas.

We just talked about an orchid in Manitoba which I was not aware of. Who better to know about that orchid than the member from the province of Manitoba? Is it not a good idea that the government have co-operative federalism and talk to provinces and territories? Guess what? The committee felt that it was. However, when it came forward the minister felt that it was not necessary. The government decided it did not have to talk to the provinces and territories and it should not have that co-operation in the legislation.

Bill C-5 has other deficiencies. One of the major deficiencies is the issue of compensation. The Canadian Real Estate Association was on Parliament Hill today and yesterday. Believe it or not it had three issues that it wanted to talk about. One of the issues was species at risk act. Is it not rather strange that a real estate association would want to speak to species at risk? It spoke to the same issue that the hon. member for Fundy--Royal spoke to with respect to the legislation. It spoke to the fact that there should be compensation built into the legislation for property owners. There should be a compensation built into the legislation for people who will be affected by species at risk.

Why did it not happen? Because the government changed it. Now, unfortunately, the government is under no obligation to provide a compensation package unless of course the circumstance is an extraordinary one. That is a bit of an interpretation. Who will interpret what extraordinary is? Who will interpret if in fact there should be an obligation to that particular landowner with respect to species at risk? The courts will have a heyday. At this point in time the government is off the hook because it could let this thing run for years if in fact there even is a legitimate requirement for compensation from one of these circumstances.

The legislation could have been supported and passed. Unfortunately the way it is right now the amendments that have been brought forward in Group No. 4 cannot be agreed to by the Progressive Conservative Party. They cannot be agreed to by the majority of people on this side and I hope, for those people who are prepared to logically listen to the arguments on the government side, will not be supported by those members as well.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today to speak to the category amendments on Bill C-5. It is important to point out that I wish it was not just simply members of the opposition who spoke with respect to the bill. It would be nice to have members of the government speak to the bill, particularly those members who sat on the committee, who put forward such good amendments at the committee level and who insisted upon changes to a piece of legislation that made it very workable. They made it a piece of legislation that I am sure, had it come forward from the committee the way it was debated, would have been approved by all of the members of the House, including those who sit on this side. I wish that some of those committee--

[Pest Control Products Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-53. Before I get into the meat of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that you were not in the chair when it was mentioned that the members for Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg South used to chase DDT fogging wagons. I am sure this must be a form of entertainment in the city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba. Coming from west of the city of Winnipeg, I can assure all members that we never did chase DDT fogging wagons. That may well speak to the level of abilities of the members from the province of Manitoba.

Bill C-53 is legislation that should have been before the House quite a while ago, certainly in the beginning stages of the government's first mandate. This piece of legislation goes back to 1969. It has been some 33 years since it has been in place. It should be updated on a regular basis because this is a part of the industry that changes quite dramatically, not only from year to year but in fact from month to month.

It was suggested by a previous minister of agriculture of the day, Mr. Don Mazankowski, that this legislation should come forward to deal with any number of issues. However, this has not happened. The government was somewhat negligent in its own opportunities to bring forward a very sound piece of legislation. The legislation does have its warts and pimples, however, in saying that, we believe it is far superior to the piece of legislation that has been in place since 1969.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always insisted that the pesticide legislation come forward, for two major reasons. The first is to evaluate the effects of the exposure and toxicity of pesticides, herbicides and chemicals on vulnerable parts of our population, obviously the younger individuals among us as well as older people who have a tendency to be more susceptible to the negative effects of pesticides and herbicides. We believe very strongly that the legislation should have come forward for that purpose.

We would also like to see an educational initiative undertaken with the ultimate goal of reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides. That does not necessarily mean that we should not replace them with alternate pesticides and herbicides that are better not only for the environment but for the health of our citizens. That is obviously where we should be heading. To a degree, Bill C-53 does speak to that particular end and goal.

I must say, however, that this is like all pieces of legislation developed and drafted by the department. It does not necessarily encompass all of the necessary nuances to make it perfect. That is why we have the process we do, whereby after this reading it will go back to committee, which will debate it, have an opportunity to listen to all stakeholders and people affected by this and hopefully come back with some changes or amendments to the legislation that in fact will make it better. Nobody has a lock on ideas, least of all the government. We hope that there is some open-mindedness and we hope that the government is prepared to listen to some of those very positive amendments to the legislation to in fact make it better.

I mention that because there are a number of shortcomings in the legislation. I simply will mention them in passing. I know that our member sitting on the health committee, the member for Richmond--Arthabaska, will be able to take our position forward and hopefully change the legislation.

First, Bill C-53 fails to expedite access to newer and safer pest management products. I will speak to that a little later, but the ability to bring forward newer and safer pesticides is not built into the legislation. That is so very, very important because there are pesticides, herbicides and chemicals out there that are much better for the environment and much better for human health and safety, but we do not have the built in opportunity to bring them forward under our current regulatory system.

The bill also fails to differentiate between the commercial and the cosmetic uses of pesticides. I come from a riding that is dependent on agriculture. Agriculture, in order to not only feed Canadians but also feed a greater number of people outside our domestic market, is dependent upon and requires the ability to use pesticides and herbicides to grow that crop.

Unfortunately we have not differentiated between that absolute necessity of a commercial requirement for pesticides and herbicides and a cosmetic pesticide in this legislation. They are dramatically different, particularly in our agricultural areas. I am sure Canadians appreciate that.

The legislation also fails to translate into viable alternatives to the current regime and does not translate into a workable registration system. Again, I speak to the PMRA, and I will get to that in the not too distant future.

Also, the legislation does not provide adequate transparency. Agricultural stakeholders agree that transparency is necessary but not at the cost of allowing public access to confidential business information.

Agriculture is very important with respect to this, and I would like to talk about the PMRA. For those people who do not know PMRA, that is the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. The PMRA reports to the Department of Health and is responsible for the registration of any chemical pesticide or herbicide for use in Canada.

The problem is that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency does not have the ability to react in a timely fashion. The bill fails to create that mechanism that would speed up the registration of proven low risk pesticides. The bill fails to create an effective mechanism that would speed up the registration of minor use pesticides.

Speeding up the registration of minor use and low risk pesticides would allow the PMRA to dictate more resources to studying more complex new pesticide applications. The bill does not call for an ombudsman or a proper oversight committee.

The two issues I talked about were the registration of new pesticides and minor use pesticides. In Canada we have an agricultural industry, a horticultural industry, a fruit industry, that unfortunately is a very small part of a very small market.

The agriculture committee just had the opportunity to travel across Canada from coast to coast. One of the issues that was consistent from coast to coast was the fact that we did not have the ability to react with respect to minor use registration of pesticides.

Right now in British Columbia there are not sufficient tools in that chemical chest to pull from that chest the proper pesticides to use on the product. However the United States, which is our major trading partner, has the ability to use many more chemicals and pesticides on products.

The irony here is that we can import a product of the Americans, having had them use a chemical which is not registered in Canada. The product may well have residue on it but it is perfectly all right to import that product. We in Canada can grow the same product but we cannot use the same chemical used by the Americans. In most cases we have to depend upon a chemical that is harsher than the chemical in the U.S., a chemical that well should and could be registered in Canada.

We believe very seriously that there must be a built in harmonization in the PMRA system. If the chemical can be used by one trading partner of ours in the United States, then we should be able to use that science to register the product in Canada. It would certainly assist our producers, both with the registration of product in general terms as well as minor use registration.

We talked about the inability to differentiate between the commercial and the cosmetic use of pesticides.

The bill does not speak to the cosmetic use. I assume it was left out by the government on purpose when drafting the legislation. It was suggested earlier by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre that the federal government should have indicated its desire to put forward a regulation or restriction on cosmetic pesticides.

I do not feel the same way. I believe very strongly that the municipalities have the right and should have the right to dictate to their own users, customers, clients and constituencies as to whether there should or should not be the ability to use cosmetic pesticides in that municipality. The reason I say this is not that I am necessarily totally in favour of cosmetic pesticides, although I must admit, other than a few things in this House, dandelions really do infuriate me.

However I believe it is the right of municipalities to make that call, as they have with things like smoking bylaws. Municipalities have made the decision as to whether they should or should not allow smoking in public places. We have seen this in the city of Ottawa where it has decided that there will be no smoking in any public place. However constituencies of other municipalities decided there should be more open smoking bylaws.

I remember in another life I fought a battle with respect to Sunday shopping. That decision was made by the municipalities, not by the federal government or the provincial government. It is the individual municipalities, and their constituents, that should have the right to say what goes on in those areas. Therefore I do not have difficulty with not having the federal government place conditions in this legislation.

There are a couple of other areas that have been touched on in the legislation. The bill provides that any person may apply for a change in maximum residue limits for a product in the registration process. Maximum residue limits must be based on science. By allowing anyone to apply for an MRL for a pesticide confuses the nature of the registration process and allows for any interest group to apply for an MRL. Registration should be based on sound science and not on political procedure.

What this is saying, which I believe is wrong, is that any interest group or any contrary thought to the industry or any user group or stakeholder can simply come forward and ask for a change to the maximum residue limits. This will open up what I believe will be a number of frivolous situations where a lot of legitimate producers of pesticides and herbicides may well be chased out of the country.

That also ties into the special review section of the legislation. It says that, generally speaking, the special review section of the bill is poorly worded. The legislation fails to define the parameters under which a special review could be initiated. The minister is likely to be inundated with public requests for reviews. A request for a special review must be based on known or assumed product risk or scientific evidence. Unfortunately, this again lends itself to abuse when under special reviews anyone can come forward under any circumstance and simply stop a legitimate product from being produced and used in the marketplace.

The third area I have some concerns is the public access to confidential business information. The public will have access to confidential business information once a product has been approved. Members of the public will be able to view only confidential business information with ministerial approval, which we recognize may have its own flaws built into that process.

Access to registry information is currently provided for within the Access to Information Act. The current regime also protects confidential business information. We suggest that it should go back to that area of access to information.

I go back to the agricultural community and its need and desire to deal with legitimate minor use registrants as well as registrants to new pesticides. The PMRA has deficiencies and it is important that we rectify those deficiencies or we will not have the ability to produce the way we produce today. It is important that the legislation deal with that regime and that we look at a serious harmonization process with respect to the United States and Canada particularly. Even beyond that we need a harmonization process that would encompass the globe because at the current time we trade globally. It is important that we have the ability to import and export products that would deal with the same types of pesticides.

Agriculture now accounts for 91% of the total use of pesticide sales in Canada. It is important that the legislation recognize a need for good logical pesticide regulations and we must have the stakeholders of agriculture involved in the legislation.

It used to be that young children would chase fog wagons. It used to be that farmers and producers perhaps did not have the same kind of care and caution when dealing with pesticides. That has changed quite dramatically.

Producers now know that pesticides and herbicides, chemicals of any sort, are very expensive. Therefore it is best to reduce the use of pesticides, not increase the use. It is better to use a better, more environmentally friendly product than one that is not environmentally friendly like we have seen in the past. Those pesticides have been taken off the market.

Producers want the ability to be able to have more choice in those chemicals and would like to be able to have a better opportunity to have some minor use registration. As producers farmers in Canada account for only 3% of the world total pesticide use. The United States accounts for 33% of the world pesticide use and 25% of the pesticide use is accounted for in western Europe. Canada is a very small player, but a player nonetheless, that must have good legislation.

The Progressive Conservative caucus will support the legislation going forward. We will vote to make sure it gets into committee because it should have been there at least 10 years ago and it is about time that it got to the committee level. The government was changing 10 years ago. If it could not put this legislation before us in 10 years then obviously there are more deficiencies than just this legislation. There are deficiencies in the government itself.

We support this going back to committee and hope, beyond hope, that the committee and the department will listen to valuable amendments that will be proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party.

[Agriculture, April 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. farm bill promises to bring undue hardship on Canadian farmers. The bill will increase government payments to American farmers and potentially introduce pulse crops to the American subsidy umbrella.

I have brought these concerns to the attention to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Up until this point, he has done little to reassure working Canadian farmers that he is doing anything on their behalf.

In light of this, members will be surprised to learn that the U.S. secretary of agriculture, Ann Veneman, recently travelled to Mexico to meet with her counterpart, the Mexican secretary for agriculture. For two days they discussed co-operation with regard to agriculture policies between their two countries. I guess Canada was not invited. I guess Canada has lost all of its influence.

Despite this, the minister of agriculture today is in Washington, D.C., but who is he meeting with? He is meeting with the American farm bureau, he is meeting with the NFU but he has no meeting with the minister. What an insult to Canada. What an insult to our policy.

[Criminal Code, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-304 which unfortunately is a non-votable item. I always like to open my comments in private members' business by suggesting that the item should be votable regardless of whether I and my party agree or disagree with it. I strongly believe that all private members' business is important enough that it should be votable so we can stand up for our convictions as the member who put forward the bill has done.

This is a very controversial subject. It involves very complex, contradictory interests, values and issues. It is an issue that is at the heart of a lot of our own feelings about what is happening in Canada.

The bill attempts to deal with the most visible evidence of prostitution, that being street solicitation. It has become an acute problem in larger Canadian urban centres where prostitutes have transformed certain areas into unpleasant congested districts. Some argue that it also leads to other problems such as drug addiction and violent crime.

Residents and businesses have voiced concern over the noise and traffic. Children in residential areas where this occurs may be exposed not only to the sex and drug trades, but also to the litter left from the sex and drug trades.

A 1999 study by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reported a sharp increase in the number of prostitution related incidents following two years of decline. However the increase could reflect changes in enforcement rather than in the volume of criminal activity. Most recent statistics show that there were 5,036 offences dealing specifically with prostitution in the year 2000.

The street is a dangerous place for people working in this trade. There is a relationship between violence against prostitutes, including assaults and homicides and the venue in which it occurs. Nearly all assaults and murders occur while the prostitute is working on the street.

When considering how to deal with legislation regarding prostitution under section 213, we should be cognizant of the fact that the potential for increased violence against prostitutes exists. Unfortunately, the bill does not do that.

The bill would amend section 213 of the criminal code so offences would now become either indictable or summary in nature. Presently, offences found under section 213 are summary, allowing for a maximum of six months of imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $2,000. The amendment would give the sentencing judge the option of summary or indictable charges, essentially increasing the maximum from two years less a day up to 10 years.

We would be inclined to support a shift in sentencing if it pertained to those living off the avails of prostitution or those who engage in recruitment for prostitution.

Under section 212 of the criminal code, everyone who procures, attempts to procure or solicit a person to have illicit sex with another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. This section deals specifically with those who wish to live off the avails of prostitution and would seem to have a greater beneficial societal effect in terms of sentencing.

Rather than increasing the sentence from summary to indictable for those charged under section 213, charges under section 212 would potentially address the greater issue, that of those profiting from prostitution. An increase along the lines of those found in section 212(2), which increases the term of the offence from the maximum of 10 years to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years for anyone who lives wholly or in part off the avails of prostitution of another person who is under the age of 18 years, could potentially serve as the model.

This amendment to section 213 would distort the system to deal with what some consider as much a societal problem as it is a legal problem. Those involved in the sex trade are often victimized disproportionately when compared to others. This is especially true in terms of youth involved in the practice. They are more at risk of being robbed, beaten and sexually assaulted at the hands of pimps or customers.

This is not the right approach. In fact, it takes a rather simplistic approach. Making the offence indictable does nothing to stop the problem or address the greater issue for those living off the avails of prostitution.

Section 213(1) is out to confine and keep prostitution out of the public view. It does this by making it an offence for anyone who tries to engage in prostitution or for those wishing to obtain the sexual services of a prostitute by making it an offence to: stop or attempt to stop any motor vehicle; impede the free flow of pedestrian vehicular traffic or going into or out of premises adjacent to that place; stop or attempt to stop any person or in any manner communicate or attempt to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.

If there is to be a lasting beneficial effect, we need to address the heart of the problem. We need to engage in preventive measures such as early intervention, educational awareness strategies, development of education tools and resources, and earlier identification of those at risk. These comments were made by the presenter and speakers from the Alliance. I could not agree more that we have to address those particular issues, the societal problems.

By making it an indictable offence, the opinion was given that it would simply be an option available to the courts, that it could be a summary or an indictable offence. Making it an indictable offence and taking people off the streets and putting them in jail for up to 10 years does not solve the problem.

I congratulate the member for bringing the matter to the attention of the House and to the attention of a society that already knows there is an issue with respect to prostitution, particularly child prostitution as we have seen in the major centres. However, this legislation, even if it were votable, even if it did go forward and even if it were put into effect would not resolve the problems and issues we face now as a society with prostitution and particularly those under the age of 18.

Had the bill been votable, the PC/DR coalition would not have supported this legislation, not because we do not think it is a major issue. We simply feel it is not the right way to change a very serious problem.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my comments, but I think it is the responsibility of my party in particular, the Progressive Conservative Party now in co-operation with the DRC, to stand and speak about free trade. We are and have been the free traders of the House and were instrumental in the negotiations of the free trade agreement, the NAFTA, put into place by the previous government. At the time it was suggested that it would not be supported by this government. Once elected, even the Liberals in their exuberance recognized that the only way in which this country would grow and expand would be to expand our markets and base those markets on rules based trade. In saying that, we are supportive of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO family.

I have a lot of respect for the previous speaker from the NDP party, the member for Palliser. Although we do agree on some issues, we will agree to disagree on these issues with respect to the accession of China into WTO, free trade and how it is dealt with nationally and globally. One cannot put one's head in the sand. One must look at the possibility of bringing China into the free trade age and certainly into the global family.

My hon. colleague suggests that China has some difficulties and I would agree with him. In the past it has been seen as having some human rights issues, workplace safety issues and certainly some issues with respect to organized labour. However, one does not turn one's back on China and simply hope that the problems go away. What one does is incorporate China into globalized trade, which we know and realize so well is necessary for countries to be involved in if they are to expand their own economies.

China is a marketplace that is absolutely phenomenal, well in excess of 1.1 billion people who have a huge demand for goods and services being produced throughout the world. Equally, the world has a huge demand for the goods and services that can be produced within the People's Republic of China. It is important for China to have the opportunity to develop that economy.

Recently I had the opportunity of meeting with some of the political lawmakers of China at the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum. I can assure the member for Palliser that these individuals are very excited about joining the ranks of the WTO. They are very excited about becoming better as a nation. They are very excited about being able to expand their now narrow focus into a global focus. This makes me very proud that Canada was a partner to China's accession to the WTO.

I believe very strongly that given the proper guidance, the proper opportunities and the proper abilities, the People's Republic of China too will become a very good partner in this world of global trade.

Regardless of what the hon. member from the NDP says, we recognize there are those issues. We recognize that allowing China to come into global trade will hopefully help with those problems. The Progressive Conservative/DRC Party will be supporting Bill C-50. We welcome China and thank its people for the opportunity to open up their wonderful market to Canadian goods and services.

[Agriculture, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. farm bill could have devastating effects on Canadian agriculture.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was going to take our serious concerns to the lawmakers in the United States. Last month he was going to meet with the secretary of agriculture, Ann Veneman. It did not happen. On March 4 he was going to meet with American congressmen. It did not happen. As a matter of fact, nobody seems to want to meet with the minister.

Unfortunately, the president of the United States wants to have the bill passed by Easter. How is the minister going to explain to Canadian farmers that he dropped the ball?