Rick Borotsik

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 15th, 2002]

Arthur Andersen and the Canadian government.

[Agriculture, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture and his deputy have recently mused that perhaps part of the agricultural problem in Canada is that there are too many farmers. The policy of the minister has been successful. In his last six years we have seen an on farm employment loss of 26%. His poor planning and his ill-suited programs have led to this decline.

Is it the policy of the minister to continue to reduce the number of Canadian farmers until the problem just simply goes away?

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to put forward my position and that of the PC/DR coalition with respect to Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation more commonly referred to as SARA.

First I would like to congratulate the PC/DR coalition member for Fundy--Royal, who has put a lot of effort into this legislation. He has walked it through the committee stages and the House. I can assure the House that he is very disappointed with the way the Liberal government has seen fit to bring forward this piece of legislation, and now we are speaking to amendments which I am told had the support of committee members, inclusive of government members as well as opposition members. They were good amendments to the first piece of legislation that the government has brought forward not in three years but in three terms, and now unfortunately it is a piece of legislation that is supported by no one.

It is supported by none of the stakeholders and none of the producers, ranchers and farmers whom it will impact. It is supported by none of the provinces and now comes forward as basically an empty shell of itself, as legislation that will cause nothing but irreparable damage in areas that have been depending on this legislation. The people I represent, the producers, farmers and ranchers out there, are very supportive of endangered species or species at risk legislation. They are and have been the stewards of the land, the stewards of the habitat of the animals and birds and flowers that it is necessary to protect, the endangered species.

All these people want is to be treated fairly. They are the ones who on behalf of society have made sure that the habitat is available for the animals so that society can take advantage of that. However, there are a few areas of the legislation that will impact these people and the obvious one is the area of compensation. I do not think that anybody should expect a farmer, producer, rancher or owner of land to be forced to do something on behalf of society without ever having the opportunity of compensation.

There was an amendment that went forward. That amendment talked about fair and reasonable compensation on a case by case basis, fair and reasonable compensation when something impacts a particular piece of property or piece of land. We must not forget that this is about people's livelihoods. These farmers, producers and ranchers depend on the land to feed their families and certainly to pay the necessary bills in their communities.

There should well be a fair and reasonable compensatory package. In fact, our member for Fundy--Royal put together a white paper, a discussion paper with respect to that, and he called it “Carrots Instead of Sticks”, the carrot being the compensatory package as opposed to the stick of government that will whack everybody over the nose.

The fact that the “fair and reasonable” has been yanked by the minister is absolutely and totally objectionable. There is no way that the minister should have changed that instead of having the committee bring forward that amendment. We know that everyone benefits from the protection of our habitat, yet we cannot demand that farmers and agriculturalists pay the costs.

There is also an issue with respect to the amendment on scientific listings. Scientific listings should be based on the science of the endangered species, not on political requirements, as has been identified by the Minister of the Environment on the Liberal side. The Liberals have now allowed the politicians and the politics to be involved in those listings as opposed to having just simply scientific listings. That is objectionable. This is headed in absolutely the wrong direction.

I find it really interesting that we have a government that is prepared to tell others what to do and how to do it. It not only tells people what to do and how to do it but insists that they do it. However, in its own jurisdiction, the federal jurisdiction, the government has not made this mandatory in the legislation. Does that not say to hon. members that there is a big brother attitude in the federal government?

Every provincial government had letters of support for the hon. member for Fundy--Royal when they put forward the amendment with respect to provincial criteria regarding when the federal government would insist the provinces get involved in specific areas. When the amendment was put forward the government removed it even though Alberta, Ontario, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick supported it. It was pulled. It was yanked by a government that is not prepared to put its own signature and apply its own criteria to its own lands. Yet it insists on having it done by provinces, municipalities, producers, farmers and ranchers.

It is totally abhorrent. It should not have happened. It is not what one would consider co-operative federalism. It is not working with provinces, stakeholders or the people affected. It smacks of the big brother attitude of the Liberal government.

The other issue is legality. It is about turning producers into criminals. This category of amendments deals with the criminality of not dealing with species at risk. Producers, farmers, ranchers or people who have habitats on their land may not know what all the endangered species are. A lot of these people live in my area. In my riding there are bluffs, woodlots, wetlands and wild lands which contain habitats for endangered species. Some producers may unknowingly and unwittingly have an impact on habitats because it is their job. It is their livelihood. It is their land.

Under Bill C-5 that would be criminal. These people do not know they are affecting habitats. They have not been told. They have not been made aware. However our good friends from the government can come forward and say it is a criminal act. A criminal act under Bill C-5 could mean jail or a huge fine. It could destroy lives.

Members might say pshaw, that would never happen. They might say our government does not do things like that to Canadians. However there is not a lot of trust out there among Canadian citizens for governments and bureaucrats.

In western Canada the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has taken its job extremely seriously to the point where if the book is black and white it will go to the black and white. It does not matter how it impacts municipalities, property rights or people's lives. DFO personnel are there now. There have been instances in my own riding where they have decided they must make their signatures come whatever or high water. It has had a great impact on a lot of my producers.

Let us not say it will never happen. It can and it will. The government and its bureaucrats are prepared to do anything to make those signatures.

There are a lot of areas in the amendments that should be supported. We in my party will not be supporting the legislation as brought forward. We find it objectionable that the amendments that were approved in committee and supported by members of the government were not allowed to come forward and make Bill C-5 the right piece of legislation.

[Curling, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too congratulate both the men's and women's Olympic hockey teams whose skills and determination earned them gold medals as well as the adulation of all Canadians. These teams, along with all Canadian Olympians, showed their Olympic spirit during the games and have done more to bring Canadians together than anything we could do in the House.

Now it is time to focus on another one of Canada's premier sporting events. In Brandon, Manitoba today the Canadian women's curling championship, the Scott Tournament of Hearts, takes place. The Tournament of Hearts will attract teams from every province and territory and showcase the finest curlers in Canada. Brandon, the curling capital of Canada, will host over 80,000 spectators and 70 athletes competing to be the best in women's curling.

I thank Lois Fowler, the chair of the Brandon host committee, and the 605 volunteers who have done a tremendous job in working long hours to put the event together. These volunteers have brought credit to their community and their province.

On behalf of Manitobans I thank them and the Scott Tournament of Hearts.

[Agriculture, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knows that unfair American farm subsidies have been devastating to Canadian farmers. There is a new U.S. farm bill right now that is sitting in the senate. That new bill has more money for American subsidies and expands the list of crops it will subsidize.

Yesterday when I asked the minister if he knew about this farm bill he said that it was very complicated and he really did not understand it. When will he get to understand it and when will he do something about it?

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the NDP member. He recognized in his dissertation that the issue is really the national sex offender registry. I appreciate that it has been muddied a bit with respect to the process of private members' business.

I believe very strongly that all private members' business should be votable. Perhaps the member for Winnipeg--Transcona does not believe that. Could he not see it within himself to support the motion before us focusing specifically on the greater good of the national sex offender registry as opposed to having the waters muddied with respect to private members' business?

I believe, as does almost every member in the House, that the issue is of paramount importance. We should be putting the government on record that a registry is something that is for the better good of all Canadian citizens. Can he not see it within his own ability to support the motion as opposed to simply trying to muddy the waters with private members' business?

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

They should all be votable, should they not?

[Heritage, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, due to budget constraints one of Canada's most cherished historical sites is soon to be lost. The Diefenbaker homestead has been a symbol of frontier Canadian life and was the pride of Prime Minister Diefenbaker throughout his life. At the age of 11 John Diefenbaker helped his father build the house which is now preserved in Regina.

This national historic site has seen tens of thousands of visitors since it opened to the public nearly 35 years ago. Throughout this time the residence has remained the most dynamic symbol of Mr. Diefenbaker's legacy and the home has served as a hallmark of Canadian heritage. The Wascana Centre Authority, the agency responsible for the home, has stated that due to lack of funds it is unable to maintain the home as a tourist attraction.

Mr. Diefenbaker captured the imagination and admiration of all Canadians and it would be a shame to lose such an important reminder of one of Canada's most celebrated prime ministers.

Where is the minister of heritage? Where is Heritage Canada when we need it most? It was able to give $1.75 million to Just for Laughs and Jean Carle. Why can it not give a few thousand dollars to save this historic landmark?

[Privilege, February 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from South Shore for putting forward such a succinct position with respect to the Minister of National Defence.

I had an opportunity over the past weekend to talk with a lot of people about this particular issue, people who had no political agendas and who simply wanted to know what was going on with respect to our soldiers in Afghanistan. Their comments were quite open. They asked why it was so important that the Minister of National Defence tell the Prime Minister when, and what happened, and what kind of prisoners were taken.

It is important that Canadians know that this is not specifically about the Prime Minister knowing or not knowing. It is about a defence minister who has the responsibility to put forward rules of engagement for our soldiers who are on the ground. Some of those soldiers come from my community. I have a Canadian forces base in my community and some of those people are currently in Afghanistan.

It is the defence minister's responsibility to make sure that when those soldiers are put into a theatre of war, not peacekeeping, that we know how those soldiers will be treated should they ever, heaven forbid, be captured by Taliban forces. Does my colleague from Shore Shore believe that soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan have been put in jeopardy because of the lack of direction from the Minister of National Defence?

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

I do not know the fishing industry as well as I do the agricultural industry but my colleague can deal with that. He knows it inside out and backwards, but the fact of the matter is the same. If we had proper resource management, which the government has not shown, we could add people to the fishery, not take them away.

That is what the economy is all about but the budget does not speak to that. It speaks to absolutely none of this. All it does is speak to a leadership requirement from the Minister of Finance.

In contrast to the do not worry, be happy scenario put forward by the Liberals regarding the unemployment rate being only seven something, in the last little while we have lost 40,000 jobs from Nortel. JDS Uniphase has cut 7,000 jobs and Ford has cut 35,000 jobs worldwide, a lot of them here in Canada. Every day we read in the newspapers of new job losses. Those are not being reflected in the budget or in the government's vision for the country. That is a waste of Canadian talent and I am sorry for that.