Rick Borotsik

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if we were bereft of ideas we would have to sit on the government side. Obviously we do not, so we are not bereft of ideas.

Did the member not hear the words capital tax reduction? It is pretty simple. Did the member not hear the words reduce frivolous spending? He should have. Let us get the departments together and if there has been exceptional or frivolous spending in certain departments let us reduce that spending and put it into priority items.

Did the member not hear that we must make sure we are proactive in the trade we have between Canada and the United States? Does he need to sit back and say we should close the borders to our major trading partner? Is he suggesting that? We should make sure our borders are open to trade. If we do not our fiscal position will become even worse than it is now.

Did he not hear us say we should demonstrate confidence? Let the Prime Minister stand and give Canadians the consumer confidence that is lacking right now. He should show confidence. That is leadership. We have not seen any of that.

Where is the Prime Minister during this debate? He should be leading by example but that has not happened. The president of the United States has done that. Why has the Prime Minister of Canada not done the same?

Does the parliamentary secretary want more ideas? I would love to have a cup of coffee with him. We could certainly run the Department of Finance a lot better than it is being operated now.

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly and will use only the remaining time. I have no difficulty with that for the simple reason that my colleague from Kings--Hants, the finance critic for our party, is very knowledgeable and understanding of the issues which face Canadians right now and which face the government as it tries to create the confidence in the Canadian economy that is required in these days of uncertainty.

I will reduce my time to simply say that my colleague did an extremely good job. He had some good ideas that he put forward to the House and to the government. As was indicated, if people do not wish to agree with or listen to those ideas it is certainly not my colleague's fault. No one can say he did not try to instill a change of direction into the rather lethargic economic pace of the government we have today.

I thank the parliamentary secretary for being here. I have had the opportunity to talk to the member for Markham on a number of occasions although not necessarily about the economic situation that faces us. Every chance I get I ask the member for Markham what the economy is like. He simply sloughs it off as his government and the Minister of Finance have done in the past.

However the member for Markham, the parliamentary secretary, has some good ideas. He was a chief economist for a very large corporation in Canada and he has implemented processes in the past that have stimulated his industry. However he acted in a proactive fashion. What we are seeing from the government is more of a reactive policy with respect to finance and economies.

I will give an example. We have asked the Minister of Finance over and over again in the last 12 months what the government sees happening in our economy and why there is a lack of confidence in Canadian society today. Unfortunately it is because the Minister of Finance in all his wonderful rhetoric rails upon what happened 8 or 10 years ago but does not put forward to Canadians what it is that he should be dealing with today to stimulate the economy.

If I have heard it once I have heard a dozen times about what happened in 1993 when the government took over with respect to the unemployment rate, deficits and interest rates. That is not what Canadians want to hear. When we ask the Minister of Finance what he is prepared to do to stimulate the economy he has no ideas. Let us not blame the member for Kings--Hants for not putting forward ideas. The Minister of Finance who should have the ideas has not demonstrated those ideas. That is deplorable.

I would rather hear some of the ideas of the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps he has some fresh ideas as to where the Minister of Finance should be going.

The first question we asked in the House was why there had not been a budget for some 600 days. A simple question should have a fairly simple answer. Why was the Minister of Finance so terribly embarrassed to bring forward a full budget in the last 600 days? He should tell Canadians why.

Why would the Minister of Finance not tell Canadians what the revenues were in the last fiscal year? Why would he not tell Canadians what the expenditures were in the last fiscal year? Why would he not tell Canadians what the surplus would be? The surplus figures have been fudged since the minister became the Minister of Finance.

Why could the Minister of Finance not do this? Was it because the PMO was not allowing him to do his job properly? Was it because other leadership contenders in the government benches would not allow him to put forward proposals he thought would be necessary to get us out of the doldrums? He cannot stick his head in the sand any longer.

Day after day economists tell us we are not only in a recession but a deep recession. Day after day economists tell us the falling Canadian dollar is putting us in a worse position to compete with our major trading partners. The Minister of Finance must come forward. He has been forced to do so. He says the events of September 11 have exacerbated the situation and forced him to come forward.

Let us not think that Canadians do not recognize that the situation existed long before September 11. The Minister of Finance cannot use that as his excuse. The government cannot use it as an excuse for not putting in place other policies, tax cuts and positions that were necessary prior to September 11. We want answers. We want suggestions. We suggest that the capital tax could and should have been cut.

This morning on television when I awoke I heard the president of the United States say that congress had better have a stimulus package on his desk by the end of November. That was leadership. That was the president of a country who said he knows what is happening and knows how to fix it.

Never once has the Prime Minister stood and said we must put in place a stimulus package to get things going. Do members know what he said? He said it does not matter if our dollar is 62.96 cents because it is better for exports. That is sticking one's head in the sand. That is letting the standard of living we have developed in Canada go continually down.

The parliamentary secretary knows we need a stimulus package. He knows we need tax breaks. Capital tax is a start. He knows we must make sure we are retroactive in dealing with trade with the United States. Some 80% of our economy comes from trade with the United States. The United States is showing protectionism with softwood lumber right now. It has attacked agriculture in the past. There will be a ruling in the WTO today regarding the American attack on the Canadian Wheat Board.

If we do not have open access to our major trading partner our economy will suffer dramatically. Where are the proactive positions of the government to stop that from happening?

I am nervous. I am concerned. Canadians are concerned. The member asked what we would do to promote consumer confidence. What has happened in the past up to this point on those benches has done nothing to instill confidence into Canadians. That is the job of those members. They are the government. They should come up with the ideas, put the packages in place and let Canadians get on with their economic livelihoods. That is not happening at this time.

[Constitution of Canada, October 30th, 2001]

The best kept secret.

[Question No. 70, October 25th, 2001]

What measures has the government taken to ensure that cross-border trade of agriculture products with the United States is not being disrupted following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks?

[Question No. 68, October 25th, 2001]

With regard to the communications branch of the Department of Agriculture: ( a ) what is its total budget for the 2000-2001 fiscal year; and ( b ) what did the April 6, 2001, EKOS Inc. research contract cost?

[Health, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has to defend the Minister of Health. It is the same Prime Minister who will not allow the Minister of Health membership into the most powerful committee overseeing public security and anti-terrorism.

The Minister of Health has a reputation of faulty judgment: the Airbus fiasco, the gun registry, Pearson airport, and now Cipro. Is that why the Prime Minister will not allow the Minister of Health to sit on the most powerful and influential committee?

[Strychnine Solutions, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak to the issue of Richardson's ground squirrels, commonly referred to as gophers in the farming communities of Brandon and Souris in southwestern Manitoba

I spoke to this issue shortly after it was put on the floor as Motion No. 13 under private members' business. At that time I suggested and received agreement from most members on this side of the House that all private members' business should be votable. Had Motion No. 13 been made votable it would probably not have precipitated the issue returning to the House in this form.

I congratulate the member for Lakeland for bringing it forward under Standing Order 97 as a motion for the production of papers. It is an issue that he obviously sees as being very important, not only in his constituency but particularly in Canadian agriculture. It is a way to bring forward the issue again to hold the government accountable and to have a vote on a particular motion for the production of papers.

As the member has indicated the government has demonstrated that there are no studies and papers to be tabled and therefore the member should withdraw his motion.

I find it interesting that a decision of this magnitude could be made when hundreds of scientists involved in these types of decisions with the federal government have not put forward any justification for making this change. I have the order that was put into place on December 22, 1992. There are some backgrounders that indicate why the change was necessary. It went from a 5% strychnine solution down to a 0.4% solution, which has been proven to be terribly ineffective if not useless.

We have the order, but I am sure there had to be in some way, shape or form a justification of why this order was put forward. That is all the member is asking for. He is asking the government under production of papers to give us the studies that were put forward and used as background information to make this final decision.

It is not that difficult as was mentioned by the member from the Bloc. It seems we have grave difficulty in trying to get information out of the government on this side of the House. I do not understand why the government is afraid to give this information out.

This is a very simple matter. It is not that difficult. Let us see the backgrounder and the reasons justifying why that decision was made. Let us vote for the motion for the production of papers and let us see the studies. If in fact the studies support the final decision, the member would be the first to stand in his place and accept that. However, how can we accept that when we do not have any understanding of the decision making process of government scientists?

Access to information is a tool that we use. I use the analogy between access to information and the motion for the production of papers before us. We depend on access to information to generate information from the government. When we get information it is censored to the point where it is useless. A government must be open and transparent to generate the confidence of the people which it governs. I find that the accountability and transparency of the government are becoming eroded day after day.

I have a suggestion for the government. This is not a matter of politics but a matter of understanding why decisions are made. The government should be more forthcoming with information, and this is a prime example. Everybody should stand in their places when the vote is called and make sure this motion for the production of papers is voted on favourably, so the government will come forward with the necessary documents.

I thank the member for bringing the motion forward. The issue is serious and I do not want anybody to think that it is frivolous by any stretch of the imagination.

Coming from western Canada, I do not think anybody can understand the real issue with respect to a gopher population that is out of control. It seems to propagate the Richardson's ground squirrel or gopher population in areas where we have had drought this year. Farmers are looking for an alternative method to control this terrible rodent infestation.

One of those methods is and always has been a 5% strychnine solution. Unfortunately that is not available to farmers right now. Until we come up with something more environmentally friendly and more effective in controlling the pest itself, we have to look at other alternatives. That is why the member has been very vocal in his support of this issue. I thank the member once again for bringing it forward.

[The Economy, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, private sector economists are already saying that Canada is in a recession, perhaps a deep recession.

Every day we hear of more layoffs and every day we hear of earnings reports that show massive losses in our corporations.

Could the finance minister, who says he has his finger on the pulse of Canadian finances, tell us how much the revenues have dropped? Could he also tell us when he runs a deficit who he will blame?

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will open my remarks by saying I am disappointed that I have to stand in the House today to speak to this piece of legislation.

We know, and it is a well worn phrase unfortunately, that since September 11 our lives have changed, our country has changed and our freedoms since then have changed as well. It is a reality, unfortunately, that we have to look at ways of being able to protect ourselves, ways of being able to put forward laws and legislation that would prevent these types of things from happening in this great country of ours.

Prior to September 11, I think we took for granted the rights and freedoms that we had in this great country. We took for granted our ability to travel not only throughout the country but throughout the world. As of September 11 that has changed. We had a splash of cold water thrown on us, one that we have to deal with.

However I would also with some caution suggest that there is a balance in how we as Canadians react to the circumstances of today. We should react to it, absolutely, as we have, and I will talk to Bill C-36, but we also should be cognizant of the fact that we cannot overreact. There is still a life that we have to live, that my constituents have to live, that my family and members' families have to live and we should make sure that we continue to be able to practise those freedoms that we have. There is a fine balance, not only in our own lifestyle but also in the legislation before us now.

The events of September 11 dealt with and have made us focus on quite a number of areas that perhaps we did not focus on. Earlier I mentioned security, not only that of our own families but of our nation. We have heard about immigration issues in the House many times and we do know that there is immigration legislation coming forward. We know that now the focus has also been put on food security, something that we have taken for granted in our country in the past. Now we look at food security as a very major issue. It is something that we have to look at not only as parliamentarians but certainly in our own lives.

Trade has been impacted substantially. We recognize now in the global world we have, and I know in my field of some expertise with respect to agriculture, that without having open, globalized trade, our producers would not be able to produce what they do at the present time. They would not be as successful as they are. That trade has been impacted because now we have some issues with respect to open trade and open borders.

We have talked about customs services in the House. It has been impacted, with the focus placed on border crossings that I have in my constituency, that others have in their constituencies which have been closed or if not closed certainly impacted to the point where the access to those borders has been lessened.

I do not have to mention air travel in the House. The majority of members here travel from their constituencies to Ottawa on a fairly regular basis and I know that they have recognized and certainly have identified certain issues with respect to travel, whether it be by air or even by other modes of transportation that have been impacted by what happened on September 11.

To say the least, there is the impact on the economy. Every day now since September 11 when we turn on a television set or look at any of the markets around the globe we recognize that there have been impacts on the economy, on businesses and on the employees of those businesses.

The point is that there are a lot of issues that have now come into a very clear focus because of what happened, but as I said earlier we must put it all in balance. Part of that balance is the legislation we have before us today, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation that has been brought forward.

First, I congratulate the government in bringing forward the legislation. I think that Canadians must recognize that there was a substantial amount of effort put forward by the government and the staff of the department in order to bring the legislation to the House today in the form in which it has been presented.

This does not just happen. Literally hundreds of people and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of man hours go into the presentation of this type of legislation. It was done on a fairly limited timeline. Perhaps we should have had a more extended term but we did not have that luxury. It had to be done and brought forward on a fairly concise timeline. Because of that there are certain areas we must look at fairly carefully before we send this piece of legislation through the House and Senate and make it law.

Let us talk about Bill C-36. It is 175 pages. I am not a lawyer, thankfully. However there are a number of lawyers in the House and elsewhere who will help us wade through the legislation. It is 175 pages and it affects 28 acts. I have never seen such an omnibus bill. In my experience, which has not been terribly extensive, I have not seen a bill of this nature come before the House. We must tread carefully and softly with it.

My colleague in the opposition coalition, the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, is an accomplished individual. He is a lawyer and he is responsible for making our coalition cognizant of the issues in the legislation. I have a lot of faith in and respect for the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. I will be taking his lead as to where we in the opposition coalition should be heading with the legislation.

Canadians and parliamentarians know that after the debate and second reading the bill will go to committee. There will be an opportunity for members of parliament and all individuals in the country to come before the committee as witnesses to put their views forward. This will be absolutely mandatory. The legislation would impact on our rights and freedoms. That must be brought out. We must know what we are dealing with in the legislation.

A pre-study is going on in the Senate which will look at all the nuances of all the clauses in the bill's 175 pages. It will look at how Bill C-36 would interact with the 28 other acts being affected and how that may or may not impact Canadians.

I talked about the need for balance. Let us not overreact to the point where we cannot live our lives the way we did prior to September 11. We not only need balance in our lives, we need balance in the legislation. As Canadian citizens we must make sure we are protected but we must also make sure our rights are protected.

I suspect there will be charter challenges. The Minister of Justice has already indicated that she believes the legislation will be able to withstand any charter challenges. That is yet to come and we will wait to see.

There are still questions which will need to be raised by my colleague and others. One of them is what the definition of a terrorist is. There is no real definition of terrorism in the legislation. There are clauses that indicate what cannot happen with respect to the terrorism component. It is important that we look at those.

Under Bill C-36 the Minister of Justice would be given absolute power with respect to the Access to Information Act. I have concerns about this because I use the Access to Information Act. Some ministers are unfortunately not terribly forthcoming with information. The Minister of Justice would have absolute power. There would be no opportunity for anyone else to adjudicate. Canadians run a severe risk by putting such power into the hands of one minister. This in itself would be difficult for the House to do.

I agree with the bill's preventive arrest measures. Perhaps I do not understand them as well but I know there are safeguards. We must make sure those safeguards are in place and that ability to extend detention from 24 to 48 hours has safeguards with respect to judicial access. That clause is important.

In closing, I thank the House for bringing forward this piece of legislation and ask all Canadians to please take a deep breath. We will get through this as we should. We Canadians offer all the people of the United States, particularly in New York City, our best wishes and sympathy for the events of September 11.

[Question No. 69, October 17th, 2001]

Has the government developed strategies to attract young people to farming and, if so, what are those strategies?