Rick Borotsik

[Income Tax Act, October 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. He does have a tendency to build enthusiasm into a debate. I appreciate a number of his comments as well as the comments of other members of the House during the debate.

I appreciate him chastising the government member for Northumberland who spoke in opposition to the legislation. I am afraid I will to have to continue on with that tact.

The member for Northumberland did not put a very convincing debate forward as to why he and the government should not support the legislation which is a small start and a small piece of a very large problem. The legislation put forward today would be one way to start the process and ultimately reduce emissions in the atmosphere.

I continually see the Liberal government spending an inordinate amount of energy coming up with reasons not to do something positive as opposed to coming up with reasons things should happen in a positive fashion. I will give some examples.

The first reason the government came up with is that this cannot happen because it is a tax rebate of sorts. It would be a tax write-off against the cost of public transportation. The member for Northumberland says that not all people who take public transit actually have taxable income and therefore it would not be an advantage for them.

Is that not wonderful? If that is the case, perhaps there should not be any taxable write-offs at all. I am sure some people would be affected where they do not have taxable income and therefore it would not be an advantage for them. However it would be quite an advantage to a number of other people who do have taxable incomes. We should look at the positive side of this as opposed to the negative.

I could not believe it when I heard the member suggest that because we now accountability a person has to collect receipts in order to get a taxable benefit write-off. He said that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, heaven forbid, would be flooded with the receipts that people would collect and be able to use as a tax write-off.

Why have any taxable write-offs if CCRA cannot put together a simple system to account for the tax deductibility of a bus ticket. Is that not wonderful? We have a tax collection system that cannot possibly handle this flood of receipts that would be put forward for a tax write-off.

If that is the reason the government does not want to accept the legislation, it should come back to the House with some better alternatives. It is so easy to say no. It is always easy to throw water on something that is very positive but it is not so easy to come forward with some positive suggestions.

Let us look at another one. In another life I actually had a lot of experience with respect to public transit. I sat on the board of directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I also sat on the transportation committee of the FCM. Every year we put forward to the federal government a suggestion that there should be a tax advantage if in fact people take public transit.

We have a chicken and an egg scenario here. Public transit is funded by the municipalities and the provinces. Since the federal government has no responsibility for public transit, why should it take any risk and lose income?

The municipalities for the most part fund public transportation. They put a lot of funding into it so they can take people off their infrastructure, get them out of their cars and into buses, LRTs and GO trains. The municipalities and the provinces fix the roads, not the federal government, which has abdicated its responsibility for that.

It is to the advantage of the municipalities to put money into public transit and get people out of their cars. All we are suggesting is that the federal government take the small risk of getting people out of their cars and into public transit.

By the way, when we take people out of their cars and put them on public transit we also serve a useful purpose, which is to protect the environment, a responsibility the federal government has once again abdicated to other levels of government.

I had the opportunity to live in the wonderful city of Toronto for a number of years. When I drove from my house to downtown Toronto where I worked, I could see in the skyline a terrible yellow haze. The haze came from pollution. We know now that in our major urban centres we have a serious problem with pollution. We know that on an annual basis Toronto has more and more days where there are smog alerts.

As the member for Winnipeg--Transcona has indicated, if members have not got the message already, support the legislation on behalf of the coalition. I would really like to see the government rethink its position because it is a good first small step. It should do something positive for once.

[Petitions, October 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Brandon--Souris. The petitioners are opposed to any United States national missile defence system that may well be put forward. They are calling upon the government to speak in opposition to the proposed missile defence system.

[Agriculture, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, according to the most recent Statistics Canada figures, the agriculture industry has lost 39,000 jobs this past year. That is 39,000 jobs. That is the largest single labour force reduction in all industries in the goods producing sector. Other industries have lost jobs as well.

The Minister of Industry, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Human Resources Development are paying lip service to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Why is the minister of agriculture so complacent when it comes to 39,000 jobs lost in the agriculture industry?

[Agriculture, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its president, Bob Freisen, for coming to Parliament Hill today to help raise awareness of the many serious issues affecting agriculture today.

Much of the recent media attention is focused on the unfortunate job losses in other industries but fails to mention that there has been a severe crisis in agriculture and in the agriculture industry over the past three years.

Many in the House probably do not realize that in the last year alone agriculture has lost 39,000 workers in the industry. Most may not realize that the grains and oilseeds sector could lose up to $2 billion this year because of the devastating drought conditions.

Even though the Liberal government might not recognize that something more can and should be done to help agriculture, Canadians do.

According to a June 4 Ekos poll commissioned by the federal government, 69% of Canadians believe that the government should do whatever it takes, even if it means paying more taxes to ensure the survival of the family farm.

It is clear the will of Canadians is there; now it is up to the political will of this government.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I certainly thank the minister of agriculture for being here this evening and putting forward his points on agriculture. I also thank the member for Selkirk--Interlake for allowing us to debate what I consider and what I have always considered to be a very important issue not only in my constituency in western Canada but throughout this great country. Certainly the agriculture industry is extremely important to each and every one of us.

I do not want the minister to take this the wrong way, as I do not believe it is his fault, but it seems that ever since he has held the position of agriculture minister everything with agriculture that could go wrong seems to have gone wrong. As I said, I am not suggesting there be a change but that is perhaps one way of trying to get agriculture back on the rails.

However there have been severe problems within agriculture. First there was the ice storm and then there was a commodity crisis. We have had crisis in the tank for the last six or seven years. In 1999 in my area we had a situation of excessive rain. We had the Red River Valley flood in 1997. This year we have a drought across the entire nation. I obviously cannot blame the minister for the weather, but it seems we have never had a circumstance where we could get back to where agriculture should have been which is back in 1995 when we had excellent commodity prices and agriculture was actually in fairly good financial condition.

I have been fighting this battle for only four years and there are two areas in which I have been fighting. The first is for a long term safety net program, something that farmers can depend on that has been put into place that would allow them to see some light at the end of the tunnel, perhaps a program similar to GRIP which was taken away from producers in 1995 and has not been replaced. It was replaced with an ad hoc program called AIDA which has similarly been replaced with an ad hoc program called CFIP.

The second thing for which we have always fought and have suggested should be in place in agriculture is a disaster program. We are talking about a disaster program that could deal with droughts, with extraordinary circumstances like ice storms and excessive moisture. Unfortunately we have not had the opportunity to bring that back into place. We have not had any direction from the government and certainly the minister himself to try to put into place the necessary programs that would assist agriculture.

We are aware of the problems that now face agriculture. We know right now that in the grains and oilseeds industry in particular it stands to lose somewhere around $2 billion of its gross sales this year. That is a huge amount of money considering that commodity prices right now are as low as they have ever been. They are going up slightly right now but that is probably because there is going to be less crop harvested.

The minister said that we should not to jump to conclusions because not all of it has been harvested. The majority of my area has been harvested and I can say that my area, probably better than any, has good average crops. I will probably get a lot of phone calls and letters on that one but we do have a good average.

However I am a little oasis in a sea of total drought. Right now in western Canada we are looking at the possibility of a 14% reduction in barley production, a 20% reduction in meat and a 28% reduction in canola, which again would translate to about a $2 billion loss.

The minister talks about the programs that are in place and always seems to say that they are sufficient, that we should look at the problem and make sure the programs in place now take effect. The crop insurance program that he spoke about will in fact probably put $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion back into the farm economy, but that is an insurance program that in most cases does not cover the cost of production.

It does not cover the cost of the inputs that have to go in to make that crop in the first place, sometimes 70% or 75% depending on the area that the producer is in, but perhaps only 70% or 75% of their costs will be recovered. That still leaves a loss. People cannot go through years and years of losses without ultimately having some serious financial implications.

The minister talked about NISA. Absolutely, what a wonderful program, put in place I might add by a previous government that understood agriculture, but a program nonetheless that is there to serve the farmers. The problem is that the producers have been taking out of the NISA program for so many years that there is not a lot left in the program. Some producers who had some took it out over the last two years and now do not have any more access to funds. The minister is right, it is a wonderful program, but it has been used in a lot of cases to its maximum.

The minister talks about AIDA but not often, nor should he because there are lot of problems with AIDA and we are still suffering a lot of problems with that program.

The program that is in place now, CFIP, is not sufficient to take us to the next step. The drought we are suffering this year will take all of the funds that are in CFIP and more. Last year we had more dollars for support to agriculture than we have this year but the problems this year are much more serious than they were last year.

The minister must recognize that there has to be other financial resources put into the budget for this crop year to enable the producers to put in a crop next year.

I want to talk briefly about how Canadians see agriculture. The minister has in his possession a report by Ekos polling that was done for the department that says quite specifically that Canadians want to assist agriculture. As a matter of fact the numbers I have are that 69% of Canadians polled said that they would support more money going into agriculture. Sixty per cent said that they would provide short term financing to farmers in difficulty with no conditions placed on it. Seventy-two per cent said that government should certainly try to do something to save the family farm. Canadians themselves want the government to put into place a program that will assist Canadians staying on the farm.

We have before us a lot of serious issues. I agree with the minister that there are priorities. My belief is that agriculture is the top priority. We have a battle that we have to fight to make sure that message is given to the cabinet.

We have an issue right now with Air Canada, which we will be debating next week, where in fact dollars will be going into the airline industry. That is fair ball, but dollars must go into the agriculture industry as well. As a matter of fact, 5,000 people have lost their jobs at Air Canada. I feel for those people because there will not be a lot of opportunity for them now or perhaps in the foreseeable future.

However, just last year in the agricultural industry, not just farming but those people who are actually dependent on agriculture, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 34,600 people were displaced. That is a huge number of people but we do not hear about them because they go quietly away. Whether they be farmers who sell their farms and walk away or individuals who were involved in the direct or indirect servicing to agriculture, they go away without making much noise. We have not had a huge hue and cry about the fact that we have lost 34,600 jobs in agriculture. This is huge.

We also have about $14 billion of our economy that goes into agriculture from Canada to the United States. That is in jeopardy right now because of what happened on September 11. We must make sure that the border crossings are kept open, that the agricultural product that we produce in Canada has an opportunity to access the market in the United States. That too is the minister's responsibility. Not only is it his responsibility to keep the farmers on the farm and to put into place the proper support systems that will allow agriculture to survive, but he also has to make sure that farmers can market their produce at a fair price.

I appreciate the fact that the minister is here. I know that when he goes to the cabinet table he will fight for the same, if not a better package for agriculture as others will to go to the cabinet table to fight for Air Canada. That is all I an hope.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will try not to use as much rhetoric as the hon. member for Mississauga West. He said that he wishes all members of the House could have pulled together when this incident happened on September 11. We would have loved to. In the United States the Republicans, the Democrats, the house, the senate, the administration did because they knew in which direction they were heading. We have no idea to this day in which direction we are heading. If the Prime Minister and the government would like to tell us, we would love to be able to pull together and support it. Put it on the table, let us have a vote on it and we will support it.

The member stood up and said he trusts the government. My question is, why would I trust the government? What has the government done to date to make us trust it on this issue? What has the Prime Minister put in the store that I should trust him and the government to do?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the member for Cumberland--Colchester for his initiative with respect to the peace forum. I know that there was a blending of the two issues: the diplomacy that we as members of parliament should be looking at and working toward in order to try to resolve some of the issues of our globe today and, however, I know the member also has some strong feelings with respect to the motion before us today.

I have a question for the hon. member. He quoted a motion that was put forward in September 1990 by the then government, the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. The right hon. member for Calgary Centre was instrumental in that. In fact it was a very transparent process. There was debate and there were briefings within the House and the member was a part of that.

Is it the member's opinion that the reason why that is not happening now is that the government of the day feels that it in fact has all of the answers and does not have to bring to the Chamber the debate and the necessity to ask for support from the opposition members for any types of actions that may go forward with respect to troops being put into the Middle East? Is it the philosophical mindset of the government that it does not need any other information from any members of the opposition?

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will not debate the abilities of our Canadian armed forces and its defence capabilities right now but I would certainly like to touch on the issue of the gulf war in 1990.

It has been proven that there was a debate in the House and that there was a vote in the House, as the Bloc member indicated. I would simply like to suggest to the minister that times have changed. Canadians, the citizens of this country, now have access through the Internet and through the media and they want to be involved.

If troops are to be sent to an offensive action, why is the minister afraid to put a motion on the floor of the House that would be voted on by every member of parliament and show support to the government that it needs to send our troops overseas? Why is he so afraid to do that?

[Gopher Control, September 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise today knowing full well that the private members' business item was brought forward before the events of last Tuesday. I echo the comments of the member for Lakeland that this does unfortunately seem somewhat insignificant in the big picture of things. However business must go on in the House, it does go on in the world and it goes on in the fields and the farms of western Canada. Therefore I will not be as sanctimonious as some members who suggested that it should have been pulled, because it should not have. It should be brought forward because it was a piece of business that was meant to come forward at that time and I will speak to the issue before us today, Motion No. M-13.

I talked to the member for Lakeland because the motion itself is not specifically to increase the concentration of liquid strychnine from a .4% concentration to a 2% or a 5% concentration. The motion suggests that there should be compensation given to producers who have suffered through a rather large proliferation of the rodent, the Richardson ground squirrel, particularly over the last year. The motion says that because of damage done to livestock and crops, farmers should be compensated. That has not been the tenet of this discussion. It seems that we are going on about the concentration or the use of concentrated liquid strychnine and I will speak to that.

First, I should suggest that I would not support the motion based on a compensatory package. I do not think that is where we should be heading. I do appreciate where the discussion has gone with having other alternatives and certainly perhaps even the reinstatement of the 2% solution so to speak.

Canadian producers and Canadian farmers are not pesticide crazy. They do not simply use pesticides on every animal that is in their jurisdiction. That is not the case.

As a matter of fact, Canadian producers are very cautious when it comes to pest control and certainly using pesticides. We are probably as good as any other jurisdiction in the world. When Canadian producers come forward and suggest that there have to be other solutions, they are doing so simply because they have run completely out of solutions and options and would like to see something put back into place.

It was mentioned earlier that since 1992 the 2% solution has been reduced to .4%. It has been proven and obviously the proof is in the pudding. If we went out to western Canadian farm yards, pastures and fields, we would see that the pest control program is not working. It has been a very dry year in western Canada and across the country and be assured that there are more pests right now than there have ever been. That is why we have to look at some sort of a control.

There are some options, but they are difficult ones. It is obvious to anyone who has ever trapped a gopher that he or she can get a few of them but it is very difficult to get a lot. We talked about gopher hunting. That in itself does not eradicate the problem, so we have to look at other options.

The best option right now is the suggestion that we go back to a special regulation for the PMRA. There was a special call for the use of the 2% solution and it was granted for this year. An extension of that would be the first step as to where we should be going.

I do not think most urban Canadians fully appreciate the concerns that producers have. It was mentioned earlier that gophers can consume quite a substantial amount of product. To a farmer and a producer, that is their livelihood. They put seeds in the ground and they harvest those seeds in the fall. The cash they generate out of the sale of that commodity is what keeps them and their families going. That is an animal that can reduce those yields.

It has been suggested that up to $1,000 per quarter section of crop could be consumed. A thousand dollars per quarter section seems to be the number. It has been suggested to me by the author of the motion that it is higher. It may well be. Unfortunately, I do not have those numbers. They have not been forthcoming. It would nice to have the actual numbers.

That is why when it was suggested that there be a compensation package, I would suggest that it is hard to compensate when you do not have a real handle on what the real number is. It can vary between jurisdictions.

Let us assume it is $1,000, perhaps higher, per quarter section. That is only the financial impact. There is a financial impact as well on cattle producers. I do not know how many people in the House have actually walked through a pasture before but I can say that when cattle do walk or run through a pasture there is a terrible opportunity for them to trip, to fall or to break a leg in a gopher hole. It happens on a regular basis. With the price of cattle today, that poses a substantial financial impact on the producer.

This is going to come as a real shock. Even in the urban sectors there is an impact when there are too many of these rodents in the schoolyards, the soccer fields, and the baseball diamonds. They have to be controlled in these environments as well. This affects the urbanites, who, heaven forbid, seem to be more important at this point in time than a lot of the agricultural producers.

There are other options. There are some interesting innovations out there. I am not going to blame the government specifically, but I do think it is terribly regulatory in its demeanour. The government likes to regulate. Heaven forbid that someone should have the opportunity to put something in place themselves without having to be told to by the government. The government has decided that this should not be done for producers and unless it can tell the producers what to do, then it is obviously not good for them. That is a government ideological philosophy which unfortunately I do not think is going to change. I wish it would in this case, but unfortunately that is the way the government operates.

Other options are being developed. One which I mention tongue in cheek is a thing called the gophinator. It puts anhydrous ammonia in the gopher hole in the ground. It has not been approved yet. I do know whether some of my producers have used it, but they have some concerns about it as well. I do not know if the member for Lakeland has heard about it, but it is a rather interesting innovation. Producers and businesses should be looking at other ways when trying to control the gopher population.

I wish this were a votable motion and that we could go back to a simple solution with a 2% concentration. It seems that solution would suffice for the time being but that is not going to be the case because the government is not going to allow the motion to be votable.

I hope that we do not get involved in a compensation package and it seems that we have gone off of that. I believe that the motion as it reads now will not be supported by my party. Certainly I think we could, if it were changed to incorporate the concentrated strychnine.

In closing, I would just like to say that it seems to be an insignificant issue.

As I said in my opening comments, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to stand in the House since we returned, and since the events of Tuesday past. On behalf of my constituents in Brandon--Souris, I would like to pass on our condolences to the victims, the families, the firefighters, the rescue workers, and all of the people not only in the United States but in the free world who have been affected so severely by the events of last Tuesday. Please accept those comments from the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. In fact I have with me a copy of the list of criteria that were originally used. There were 11 criteria, by the way, and they were very detailed. I was listening to every word the hon. member said. That comes from a committee meeting, Madam Speaker, and it is kind of an inside issue.

We used to follow 11 criteria. That has been changed to five, whereby it does allow us certainly an ability to deal with those private members' bills and motions that come forward and perhaps do not fit or are perhaps, as the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona said, a little frivolous. I think we can deal with that.

As for the private members' business itself, the member is correct: where it is non-partisan it is dealt with by consensus. The problem is that we must choose a number from a number, like 10 out of 30. Every time I sat at that table and we chose the ten, the six, the five or the three that we had to plug the holes with, every member sat around that table and said “They are all worthy and I wish we could pick all of them”. We could not because we only had three or four or five holes to fill and that was all we could choose, but they were all worthy.

If they are all worthy then let them be debated and let them be voted on. That is what we are here for and that is what we are trying to achieve. It is not simply that there are three, four or five holes to fill. That should not be the case.

We do have consensus within the private members' business committee itself as well within the procedure and House affairs committee. Now we must try to work out the model itself so that it can be workable.