Rick Borotsik

[Agriculture, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture is not building any confidence in producers, believe me. Agriculture was not even on the radar screen of the summit. The minister was not even available to talk to the secretary of agriculture with respect to P.E.I. potatoes and other issues.

Why could the Prime Minister not get the minister of agriculture in? The secretary of state from the United States got in. Why could the minister of agriculture not get into the talks?

[Agriculture, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is very proud to have said that the Prime Minister served P.E.I. potatoes in Quebec. The issue, however, is that potatoes from P.E.I. must be served in the United States.

When did the minister of agriculture that the secretary of agriculture would be in Quebec City? Why is it that the Prime Minister of the host country did not get the minister of agriculture into the summit to deal with this issue?

[National Defence, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on April 12 the Minister of National Defence made his long awaited and much anticipated announcement to move the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to CFB Shilo. I can tell the minister personally that the decision was warmly received by the people of southwestern Manitoba.

The minister made it official following the military's business case report that revealed the best option for restructuring Manitoba's land forces would be to relocate 2-PPCLI to CFB Shilo to share the training facility with 1-RCHA.

Today I would like to thank all the people who had a role to play in that final decision. I wish to express my thanks to community organizations in Brandon and Shilo, the defence department staff, the military leadership and, yes, the Manitoba Liberal caucus.

Finally, I would like to thank the Minister of National Defence. He said in the House that the final decision should be based on logic and military operational requirements, not politics. He is a man of his word. We accept the 2-PPCLI in our community with pride.

[Access To Information Act, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank each member of the House who rose today to speak to the proposed legislation.

It does not surprise me but it does disappoint me that the member for Malpeque still cloaks himself in the paranoia that is out there. He did not look at the content of the bill dealing with access to information, the honesty and the transparency. He would rather go on a rant as to what is right and what is wrong with the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not what the debate was meant to be about.

It seems obvious that some members were not able to grasp the issue at hand, which is that openness and transparency is the only way in which any type of organization can be effective.

The excuses I heard from the member for Malpeque, as well as from the member for Timiskaming—Cochrane, included the words never, ludicrous, not necessary, trust us and be happy. The member for Malpeque suggested that the bill was a way of backdooring the Canadian Wheat Board. If he had listened to what I had to say he would have heard that this was not meant to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board in any way, shape or form. This was simply meant to strengthen its operations in a number of ways.

The question that it does open up, especially for the hon. member, is how information from the 1950s could be seen as sensitive and commercial in nature by the Canadian Wheat Board and yet that information is not forthcoming. When the wheat board hides behind closed doors and does not even answer questions in a survey, it conjures up an impression that it has no desire to be more open and transparent.

Let us get to the big picture which deals with access to information. The rules have to be expanded as we are having difficulties right now accessing information.

Have the two members on the government side ever filed an access to information request? Have they ever gone through the process of finding out what it is like to get access to information? Has the member for Timiskaming—Cochrane ever met with the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board? I have met with those people and I have filed access to information requests. Quite frankly, the questions the members have asked I have already gone through.

The bill should be votable but unfortunately it is not. I hope the debate has indicated that this is an issue that will not go away. It can be resolved. The wheat board can continue to operate. It can be open, honest and transparent if it is given the tools. The member for Malpeque never mentioned this, but the wheat board also has the ability under the act to stop access to sensitive commercial information. That does not have to happen. The nonsensitive and noncommercial information should be open and available, not only to myself but to the producers that the board serves.

One can use that excuse to go to the board of directors but it also signs pledges that it will not give any information outside the board. Changes have to come from the government so that the information is made accessible.

[Access To Information Act, April 23rd, 2001]

moved that Bill C-249, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (Crown corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly nice to be back in the House after the Easter break. It is also nice to see you in the Chair, as well as my colleagues from the House, and to get back to the parry and thrust of the House and politics.

It is my pleasure to stand, as the first member in the House after the break, to talk about something that I am very passionate about and something I feel is very important with respect to governments of all kinds, that is, openness and transparency, where in fact governments and crown corporations should be accountable to the people that they serve.

In this case, the bill speaks to the Access to Information Act and openness and transparency, particularly by crown corporations but also by the Canadian Wheat Board. Being a member of parliament from an area in western Canada, I have a great deal of responsibility for the agricultural community. A lot of producers talk to me on a fairly regular basis with respect to not only agriculture but the role that is currently being played by the Canadian Wheat Board in western Canada and the marketing of particular products, such as wheat and barley.

Bill C-249 unfortunately, and I underline the term unfortunately, has been deemed to not be a votable item.

I also sit on the private members' business committee. We are currently looking at the possibility of having all private members' business, whether it be bills or motions, made votable. I personally believe a good first step to the renewal of this Chamber and this House would be to give all members of parliament the opportunity to put forward what they feel are necessary changes to government policy and to have their changes voted on.

Unfortunately this bill is not votable. Having sat on that committee, I do take some responsibility I suppose but I still suggest very strongly that this bill should be votable. I know other members of other parties will agree with me when I say that the Access to Information Act is not there simply for governments to be able to not put information forward but for members, not only of parliament but also of the public, to access information from crown corporations and government which they feel is rightfully theirs.

The bill raises a very important question for policymakers to answer. Should the Access to Information Act be extended to include crown corporations, including the Canadian Wheat Board as it is currently structured, as defined under the Financial Administrations Act?

Some crown corporations are already subject to the Access to Information Act, such as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Others, such as Canada Post and the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, are not.

The argument made most often by these companies and the federal government is that because they are subject to competitive pressures of the marketplace, they should be exempt from the Access to Information Act. Their legitimate fear is that their competitors will use the act to obtain sensitive information that could be used to undermine the corporation's competitive advantage. That is a legitimate concern.

What most people do not realize, however, is that under section 18 of the Access to Information Act, government institutions can exempt competitively sensitive information. The act says:

The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains (a) trade secrets or financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to the Government of Canada or a government institution and has substantial value or is reasonably likely to have substantial value; (b) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution;

The reason I read that section is that we already have the ability under the act to not provide information that would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution. We cannot use that excuse to not open up the boundaries of access to information to other crown corporations, including the Canadian Wheat Board.

It goes on to exclude information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Canada. Section 18 then may offer exemptions significant enough under the act that crown corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board would be able to comply with the act without having to disclose sensitive, competitive information. What it would do is allow that openness and transparency of these corporations, including the Canadian Wheat Board, to be made mandatory to give information that does not fall within these categories. I will talk to that briefly in a moment.

The bill I have put forward today not only addresses some of the most paramount concerns farmers have with the Canadian Wheat Board but of all crown corporations that include transparency and accountability. As in any crown corporation or, as the Canadian Wheat Board is now known, a mixed corporation, Canadians expect no less and they should continue to expect no less.

When the Canadian Wheat Board was incorporated by the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 1935 it was established to market, interprovincially and for export, Canadian wheat and barley for producers. The wheat board is a monopoly system. If a producer wants to sell wheat or barley outside the Canadian Wheat Board, he must apply for an export permit. This means he sells his product to the Canadian Wheat Board, obtains a permit, buys the wheat back from the Canadian Wheat Board and then sells it on the open market. In other words, the farmer has no choice as to how he markets his commodity. It has to go through the Canadian Wheat Board, a wheat board that generates sales of wheat and barley in excess of approximately $6 billion annually.

The point I am getting at is that the farmers do not have a choice but to market through the Canadian Wheat Board. There is a lot of money at stake for the producers so why should the CWB not be accountable and transparent to those very producers, those very people it is there to serve?

Somewhere throughout the over 65 year history of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers started to question the agency that was supposed to represent their best interests. They started to question its monopoly and the returns compared to that of the marketplace.

Most farmers in western Canada do not want to eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board. Others may speak to that comment and may well disagree with it, but the people I have talked to have initially said that they do not want necessarily to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. They simply want it to be able to compete in an open and transparent basis.

Canadians expect accountability for publicly funded institutions, as they should be. I firmly believe that the bill before us today would only add to that accountability.

I want to talk very briefly about why this particular piece of legislation is before the House today: openness and transparency.

In a previous life and in a previous form of government, I learned a long time ago that it is much better to be open to the people and the public we serve. In the municipal government there is nothing hidden behind closed doors.

I found out a long time ago when there is a closed door meeting, even if they are only talking about what to serve on the menu, immediately there is some distrust. When the doors are closed and the information is not flowing, something is happening behind those doors.

That is what is happening with the wheat board. I do not believe that there is anything sinister happening behind those closed doors. I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board is hiding behind those doors and not allowing the true information to come forward. If it does, I do not believe that it will be detrimental to the operations of the corporation.

I will give one small example. A number of months ago the Canadian Wheat Board commissioned a survey. It was its survey, done of its producers. Some 1,500 people were surveyed. They were asked to answer questions. The questions were asked, the data were gathered, and that information is not available to the public. Although it was gathered from the public, gathered from the people who are the stakeholders in the corporation, the information from that survey is not made available publicly because, I am told, it is way too sensitive commercially.

I would even accept that the information gathered was too sensitive commercially. By the way, I went to the access to information office and was told quite emphatically that the corporation did not fall within the guidelines of access to information.

I then wrote a letter to the board and asked for the survey results and was told that I could not access them or be given the results. Then I asked a simple question: could I have the questions that were asked in the survey? I did not ask for the information that was gleaned or all the data gathered. It was a matter of the questions that were asked of the people who supplied the information. I was told that the information was way too sensitive and commercial. I could not even get the questions that they asked.

The board asked those questions of 1,500 people. They were not meant to be kept secret. It was simply a matter of giving me the questions asked, and I could not get them. Even though I believe the information the board would have given me would not have impacted on its operations at all, it tells me that there is a closed door mentality that it does not have to give information and therefore it will not.

That adds another nail into coffin of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not what I want. I want openness and transparency from the wheat board.

Access to information is supposed to work quite simply. A person filing a request pays $5 to ask for a range of records held by federal departments and agencies including memos, briefing notes, expense reports and audits. For the initial $5 fee the person receives five hours of government search and preparation time, beyond which departments may charge additional costs.

Access to information does not go as smoothly as it is supposed to go. In fact a recent report by the information commissioner, Mr. John Reid, was highly critical of the federal government for undermining the spirit of openness by showing palpable animosity toward the process. The commissioner stated that some bureaucrats have even threatened the career prospects of their staff members that investigate complaints from dissatisfied people who have filed access to information requests.

This is totally contrary to the act. Moreover, Federal Court of Canada Justice Edmond Blanchard ruled recently that the federal government tried to circumvent the will of the information act by refusing to release papers explaining the reasons behind one of cabinet's environmental decisions relating to Ethyl Canada.

Ethyl Canada requested discussion papers from cabinet members referring to the decision to ban the fuel additive MMT. When access to the documents was denied, Ethyl Canada filed a complaint. Judge Blanchard subsequently found that Ethyl Canada had a well founded complaint under the Access to Information Act, noting that the purpose of the access law is to give the public greater access to the inner workings of government. That is what the act is there for.

That is exactly what brings us here today. It is an effort to open up government and its institutions to Canadians. A federal task force was also appointed last August, headed by Ms. Andrée Delagrave. It is currently studying and reviewing ways to improve the Access to Information Act. It is inviting the public to comment over the next two months on its improvements. The task force is meeting with bureaucrats who process the reports, historians, librarians, journalists and other users of the law.

I hope members of parliament would also be a part of that process. I know that my office and the offices of other members use access to information quite regularly in order to have openness and transparency.

The bill I have before the House today is non-votable. I find that somewhat disturbing. Hopefully in the not too distant future the House will allow these types of bills and motions to be voted on so that we can see where members of the House stand on accountability, openness and transparency.

I do not want to specifically target the Canadian Wheat Board, although it is mentioned specifically in the bill as are other crown corporations. When public funding is a major cornerstone of organizations, it is my belief that those organizations should be open and accountable.

Under the act there are safeguards with respect to commercially sensitive information, with respect to competitive interests, and that crown corporations can use to stop unnecessary information flow to individuals asking for it. However it does stop the closed door mentality of corporations that are not prepared to give the most minute details, which I believe is a right of the citizens they serve.

I will not stop here with the piece of legislation I have before the House. Other legislation will come forward and I suspect eventually the Access to Information Act, even through the task force, will be changed quite dramatically so that Canadians will have access to information they deserve.

[Supply, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the amendment.

[Foot And Mouth Disease, April 3rd, 2001]

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing the opportunity to debate in the House this evening the issue of foot and mouth disease. I thank the Speaker and his office for being flexible in allowing emergency debates. It certainly speaks well of the Chair and your ability to make sure that members of the House are allowed to debate and speak freely as members of parliament. We thank you for that.

The issue that has been put forward today before the House is one of extreme seriousness. I would say at the outset of the discussion that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

I hope that all members of the House who speak tonight accept the fact that this is non-partisan. The debate is not meant to be a flailing of arms, the gnashing of teeth and finger pointing with respect to what has not been done, what has been done or what should be done.

I would rather have the members who speak to this issue try to be somewhat constructive in their criticism, if there is some, and put forward some positive suggestions as to how the issue can be dealt with, not only in rural communities but in urban communities in Canada as well as internationally. We well know that the issue is perhaps coming from international communities such as Britain and others.

My riding of Brandon—Souris is totally dependent on agriculture. Yes, it is an urban centre but it is surrounded by a rural community that boasts livestock production in pigs as well as cattle. It has dairy farms and a fairly large sheep operation. All those animals of which I speak are susceptible to the foot and mouth disease.

Canada right now has about a $15 billion livestock economy. The point of the matter is we do not have foot and mouth disease right now. That in itself is a credit to the government, the CFIA, customs and to people who are currently coming back to this country. That is not to say that we cannot and should not be ever vigilant as to what is happening and can happen.

Foot and mouth disease, for the information of those people who may not have experience with it, is a very highly contagious and highly communicable viral disease that affects cloven hoofed animals. I mentioned the domestic animals that it could affect but I also suggest that it could affect wild animals such as deer, elk and moose. If it ever got into the wild animal chain, it would be almost impossible to control.

My constituents have asked me constantly what is being done, what is can be done and what should be done to prevent this terrible disease from affecting our economy. The public wants to be aware of what precautions should be taken.

It was suggested that this debate could have come forward earlier and I received an e-mail that culminated in the final decision of bringing this issue forward.

I received an e-mail from a constituent of mine who is taking her practicum in Wales. She said she could not find any information anywhere as to how and what she should do when she came back to Canada. She said she did not know what she would find when arriving at customs. She did not know what she could bring back so she asked for my help. I sent her the information. However, a section of her e-mail scared me. She had been told that she could not bring back any souvenirs. She wanted to know if there was any way she could get around this so she could bring them back. That comment chilled my blood. She was talking about souvenirs.

I told her she could bring back souvenirs but she could not bring back meat, dairy products like cheese or plants. Just the thought of somebody asking if there was any way to get around this issue as I said chilled my blood. All it takes is one virus to come into this country and we lose a complete industry.

In 1952 when Canada had its last foot and mouth outbreak in Saskatchewan, it cost $1 billion. Translated today that amount equates to about $35 billion annually in our industry as a cost to try to control an outbreak. We should prevent it at the onset and not try to prevent it and control it after the fact.

That is why it is so important to have this debate because this is an awareness debate. This has nothing to do with slagging the government. Many media people called me today and asked if I was going to pick on the government for what it had not done? I said “not a chance”. The CFIA in my opinion is doing a fine job but it can do more. Let me talk about what we can do more as a society.

The agriculture industry is a part of the solution. I talked with members of a grain company the other day. They told me that all their facilities had been closed to any tours because they did not know where the people were coming from. It is a good precaution that should be given to other members of the agricultural industry and corporations so they too can take it to the next step.

When I was home this weekend I talked to an individual who sells farm real estate. His company has sold a lot of real estate to people from Scotland, Ireland and Great Britain. The company has now sent letters and made telephone calls to its customers telling them not to come here. It wants these people to buy land but not at this time. It will take a hit for six or twelve months but it does not want these people to come to Canada and possible infect it.

Travel agents have a responsibility when sending people overseas. They have to tell people what to do when they come back. If it is farm to farm and highly risky, the suggestion should be that they should hold back on their travel. If it is urban to urban centre travel it is low risk but certain things should be done when they come back. As a protective measure they should wash their clothes in a vinegar solution and walk through the disinfectant mat at the airport instead of walking over it. That is what the travel agent should be telling people.

The CFIA has done a lot and I know it will to do more. I appreciate the minister of agriculture and the minister of defence being here today to speak to the preventative measures that they have put forward in their departments. That is very positive and very wise.

The CFIA should and could do an ad campaign which it may well have planned. It should also put out travel advisories and warnings in multilanguages, not just simply English and French, because a lot of our visitors come from contaminated countries and do not speak either of those languages. It is important that they know what we demand of them when they come to our country in order to be free of this terrible foot and mouth virus.

Travellers must recognize that they have a responsibility. They can be a part of the solution, not part of the problem.

How can they be part of the solution? As I said earlier, they should not bring in products such as foodstuffs and dairy. Also, if one travels to a contaminated country, one definitely does not want to bring back organic materials, dirt, saliva or milk stains. This is very serious stuff. If an individual is going from farm to farm, that Canadian should take 14 days of self-quarantine before going back to one's farm.

I had an interesting call from a farmer in my area a couple of weeks ago. His wife was planning to go to Britain to visit relatives. He said that was fine but when she came back she could not return to the farm for at least 14 days. He was encouraging her to visit her relatives but the message was we must be terribly vigilant.

We want to keep it out of the country. We want to keep it out of our communities. We expect the rural and urban residents to make sure they have the same vigilance when dealing with this terrible potential.

The last thing is that this is not meant to be fearmongering. I have suggested a number of solutions and other things that can be done. The sky is not falling. This is not fearmongering at any level. It simply is to educate and make people aware of what the serious issues are out there.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Division No. 64, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes.

[Division No. 63, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division:)