Rick Borotsik

[Division No. 62, April 2nd, 2001]

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

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 61, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party present vote no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Request For Emergency Debate, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 52 I have filed for an emergency debate regarding a very serious issue facing Canadians. This would be a non-partisan debate, Mr. Speaker, if you should be as forthcoming as to allow it. It has to do with the potential problems the country may face with respect to foot and mouth disease.

We have an $11 billion livestock industry in Canada. We do not want this to be fearmongering. Nor do I wish it to be a partisan issue. I simply want a venue in which members of parliament can put forward precautionary measures that could and should be taken by all Canadians, not only by those in the industry. The measures could also be taken by tourists who come and go throughout the country and by people who import and export on a continuous basis.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and your office to please allow members of the House the opportunity to put forward the protective measures necessary for this terrible disease.

The minister of agriculture has today, with CFIA, put forward an advertising campaign. I applaud the CFIA and the department for allowing Canadians to have a better understanding of what we are dealing with. What better place for parliamentarians to debate the issue than in the House? That is why I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in the good graces of your office, to allow us to do so.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-4, in Clause 30, be amended by replacing lines 41 and 42 on page 16 with the following: c ) a detailed statement of eligible projects for which funding was provided and of the extent to which those projects may lead to measurable gains in respect to air quality and sustainable development;”

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague, the member for South Shore, who has been very instrumental in the clause by clause consideration of this piece of legislation, Bill C-4, in committee. The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and I on his behalf, put forward an amendment that did not go to the committee. I thank the Speaker for his ruling that the amendment should, and well could be, placed on the floor.

As I indicated earlier this morning to the Minister of Natural Resources, there are some good amendments that come forward from the opposition side, and this is one of those amendments.

As the member for South Shore has indicated, there should be a detailed statement of eligible projects for which funding was provided. This speaks to the issue of the funding that has been put forward in the legislation. It has a tendency not to allow projects to have a closed portion of the funding. Also, there is a section which speaks to access to information where there should be transparency.

We have talked quite frequently in the House about the openness and transparency of the government. Certainly the foundation being proposed under the legislation should also fall under the rules where there should be openness. Public money will be expended and certainly those funds should be identified by the projects themselves and come back so that members of parliament recognize exactly how the funds are expended.

I put Motion No. 10 forward on behalf of my colleague. I suspect the government will look very seriously at passing the amendment.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full two and a half minutes, so perhaps it could be tacked on to the intervention of my colleague from St. John's West.

I have one very quick question and the member just briefly touched on it. As one member across the way said, it is contempt of parliament. Recently we have talked about ministers who prefer to go to the news media, to a press conference, and to outside organizations to make policy announcements that should be made in the House.

Could the member expand on that a little? The time for questions and comments could then go to my good friend from St. John's West.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

I like the change to the rules already, Mr. Speaker. I too agree. I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis and I listened to what he had to say with great respect.

In my short tenure in the House I have found when legislation comes forward and is placed on the floor of the House it is almost a fait accompli. The ministers, the bureaucrats and the departments have gone through the whole process, come forward with a piece of legislation, dumped it on the floor and did not listen to any other ideas on changes to the legislation to make it better. They do not listen to backbench members in private members' business who might have some pretty good legislative ideas.

Does the member agree that there should be more influence from members with respect to the presentation of legislation? Does the member agree that perhaps private members should have the opportunity of putting forward legislation or helping implement legislation that comes forward to the House without the minister of the particular department interfering with the legislation?

[Ways And Means, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative party vote no.

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

[Division No. 26, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the PC Party vote no.

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

[Division No. 32, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote nay.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Supplementary Estimates (A), March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservatives vote no to this motion, and I would like it noted that the member for Richmond—Arthabaska is now in the House.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)