Rick Borotsik

[Division No. 19, March 20th, 2001]

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

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be very short because I cannot speak for the Alliance. I do know that it has had some changes in policy and some changes in thinking on any number of issues in the House, regardless of whether it be Stornoway, pensions or whatever. It seems to change its mind on a number of issues. This is just another one where it seems to have finally seen the light. It has come to the issue a bit late but we certainly thank the Alliance for that.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I said that earlier.

There always seems to be demonstrated a lack of political will, to the point where the Prime Minister says that there is no problem. He does not talk to the same people we talk to on a daily basis, because then he would recognize that there is a problem. He received thousands of phone calls from producers in my area and the hon. member's area. We know because the his office returned the calls. Why is he not getting the message?

If there were political will, could it be fixed? Absolutely, and let me give an example. Prior to the election we sat in the House when the Minister of Finance stood and announced a $1.3 billion program for an energy rebate. There was no protest. There were no ministers burned in effigy. There were no phone calls made. There were no people protesting in legislatures. All of a sudden this was the major issue of the day. The government's political will was to do something, so it put in $1.3 billion.

What do we have to do to tell the government that it is also an issue in agriculture and that if it comes up with the same amount of dollars we will be able to fix the problem in a very short period of time? There is no political will and that is the problem. That is why it is necessary that the motion stays in the House and that the government listens to us regarding the agriculture industry.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is difficult to follow the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. He speaks so eloquently and knowledgeably about the issue.

I am sorry that I must once again stand in the House to speak to an issue I thought the minister of agriculture and the Prime Minister would have by now realized is of such a serious nature. I am sorry that the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake had to put forward a motion on his own supply day to once again profile what is a very serious crisis in our communities and in our country. Unfortunately that is what has happened.

It is necessary to continue to profile the issue because unfortunately the government has not seen the seriousness of the crisis. It is serious. It is extremely serious. I am talking of farmers whose livelihood comes from the land, farmers, whom I deal with on a daily basis by telephone and in my constituency office, who are absolutely desperate.

This is a way of life. It is their livelihood. It is all they know. Their families before them and their families before them came from the land and they are now in my office and on my phone saying that they do not know what to do. They want to grow products for the rest of the country and the rest of the world but they have found themselves in a position where they may not be able to.

This is spring today, March 20. One month from now a lot of them should be on the land. Unfortunately the government, without the necessary supports, has thrown them onto the garbage heap of our society. That is sad.

This is not just about farmers. It is about their families. It is about their children who go to schools in the communities.

It is about the wives who work off farm and have always worked off farm to provide a livelihood for those families. It is about the same children the hon. member for Calgary Centre spoke of who are concerned about the welfare of their parents. This is extremely serious. It is about the communities that surround my community and the communities of the member for Palliser and of the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

In my community the backbone of our economy is agriculture. It is desperate when we walk into a small rural community and we see boarded up businesses, schools being closed down, and elevators being ripped out. We see the way of life being destroyed in those communities. That is what this is about.

It is not about the ego of a prime minister. It is about families, communities and farmers. It is about businesses that have tried to develop in communities and because of lack of support are closing their doors. When those businesses close their doors, they close the doors on employment. The people employed in those businesses then leave their communities. Where do they go? They go to Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. They go to urban centres.

We have a rural way of life that we want to preserve, not only in western Canada but across Canada. That rural way of life that should and must be preserved is not even on the government's radar screen. Why has this happened?

It is not happening because farm families, communities and businesses said that they were making mistakes and therefore they had to live by them. That would be easy to fix. The reason they find themselves in this position is unfair competition with the Americans and with the Europeans. They are eating our lunch and the minister of agriculture is allowing it to happen.

What is happening right now with unfair subsidies is that the Americans, between 1998 and 2000, provided $48 billion of support for agriculture. In that same timeframe in Canada it was less than $3 billion. That is despicable. The government is allowing the Americans to put us out of business through no fault of our own.

Another problem we have right now is increased costs. In most cases when people are in the business of making things they can pass on costs to consumers. In our particular case the costs are going up quite dramatically because the fertilizers being utilized on the land are natural gas based. We know what is happening in the natural gas industry right now. Costs are going up by 100% over last year's costs. Fuel being put into a tractor, a swather or a combine has gone up again about 100%, or 45% coming back in the other direction.

These costs cannot be passed on because the commodity price that is being driven down by these unfair subsidies is now less than what it was in 1995-96. It does not take a very long time to realize that when it costs more money to make a product than to sell it one cannot stay in business very long.

We are not only finding ourselves in this position because of unfair competition and increased costs. It is also because, as was mentioned earlier, we have a government and particularly a Prime Minister who have lost the priority and the profile of this industry.

It was also mentioned earlier that the government wants to govern by polls. I was told by a member of the backbench that the Prime Minister said that they had done plenty for agriculture and that nobody out there was making any noise as to what the problems are.

Over the last four weeks we have had a minister of agriculture burnt in effigy in Saskatchewan. We have had a rally here in Lansdowne Park, at which I, the member for Palliser and others spoke in front of thousands of farmers. We have had people in the Manitoba legislature sleeping overnight with their families, without sleeping bags because they were not allowed to take them in. Why did they do this? It was because they were desperate.

Was there a profile given to the seriousness of the industry? Of course there was. Where has the Prime Minister been when he cannot see what is going on around him? We had members of his own party, his own backbenchers stand to say very effectively that there must be more support now.

There are three issues with respect to support. The first one is support now. The motion is very specific. It asks for an additional $400 million. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth said that $400 million was an awful lot of money above the $500 million that has already been expended. On a per acre basis, that probably, in most cases in Saskatchewan and Manitoba alone, would mean less than $5 per acre. That does not even take into consideration the cost of what the inputs are that are going into the land for the coming year. Four hundred million dollars above the $500 million is the minimum amount that is necessary to make sure our producers can get onto the land. That is an ad hoc program.

I remember listening to the minister in the House saying many times that the government does not like ad hoc programs in agriculture. He said that the government would like a long term, well thought out safety net program that will solve the problem. I see no evidence that the government is leading in that direction. Everything that has been dealt with, in my experience in the House, in agriculture, has been totally ad hoc.

We all know about the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec back in 1998. It was ad hoc. The government gave money to Quebec and to Ontario for issues that have never been dealt with before on an ad hoc basis. I remember the 1998 flood in the Red River Valley. What was the program for agriculture? It was an ad hoc program. They received lost inputs, seeding requirements and a lot of programs that were kind of made up on the go and put into place ad hoc.

In 1999, when the hon. member for Palliser's area and my area in southwestern Manitoba were affected by extreme rain conditions, to the point where 1.1 million acres were not planted, we asked the minister for some programs. He told us that he could not do ad hoc programs. He said that we had a wonderful program called AIDA that would take into consideration all the losses suffered in the area and that AIDA would fix everything.

Half of what my office handles in my constituency are complaints about the AIDA program. The program has not solved the problems. In fact maybe the minister was getting off track. Maybe he should have gone to an ad hoc program. I would have been much happier, believe me, because I would have had some compensation for people who required it.

We heard the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough say that there is no program right now in P.E.I. The government came along, pulled $14.6 million out of the air and it is an ad hoc program.

We desperately need money now. All members in the House must vote in favour of the $400 million. We need long term programs that will put some hope back into agriculture. We need a government and a Prime Minister who will say publicly that there is a problem in agriculture and that, yes, they are prepared to fix it.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the right hon. member for Calgary Centre for his most eloquent speech as well as his understanding of the issue. As most members of the House recognize, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre has been in the House a long time and has experience in the House that I and others do not have.

I would like to ask the member a question. Looking at agriculture over the years, particularly in western Canada, has he ever seen the type of desperation that is now etched on the faces of producers he meets on a constant basis? Has he ever seen such a lack of the political will necessary to give those producers hope, not only for this spring but for springs to come, with respect to their livelihoods in farming? Has the right hon. member ever seen anything so desperate as what is now before the House with respect to agriculture?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Toronto—Danforth. Being a city folk, he has done an awful lot to try to put across the issues of the farm crisis and certainly the issues that affect farmers themselves.

In saying that, I wish everybody in the House would stop playing politics and get to the issue. The issue obviously is trying to find solutions to a very serious problem. It is a non-money issue.

I have a question for the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. There was a non-money issue when the Minister of Finance decided to spend $1.3 billion on an energy rebate, and I am not going to argue that program. Perhaps it was the best program that could have come forward.

Does the member not believe that the same kind of political will in the government could and should come forward with $1 billion, or $900 million or $1.3 billion for an issue that is equally as important, which is agriculture in the country?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for being here during the debate. I have a couple of comments and a question for the minister.

The minister has indicated that the responsibility is a shared federal-provincial responsibility. We all accept that. The norm now is a 60:40 split. Could that not be adjusted? Is there any reason this could not be an 80:20 split as opposed to a 60:40 split?

The reason I ask that is because in the United States it is a federal responsibility. The U.S., between 1998 and 2000, has put $48 billion of federal money into the pockets of farmers. Our government seems to always say that the provinces are not coming to the table equally and as quickly as what the feds are. Why could that split of 60:40 not be changed?

The minister has said that since 1995 there has never been more money in agriculture. The government took power in 1993. Prior to 1993, $4.3 billion went to agriculture. Today it is $1.6 billion. Forgetting about all the rationales, reasonings, budget deficits and the rest, the fact of the matter is that there were $4.3 billion and it is now down to $1.6 billion.

With the amount of surpluses that are available, does the minister not see that more of those dollars should go back into agriculture?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member and the Alliance Party for bringing forward this issue under their supply day. I do, as members of the House recognize, believe very strongly in the issue.

I have always been somewhat confused about the Alliance policy on agriculture, but it seems to be a little clearer today after the Alliance leader and the member for Selkirk—Interlake spoke on it, although it is more anti-government than pro-farming.

I have a question for the member for Selkirk—Interlake and perhaps he can clear it up for me. He spoke very eloquently on support for farmers right now. However, back in October 2000 Statistics Canada said there were 22,100 fewer farmers than during the previous year. I will quote the member who indicated at the time:

It doesn't necessarily indicate a disaster happening. It indicates to me more the rationalization and changing of the business side of the agriculture sector. While the study indicated that there's fewer farmers on the prairies, that doesn't mean we're going to have less production or lower agriculture sector dollar earnings.

Could the member explain how that comment fits into what he is now talking about with respect to the supports that are necessary in agriculture? He says here that it does not necessarily mean less dollar earnings, but that it does not necessarily mean less production either. Perhaps he could clear that up for me.

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

I would like to have the debate on our part finished by question period so I may take a little less than my 10 minutes for my questions and comments and then turn it over to the member for Cumberland—Colchester.

I would like to say that this file originally was held by a very capable colleague of mine from the South Shore. It has been passed to me and I will speak to it with pleasure. I feel very strongly that this is an issue that must be a precedence of not only the government but certainly the opposition with respect to our first nations and the issues that face them today.

Getting up between the member for Winnipeg Centre and the Alliance Party, I will act as a bit of a mediator, which is common for the Progressive Conservative Party. In fact we are attempting to be the mediator of all opposition parties in concert against the government.

I know some harsh words have been said by the NDP to the Alliance. It is no secret that hypocrisy sometimes sits on the Alliance benches. Obviously the member for the NDP felt it was necessary to bring those issues forward. However, I sincerely believe that it is best to speak to the motion and the issue put forward today and hopefully we can resolve some of the very serious problems that face our first nations.

As the representative for Brandon—Souris, I have the pleasure of having two reserves in my constituency and have had the opportunity to work with those bands in the past. I will be making some comments with respect to both of them over the course of my speech.

However, I certainly take some exception to the comments made by the government House leader when he spoke to the motion. I got the impression that everything was just hunky-dory, that there were no problems and no issues. He said that 98% of the audits have been in place and put forward, and that only 4% of the reserves now in existence have third party management systems. Third party management is the last resort of any type of management within first nations. Having 4% under third party management is quite excessive. This issue has to be addressed by the government.

I would suggest that not everything is fine on first nations reserves. There is a very large unemployment ratio compared to the rest of society. We recognize that there is a housing crisis, that there are social ills and social problems and that there are problems with the infrastructure programs that have been put in place.

The House leader would have us think that the issue today is not about accountability and audit, and that we should not be dealing with social issues. That is not true. Quite frankly, financial administration and financial management, if properly put in place on first nations reserves, would allow the reserves to have less unemployment, more housing, better social services provided to them through the band offices and infrastructure programs put in place that would allow for water treatment and sewers to be put into place, along with recreation facilities. It is all one ball of wax.

The hon. House leader cannot stand up and say that the motion is insignificant when dealing with those other social concerns because it is not. They are all put together.

The motion is quite simple. It calls for accountability. It wants the assurance that audits will be put forward so the bands will be responsible for the expenditures of capital, public funds, going into a reserve. I could not agree more.

The member for Winnipeg Centre said that there were a few examples of this and that we should use those examples because the majority do not happen. That is not true. Those examples happen more and more often, but I will let my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia speak to a couple of those.

I can tell the House that in my own constituency there are substantially well managed reserves. Sioux Valley is absolutely phenomenal. The administration, the management, the chief and the council are there for the right reasons. They are there for all members of the band. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development just signed an historic treaty with that reserve which put forward the parameters for self-government. That is one positive example of what all first nations should be trying to attain.

The other is a negative example. As one member suggested, certain reserves do not have the financial wherewithal and viability to pay their bills. That is the case with one of the reserves in my constituency where tradespeople have gone in to do work and have not been paid and will not do further work there. That affects the whole reserve, the whole population of that reserve.

Those examples are out there. What the motion is simply saying is be accountable. We must ensure the chief, the council and the administration of a reserve and band office are accountable to the people and to Canada. If it is public money, I do not think anyone here would disagree that it should be transparent. They should be accountable to the public purse from which they receive their funding.

I say on behalf of the PC Party that we will be supporting the motion as it has been put forward. We support the measures to improve accountability and transparency for first nations. The measures should help improve the self-reliance and self-dependence of first nations if their financial management is controlled, regulated and available to band members.

I also suggest that accountability to band members falls to the chief and to the elected band council. Such accountability is extremely important in order to have good management in the band itself.

[Agriculture, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I still do not know how much the media blitz cost but I am sure we can do that through access to information.

I think we should tell Canadians what this minister has not done. He said in the House that his government since 1995 has been putting more money into agriculture. Could he tell us why in 1993 there were $4.4 billion in federal funding and today there are only $2 billion in federal funding? What happened to the difference? Before he talks about the $42 billion deficit, we know there is money there. The finance minister has told us that there is surplus. Could the minister tell us why he cannot find another $400 million for agriculture?