Rick Borotsik

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult, almost impossible, to follow my leader, the right hon. member for Kings—Hants, being the statesman that he obviously is and the passion with which he speaks to issues affecting this country and Canadians as a whole. However, I will attempt, in my fashion, to speak to the economic statement that has been put forward by the finance minister.

First, it must be said that if this were after the writ was dropped, the government would have to claim this as an election expense. This in effect is an election platform, an election ploy that was placed before the House in the Chamber. It is no more than that.

I know Canadians are becoming terribly cynical of politics and politicians. Canadians see through the transparency and the cynical politics that were played in the House yesterday by the Minister of Finance.

As was mentioned earlier, this financial statement will not be implemented before the writ is dropped by the Prime Minister to go to the next election, an election that is totally unnecessary. Should the finance minister and the Prime Minister wish, as they were meant to do, to govern the country, they can do so for another 20 months based on the economic largesse they have identified within this document.

I say to Canadians now to not go out and spend the money that has been promised. Promises that have been placed before the House and Canadians have been broken time and time again. This is a post-dated cheque, make no mistake about it. It is like the post-dated cheque of “We will scrap the GST”.

Did you spend your money, Madam Speaker, when the GST was going to be taken off? It did not materialize. It is like the post-dated cheque when the Liberals said they would scrap the NAFTA agreement. By the way, the best thing they did not do was to scrap NAFTA because today, as we stand with the surpluses that are before the House, it is because of those initiatives taken by a government prior to 1993. This government today should be thankful that it has surpluses because of what we put into place.

No one should spend that post-dated cheque because I remember the promise of pharmacare. Does anyone remember that promise, that post-dated cheque? It has not been cashed and in fact will not be cashed.

What about the post-dated cheque given to Canadians with respect to child care and day care? No one should cash that cheque because it was a promise that was again broken by the government.

[Petitions, October 19th, 2000]

The second petition, Madam Speaker, is presented with respect to the nuclear proliferation in the world. The petitioners request that parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of nuclear armaments.

[Petitions, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House.

One of them goes back to an issue which is close and dear to my heart, that of agriculture. This petition has 53 pages and this is not the first petition I have presented. It suggests that the government has certainly fallen short of the necessary support requirements for agriculture particularly in western Canada but in Canada as a whole.

The petitioners suggest that the agriculture minister who does not have sufficient influence in the department should be replaced. That is the essence of the petition. I believe that will happen probably within the next 36 days.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, before I get into the meat of the motion itself I would like to thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for bringing forward a motion with respect to genetically modified foods.

I have had the opportunity for most of my time in the House to sit on the agricultural committee. It has been a very enjoyable part of my business here. I am sure the hon. member for Louis-Hébert brings this motion forward because she honestly believes in her heart that this is the most important issue now facing Canadians, particularly in agriculture. The hon. member is very knowledgeable. She speaks very eloquently to the motion put before us today with respect to mandatory labelling and making sure that when foods are put forward to the Canadian public they are safe and edible.

In my constituency of Brandon—Souris agriculture is a very important facet of the economy. The economy of my area is basically agriculture. As we know, agriculture has not had too many bright spots recently. We have had a major problem with competition from the Europeans and Americans, particularly in terms of unfair subsidization. We have had some disasters in my area and suffered subsequent losses in production. There has been a cloud over agriculture.

If there is one bright spot, it could and should be biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. There is a real opportunity here in agriculture to diversify. There is a real opportunity to make sure that agriculture increases its production in the next numbers of years through biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.

The subject of GMOs makes most people nervous. It makes most consumers nervous. Although much of the focus in the media has been on food products derived from biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and health and pest control products on the market are also derived from biotechnology.

With respect to food products, biotechnology has the potential to increase the competitiveness of the Canadian agrifood industry by increasing individual competitiveness and exporting high value agrifood products.

Biotechnology has the potential to increase the yields needed to compensate for the increase in world population. It offers the opportunity and the potential to develop more sustainable agricultural practices by reducing the need for chemical weed and pest control. This in itself is a major potential opportunity in agriculture.

Biotechnology has the potential to enable the environmentally beneficial practice of no-till agriculture. This would reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Biotechnology also has the potential to create markets by introducing value added products, the diversification that agriculture so desperately needs.

There is the potential for value to be passed on from the producer to the consumer. This can and is being done, and we can prove it. It is possible to immunize the population by placing in foods medications to lower cholesterol, for example. These are known as neutraceuticals or output traits.

For example, it was reported recently that scientists in the United States have created a strain of genetically altered rice to combat vitamin A deficiency, the world's leading cause of blindness.

The challenges we must face in creating a solid and dynamic biotechnology industry are two-fold. First, we must create a climate in which industry sectors can flourish both here and internationally. Second, we must meet the public's concerns about their own health and the environment in terms of the safety of genetically modified organisms.

Genetically modified foods have helped the Canadian agricultural industry become competitive in the global economy. They have helped farmers make better use of their land and provide more food for a world that needs food. However, it is absolutely mandatory that the government take every step possible to address the definition of genetically modified foods and to protect consumers.

The principal concern with the use of biotechnology in food products is the question of food security. Numerous reports, mostly from Europe, have negatively impacted consumer confidence in Canada as a result of claims made about food safety. There are concerns that there is not enough risk assessment work being done on consumer products delivered from biotechnology in Canada.

Consumers have clearly indicated that they want to be informed, through labelling, about foods that have been altered, and favour such foods that provide tangible benefits. An Angus Reid survey found that two-thirds of Canadians say that they would be less likely to buy food they know has been genetically modified. I would argue that the simple part is the change of label. A far more extensive process is needed to determine the GM status of foods and to monitor their continuing status. In any event, developing national guidelines on labelling must be done in conjunction with the development of standards at the international level, for instance through the Codex commission, the international standards setting body for foods.

With regard to agriculture and agrifood, the Canadian food inspection agency conducts safety and environmental assessments of fertilizers, seeds, plants, plant products, animals, vaccines animal disease kits and feeds. It also enforces portions of the Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada is responsible for assessing the safety of novel foods that may include biotechnology products.

Before a genetically modified crop is approved for production it must pass through a series of rigorous tests designed to protect the health of humans, animals and the environment. When biotech companies wish to market a certain genetically modified organism, they must provide all information required to carry out an environmental safety assessment. Without providing the necessary information, approval will not be granted.

That being said, there is still much work to be done in terms of long term studies on health and environmental considerations.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes Canada's biotechnology industry and genetically enhanced foods have for the most part benefited our agriculture and agrifood sectors and Canada as a whole. Biotechnology offers major opportunities to improve both environmental integrity and food quality.

However, as technology advances quickly, there are also concerns that biotechnology will put the safety of Canada's food at risk. That is why our biotechnology regulatory system must be based on science. The federal government must still actively play a role in clarifying and explaining future Canadian policy on labelling in consultation with all stakeholders in order to help alleviate any concerns Canadians have with respect to GMOs.

The federal government must be more forthcoming in explaining the regulatory system to Canadians. The federal government must ensure that there are sufficient resources and expertise within both Health Canada and the Canadian food inspection agency so that Canadians retain a high level of trust in the regulatory process for GM products. The whole country is looking to the government for leadership on this issue. It is an issue that must be addressed. The Department of Health must provide the regulatory system to control this whole subject. Labelling is part of that, but it is not enough. It does not go far enough.

The onus is on the government to deal with this situation. I applaud the hon. member for bringing forward this motion requiring labelling, but it is not enough. It does not address some of the main issues.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has not yet completed its analysis of this issue, and this motion would unnecessarily pre-empt the work of the committee. Exhaustive studies on the long term effects cannot be defined. It would be very difficult to do exhaustive studies on the long term effects without stopping the process now.

Finally, the Progressive Conservative Party unfortunately will not be supporting the motion although I do have the utmost respect for the member for Louis-Hébert. Unfortunately it is not the best way to assure Canadians that the genetically modified organism debate is ongoing. It is necessary that government be more forthcoming with Canadians. It is necessary that Canadians be educated on the benefits of genetically modified organisms.

In grocery stores right now, a number of the products on the shelves do have components of genetically modified organisms and have for years and years. We see a great deal of opportunity in biotechnology and GMO. We do not believe that a mandatory labelling system right now should be done without the international concurrence of other trading partners of ours. For that matter, consumers, to be better educated, must have input as to what is going to happen with respect to GMO.

[National Defence, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the decision on the future of Manitoba's land forces was supposed to be made months ago. The military has tabled a business case which has now been confirmed by a third party business case from KPMG as being the right decision.

Why will the Minister of National Defence not accept the recommendations of his own military and make this decision now, before the election is called?

[Request For Emergency Debate, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my application for an emergency debate pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 52 concerns the devastating financial and mental stress affecting farming communities across the country.

As was mentioned in question period, over the past year more than 21,500 farmers have left. They no longer exist in western Canada. They no longer farm the land. We also recognize from question period that there will be an economic statement issued by the Minister of Finance.

This emergency debate would make sure that the government recognizes the urgency and priority of agriculture and places it in the economic statement by the Minister of Finance. I do not think the government recognizes the real urgency and the stresses on farming communities in rural Canada, particularly rural western Canada.

I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, to ask that you allow us an opportunity to have this open debate later today or tomorrow so that we can put that urgency on the floor.

[Firefighters' Pensions, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.

In a previous life I had a substantial amount of experience working very closely with a municipal fire department. I can assure the House that I have nothing but respect for the men and women who put forward their lives to look after our constituents in their duty as firefighters.

I would also like to thank the member for Mississauga South who I know originally put forward this motion. It is a very important issue, one that will deal with the notion of increasing the contribution to pensions from 2% to 2.33%. However, before we get into that, I think it is important to recognize as other speakers already have indicated that the profession of a firefighter is indeed unique among emergency services.

Firefighting has changed quite dramatically over the past number of years. This past weekend I had the opportunity to stand onstage for the 14th annual Manitoba firefighters conference. At that conference two things happened. First, there was a memorial at the emergency fire services college in Brandon in memory of the 38 firefighters in Manitoba who lost their lives over the last 100 years. I mention that simply to indicate that the profession itself is a very dangerous one. When a firefighter goes to work he or she does not know what will be encountered that day. It could be a life threatening occurrence.

The second thing that happened at the conference was a skit comparing firefighting of 100 years ago with firefighting of today. They used horse-drawn water brigades 100 years ago. They fought fires using different technology and different training. Today both the system and the profession have changed quite dramatically. We talked about the haz mats, the hazardous materials faced by firefighters.

My firefighters wear a number of hats. They are full-fledged paramedics who have to deal with ambulance calls and other situations either on the highway or in the community. They have to deal with search and rescue. They are responsible for search and rescue on our open waters and in other areas of Manitoba. We have firefighters in northern Manitoba, where forests go up quite regularly. The danger of fighting those fires is much more dramatic now than it was 100 years ago.

Everyone in the House is aware that firefighting remains a very dangerous profession. As compared with workers in the private sector, firefighters have twice the rate of job related fatalities. I simply go back to the 38 firefighters recognized in that memorial. More than 40% of all firefighters suffered job related injuries in 1997. That far exceeds the rate of injury for any other occupation. Firefighters are nearly six times more likely than the average private sector worker to suffer injuries on the job.

The right to refuse unsafe work does not practically exist for our firefighters. When people are running away from a burning building, firefighters are running in the opposite direction, directly into the inferno, to save property and to save lives.

I mention this because the profession is a unique profession. One of the other things I noticed when I was onstage at the 14th annual Manitoba fire conference was that through the fire college a number of very young, well trained and physically fit individuals in my community were prepared to go into the profession.

It is a very physically demanding job. Because of the demands placed on the individual it is not a job that has longevity. In the city of Brandon we decided a number of years ago that the retirement age of a firefighter should be 55. Unfortunately the pension contributions that can be made do not allow my firefighters to retire at 55 with their full pensions. We do have people to take over from the firefighters who wish to retire at 55, but we have to make sure we can get those firefighters off the job and retired.

In order to do that, with respect to the motion before us, the International Association of Fire Fighters advocates that the finance minister increase the pension accrual rates from 2% to 2.33% for firefighters. This would allow them to retire with adequate financial provisions for their retirement.

In a letter to the Minister of Finance dated December 15, 1999, the IAFF urged the federal government to revisit the current provisions for professional firefighters. In the city of Brandon we have been prepared, through negotiations, to top up the retirement funds of firefighters to accommodate to a degree their request to retire at age 55. A regulatory change to the Income Tax Act would provide all firefighters with the opportunity to collectively bargain for a fair and equitable pension on retirement.

The regulatory change to the Canada Income Tax Act that the IAFF is advocating would allow Canada's firefighters to retire before the rigours of the job pose a threat to both the individuals and their fellow firefighters. The change would allow firefighters to make adequate pension contributions toward retirement.

The proposed regulatory change would be the crucial first step in this process, as firefighters would have to make the same change with their respective provincial pension legislation and then bargain the increased contribution with their employers. It is a critical first step that the federal government put into place the necessary legislative changes. The Canadian Police Association also strongly supports the position of firefighters on this issue.

Last year's report from the Standing Committee on Finance is clear in recommending an increase in the accrual rate from 2% to 2.33%. It has been almost a year since the report was tabled in the House. I urge all members of the House of Commons to support the motion and members on the government side to actually take action. The finance committee has already considered the motion. It is now time for the government to act.

It is a simple legislative change, as was mentioned earlier. I thank the member for Mississauga South. I also thank the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for bringing it to the attention of the House. Now it is a matter of putting action in place.

The firefighters that represent us in our communities deserve no less. They put their lives on the line. They wish to be able to retire at a younger age because of the difficulties and danger of the job. It is incumbent upon us to make it available to them. We will be supporting the motion put forward by the member.

[National Defence, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the decision on the future of Manitoba's land forces was to be made months ago. The Minister of National Defence stood in the House and said that the decision would be based on military operations and not on politics.

The report is in place, but the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the minister responsible for western economic diversification did not like the report so they have commissioned their own. I ask the Minister of National Defence, is this not political interference and why will the minister not accept the recommendations of his own military?

[Federal Election, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, rumours of a fall election call this past Sunday did not come to fruition but the fall is not yet over.

Here are the top 10 reasons why the Prime Minister could call a fall election: Tenth, it is too cold to golf; ninth, his wife said he could; eighth, it is not the first time the Liberals have called an election during a crisis—remember the 1997 Manitoba flood; seventh, the Liberal nervous Nellies have to be shown who really is the boss; sixth, only one word for this number, surplus, so much money, so little time to spend, spend, spend; fifth, three years with this Prime Minister just seems like a long time; fourth, it falls nicely between water ski and downhill ski season; third, the Liberals got away with broken promises the last two times, three times are a charm; second, plain and simple, the Minister of Finance; and first, the reason why the Prime Minister could call an election this fall is that there are no new ideas.

[Cfb Shilo, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has had all summer to come to a decision on the future of Manitoba's land forces.

I am sure the minister's officials gave him a copy of the May 24 report entitled “Final Business Case”.

The defence report clearly states that the best option for restructuring would be to relocate the Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to Canadian forces base Shilo to share the training facilities with the First Regiment of Royal Canadian Horse Artillery. It is clear CFB Shilo outranks all of the other options available.

The Minister of National Defence assured me that the decision would be made this month. The minister also told me in the House that the final decision on Manitoba's land forces would be made on the basis of what is good for our military, not what is good for politics. I would like to take him at his word.

The defence department recognizes that CFB Shilo is and can remain one of the top military facilities in the world. The facts are in black and white. It is now for the minister to decide. The men and women of the Canadian military deserve a decision and they deserve it now.