Rick Borotsik

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 16th, 1999]

What programs are currently available to provide assistance to fruit growers converting their old tree stock to new varieties?

[The Late Jim Balfour, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to mourn the loss of one of our colleagues from the Senate who also spent seven years on this side of the House as a member of parliament.

I speak of the passing of Senator Jim Balfour on Sunday at the age of 71. The Saskatchewan senator died after a long fought battle with cancer. He lived a life marked by more than one personal tragedy, including the untimely loss of several close members of his family.

Senator Balfour served on this side of the House after winning a seat in Regina as a Progressive Conservative member of parliament in 1972 and was re-elected in 1974. Under Joe Clark's government Mr. Balfour was appointed to the Senate in 1979 where he served for 20 years.

His tireless work on behalf of the people of Saskatchewan speaks for itself. Jim will be remembered both in his private and public life and the vast body of work he has left behind. He will greatly missed by all in the Progressive Conservative Party.

On behalf of the national caucus and leader of our party, I wish to extend my deepest condolences and sympathy to his family and to all those who knew him.

[Agriculture, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity of travelling out west with the agriculture committee. In all of those meetings I asked the farmers how many of them had applied for AIDA. All of them put up their hands. I also asked those same farmers how many of them had received money from AIDA. Almost no one put up their hand.

What the farmers said was that they need money and they need it now. Will the agriculture minister please tell us how he will get cash into those poor farmers pockets who were denied AIDA by Christmastime?

[Agriculture, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to report back to the House on last week's informative committee hearings in western Canada on the farm income crisis. The hearings were very revealing, to say the least.

In a committee meeting in Dauphin, Manitoba, we heard one of the witnesses comment on the Reform Party. The farmer stated that the Reform Party had very clearly stated that it was opposed to subsidies, did not think government should be supporting agriculture out of taxpayer dollars, and was not speaking on their behalf.

Not only was the Reform Party not speaking on their behalf but its chief agriculture critic did not show up for any of the meetings. What was even more revealing were comments made by Liberal members of the committee. Perhaps they should have checked with the minister before speaking.

The Liberal committee chairman stated “AIDA has been an absolute failure and we have got to get out of the ad hoc programs”. The Liberal rural caucus chair also went on to say “I am ashamed”. I too am ashamed and I hope that the government will now place agriculture in a much higher priority on the national agenda.

[Agriculture, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada released figures today on farm income and federal government support for agriculture. I would like to put these numbers released today into perspective so people do not misinterpret them as the reality of life on the farm.

The picture that Statistics Canada paints of Canadian farmers and government support is a far cry from what is really happening out there today. The report talks about gross payments from government support programs reaching $1.2 billion, up 54% from the previous year. This does not necessarily reflect an increase of support but more so reveals that the severity of the income crisis has triggered farmers to use most of their meagre income out of NISA.

The reality is that government support has been drastically cut since the Liberals took power in 1993. In 1993 in the last budget of the Progressive Conservative government there were $7.1 billion in federal-provincial farm support. Today there are about $3 billion less. This is an accurate reality on the farm today, not the rosy picture Statistics Canada paints.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to a piece of legislation that perhaps is not quite as sexy and certainly not as controversial as a lot of the legislation that comes before the House. However, it has a spot which is very close to my heart.

The bill deals with municipalities and the Municipal Grants Act, which now is going to be called the payments in lieu of taxes act. The reason I say it has a spot close to my heart is that as the majority of members in the House are aware, I came through the ranks of elected municipal officials. I had the opportunity and the great pride and honour to represent the city of Brandon as its mayor for three terms. Prior to that I sat on council for the city of Brandon for three terms.

Our caucus also has the distinction and honour of having a number of members who have also served honourably on municipal councils. The member for Saint John was a mayor of great renown. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska was a mayor of that community. The member for Compton—Stanstead was the mayor of that community. As well the member for Markham was a councillor of that municipality. There is a lot of experience among my colleagues with respect to municipalities, municipal requirements and certainly municipal issues.

This piece of legislation as was mentioned before has some good qualities to it. One of the thorns in the sides of municipal leaders all over this great country is the way the federal government looks down on municipalities and does not deal with them the way municipalities feel is right and necessary.

Even though I am standing in the House right now, I still believe very strongly that the grassroots of the first level of government is that of the municipal governments. It is accessible by its constituents. It has elected officials who are very close to the issues most important to Canadians where they reside. Canadians depend on that municipal level of government to provide them with services that are close to their needs and requirements in their homes, their municipalities and their constituencies.

Let us talk about some of those services. A municipal council and its elected officials are responsible for delivering the services that are so in need, such as sewer and water. It would be awful if we turned on a tap and nothing flowed. That is a municipal responsibility. Protective services, such as police, fire and ambulance, are needed on a daily basis by our constituents. They are provided by municipal councils. When garbage is taken away from our front steps and put in a landfill, it is the responsibility of the municipality. Roads, bridges and any other type of capital infusion or capital requirement at the municipal level are municipal responsibilities.

I mention these services because the only way a municipality can generate the revenue necessary to provide those services is through property taxes. They are services to properties and are paid for by property taxes. This is very important in this debate because property tax is levied on properties, whether they are apartment buildings, residential buildings, commercial buildings, single family homes, or buildings owned by the federal government.

Because municipalities are not recognized in the constitution, the federal government does not recognize taxation to municipalities. That is terribly arrogant.

Municipalities feel that they are better than that. They should first of all be recognized in the constitution as being a level of government, certainly not the first level because the federal government on the benches across the way feel that that is its right and due. There should be a recognition for municipalities.

Because the federal government does not recognize taxation as such and because it does not recognize the jurisdiction that is levying that tax, it has what is known as a grant in lieu of taxes. It is not a grant. It is a payment for services delivered to the property. In this proposed legislation it is changing it to payments in lieu of taxes. That is a little better, but why not just simply say taxes?

The normal process with respect to taxation is that everyone who owns property in jurisdictions and municipalities is assessed a taxable rate levied by the municipality. An assessment value is placed on the property by assessors, whether it be provincial assessors or municipal assessors. I as an individual have the opportunity and right to question that assessment. I have the right to go to a court of appeal, usually a municipal court or board of revision and question the assessment that is placed on my property. If I do not like that, then I go to the next level. In Manitoba it is the municipal board where I can then argue that the assessment is either right or wrong. If I lose at that level I can then go to the Court of Queen's Bench and argue that my assessment is out of whack.

The federal government however does not follow those rules. It simply says that it is arbitrarily going to change the rules and decide what the assessed value is on the property. Nothing changes in this proposed legislation to change that arbitrary distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I understand that I have five minutes left.

As I was saying, the federal government does not have to follow the rules of the province of the jurisdiction where it is questioning that assessment. We could say that should be okay. The government in this bill has proposed an appeal board. From personal experience I can say that there is an arrogance at the bureaucracy level of the federal government.

I will give some examples where federal government officials decided that they did not want to pay the assessed value of a property. There was one instance in my municipality when I was sitting as mayor. The provincial assessors decided that there was a specific assessed value of a property of the federal government. Arbitrarily that value was reduced by 50%.

That is like someone with a residential property saying to the municipality, “I don't like the assessed value that you placed on my property. Therefore I am only paying half of what you are going to assess me in taxes”. Unfortunately there are remedies for that. The municipality could then say, “That is too bad. If you don't pay the whole amount, we will take your property in a tax sale”. The municipality cannot do that with the federal government.

Arbitrarily the government officials reduced the true value of the property to half of its level. We then had to go to an appeal panel. When I appeal assessments I like to look in the eyes of the people I am appealing to. The suggested approach at that time was to send a letter to the appeal panel that was going to be put in place by the federal government. There would be no opportunity to argue our position and the panel would make a decision. That is like appointing the judge, the jury and the executioner. There was no effective appeal.

The government has changed that now. It now has an appeal panel of 26 people minimum. Again they are approved and appointed by the federal government. Perhaps a lot of unemployed former Liberal MPs would like to find themselves sitting on that appeal panel, which I do not have a lot of faith at the municipal level of having an honest, fair and equitable decision being made. I am not happy about that area of the bill.

I am not happy that municipalities are not identified as a level of government. They provide more and better services than the federal and provincial levels.

Another thing I am not happy with is the way that the legislation has come forward.

As the mayor of the city of Brandon, I had the opportunity to sit on the board of directors for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for some eight years. It is an organization that represents almost every municipality across the country. When the federal government brings forth legislation to put into place a very important aspect of taxation should it not sit down with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and get its understanding, its feel and its approval for a piece of legislation before it comes forward? At the very least, should the federal government not inform the FCM that this piece of legislation is coming forward and what the make-up will be of the legislation? It did not happen and I have absolutely no idea or understanding as to why.

We will support the legislation going back to committee. We will support having full, open, honest debate and discussion at committee level. However, we beseech the government of the day to make sure it deals with this piece of legislation honourably and that it puts into place the necessary requirements to make sure that municipalities are treated properly and not with the arrogance that has been seen from this federal government toward the municipalities over the last six years.

[National Parks Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on this private member's bill which is designed to amend the National Parks Act by designating the Stoltmann wilderness area as one of the Canada's national parks.

I must admit my surprise when I discovered that the bill was introduced by the hon. colleague from Davenport, Ontario. By no means would I question his sincerity or his commitment to protecting Canada's distinctive and vitally important ecosystems, as the member has demonstrated that many times in committee and in the House.

To the contrary, I think the member should be congratulated for taking an interest in wanting to preserve an important part of our habitat for future generations of Canadians to enjoy. What was so surprising was the fact the proposed piece of legislation was introduced by a member of the Ontario Liberal caucus rather than by one of the government's own Liberal members representing ridings within the province of British Columbia.

Perhaps there is a very simple explanation why a member for Davenport, Ontario, would introduce a piece of legislation that could have such a significant economic impact on the people of the province of British Columbia. Perhaps Liberal cabinet ministers from British Columbia refused to consider the bill for fear of attracting the opposition the bill would certainly generate. Maybe we could hear later from Liberal cabinet members to get their perspective on the particular piece of legislation.

It is more likely that his Liberal colleagues from British Columbia simply do not support this private member's bill. Well they should not because it is a very bad piece of legislation that could seriously impact upon the social and economic well-being of the people of the Elaho Valley and surrounding areas.

We recognize the importance of trying to find a balance between protecting the environment and encouraging economic development. The province of British Columbia has certainly attempted to do both with its land management programs. Bill C-236 could have a significant negative impact on British Columbia's forest industry, an industry that in 1998 recorded factory shipments of $15.6 billion.

This industry is an extremely important contributor to the British Columbian economy. Therefore any decisions to designate a significant portion of that province's wilderness as parkland must be delayed until all stakeholders have an opportunity to debate the issue.

No one has to educate British Columbians about the importance of protecting its natural environment. British Columbia already boasts the second largest park system in Canada, second only to Canada Parks.

To date the province of British Columbia has surpassed 10 million hectares of protected land. This includes 679 provincial parks, recreation areas and ecological reserves. This equals 10.6% of the province.

The province of British Columbia appears well on its way to surpassing its minimum goal of protecting 12% of its ecosystem by the year 2000. This would be a considerable achievement, particularly since it would surpass the 12% recommendation of the United Nations Commission on the Environment, or more specifically the Brundtland commission.

The people of British Columbia recognize the importance of maintaining existing parks while working in partnership toward the creation of future protected areas. British Columbians recognize the tremendous social and economic benefits derived from their provincial parks, their recreation areas, as well as their ecological reserves.

In 1998 their registered camping visits almost reached three million. These campers generated huge economic benefits for local residents. Total visits to British Columbia's areas surpassed the 26 million mark, resulting in an economic boon for the B.C. tourism industry.

Millions of tourists from all over the world are attracted to British Columbia because of its natural beauty. These tourists can take advantage of over 3,000 kilometres of hiking trails. They have access to over 234 parks which are equipped with facilities to address the specific needs of disabled visitors. Visitors can witness for themselves a province that boasts the largest intact coastal temperate rain forest in the world, which is protected in the Kitlope Heritage Conservancy.

I could go on and on talking about the beauty of our western most province. However I believe that one must visit it oneself to truly appreciate the beauty nature has to offer. I am not at any time trying to suggest that British Columbia should somehow refrain from designating future areas as protected parks. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Progressive Conservative Party has always promoted the protection of representative areas of Canada's fragile ecosystem.

Going as far back as Canada's first prime minister, our party has continuously demonstrated its concern for protecting our natural habitat for future generations to enjoy. Sir John A. Macdonald created Canada's national park in 1885 when he stepped in to protect 26 kilometres around the hot mineral spring near what is now the town of Banff, declaring it a national treasure.

In 1988 the previous Progressive Conservative Party amended the National Parks Act and saw the passage of the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. That same government also introduced a national marine parks policy in 1986.

The Progressive Conservative Party continues to encourage the establishment of new national parks as witnessed by our recent support for the creation of the Tuktut Nogait National Park in the Northwest Territories.

In some respects the member for Davenport deserves a lot of credit for attempting to create a new national park in British Columbia. He has recognized that his Liberal government has failed miserably to fulfil its promises of protecting a system of ecologically representative areas by the year 2000. The Government of Canada has set a goal of protecting 12% of its territory by the year 2000 but to date has achieved just slightly more than 6%. The Liberal government has once again failed to live up to its commitment to the Canadian people.

Obviously the member for Davenport is trying to distinguish himself, or perhaps distance himself, from the rest of his Liberal colleagues who have continuously demonstrated to the Canadian people by their decision not to cancel the GST or change the free trade agreement that they could care less whether they break their promises to the Canadian public.

Unfortunately, in his haste to try and salvage his government's dismal record, the member for Davenport has introduced a bill that fails to take into consideration the need for important consultation and valuable input from its stakeholders.

Back in 1996 representatives from industry, first nations, community groups, outdoor tourism associations, recreational groups and conservation groups met with provincial government officials to outline a plan for future protected areas.

As a result of these consultations, the government introduced a comprehensive protected area strategy. This is a significant achievement that came about through a comprehensive, consultative process.

Bill C-236 would have us ignore the achievements of all these stakeholders by specifically excluding them from any future consultation process surrounding the establishment of the Stoltmann wilderness area.

The bill calls upon the federal minister to enter into negotiations with the Government of British Columbia to determine precise legal boundaries for the proposed park. There is no mention in the bill of any opportunity for stakeholders to have any input whatsoever in determining boundaries for this park. This is totally unacceptable.

I am not convinced that the introduction of Bill C-236 came as a result of any major consultation with stakeholders. Both British Columbia ministers of forestry and environment have already expressed opposition to the bill, as have representatives from industry and first nations. The bill lacked a strong basis of support even before it made its way to the floor of the House of Commons.

The Progressive Conservative Party understands that creating new national park protected areas is very difficult and time-consuming. However, it is important to have a full consultation process in place so that we can identify appropriate conservation areas that will have the support of the large majority of Canadians.

Only by working together and consulting together can we develop a new national park in which all Canadians can be proud.

Bill C-236 is seriously flawed in this respect. Therefore, for this reason and those stated previously, we cannot support the proposed piece of legislation.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak to Bill C-8, an act respecting marine conservation areas, as we proceed through the report stage of this piece of legislation.

Before I begin my comments on the first group of amendments, let me say that my hon. colleague, the member for West Nova and our Progressive Conservative heritage critic, unfortunately is not able to be here today. He is travelling with the fisheries committee and is obviously dealing with things that are close and dear to his heart. He will be able to speak at future times to this legislation and give his own personal views with respect to Bill C-8.

As my colleagues in the House are well aware, the Progressive Conservative Party has always been concerned with protecting our fragile ecosystem for our future generations. One needs only to look back at our first Canadian prime minister, the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, to understand the deep-rooted affection and appreciation we had and we continue to have for our environment.

Sir John A. Macdonald created Canada's first national park when in 1885 his Conservative government designated 26 square miles around the hot mineral springs near what is now known as the town of Banff, declaring it a national treasurer.

By creating Canada's first national park, Sir John A. Macdonald began a legacy that successive governments have continued to build upon.

As I mentioned, the Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with preserving our ecosystem. In 1986, the PC government approved the National Marine Park policy. In 1987, the country's first national marine conservation area, known as Fathom Five in Georgian Bay, was established.

In 1988, the government signed a federal-provincial agreement with the province of British Columbia to create a national marine conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

On April 6, 1990, the Progressive Conservative government signed an historic and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay Estuary and the St. Lawrence River.

In December 1996, we gave our support to Bill C-78, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park that culminated with the proclamation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park on June 8 of that year.

Let me note that this marine park was created without the need for any marine conservation legislation like the one that is being debated today.

Our party has continued to support measures that would effectively protect our unique and wonderful ecosystem. We stood firm with this government as we passed legislation that sought the establishment of the Tuktut Nogait National Park. We also showed our support for the establishment of the new Canada Parks Agency.

It is precisely because of our historical commitment toward protecting and preserving our environment that we find it so difficult to oppose Bill C-8. Yet, we must oppose this bill because we believe that it is fundamentally flawed.

The legislation has the potential for creating far greater problems than it purports to eliminate. I am convinced that Bill C-8, as amended, is simply going to add another confusing level of bureaucracy to an already nightmarish regulatory process for our fishers and others who make use of marine waters to earn their livelihoods.

Our party supported sending Bill C-48 to committee for review. We did this not only because we are committed to the creation of more national parks, but also because we wanted to give Canadians another opportunity to voice their opposition to this piece of legislation.

Time and time again we heard about the lack of consultation that took place prior to the drafting of the bill. Members of the Canadian heritage committee, along with many witnesses who made presentations to the committee, helped identify a number of glaring weaknesses within the legislation.

Trying to solve its flawed piece of legislation, the government introduced over 40 amendments to the bill prior to being reprinted for report stage.

Despite these many changes, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has seen fit to introduce even further amendments that we will be discussing later. It is no wonder that my colleague for Portneuf, representing the Bloc Quebecois, has introduced amendments that would see the deletion of every aspect of the bill.

Despite our many philosophical differences we have with the Bloc, we nevertheless do agree that Bill C-8 is a flawed piece of legislation that deserves to be defeated in the House.

Rather than introduce amendments that would completely alter the nature of the bill, as our friends from the Reform Party have done, the Bloc has decided to simply introduce amendments that would totally eradicate the legislation.

During our committee hearings, the member for Rimouski—Mitis asked for an explanation as to why we needed this particular piece of legislation. After all, the federal government and its provincial counterparts created the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park without the need of legislation. It is obvious by its amendments that a satisfactory answer was not forthcoming.

While doing research on another piece of legislation, I came across British Columbia's ministry of environment, lands and parks website. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that they already claimed to have more than 80 marine parks protecting wildlife and their scenic coastline.

I seem to recollect that a marine park was created in Nova Scotia. If I am not mistaken, Canada's military sank the decommissioned HMCS Saguenay off Lunenburg County, providing sanctuary for a large variety of very interesting sea life. This area has subsequently become a major tourist attraction for undersea adventurers. This further proves that creating marine parks is possible without this piece of legislation.

I do not think many people can be found who are fundamentally opposed to the idea of creating marine parks. However, these parks must be identified following extensive consultation with local stakeholders.

One of our major concerns with the bill is centred on the lack of consultation which took place within our local communities. Yes, the minister can declare that they sent out 3,000 information packages to various organizations. However, they have come to the conclusion that the lack of response they received from the stakeholders was a sign of acceptance. They have based this belief on a false premise.

Many fishers to whom we have talked had no idea that such a bill had been introduced, much less any knowledge of its contents. Is that what is meant by the government's extensive consultations? It is not good enough. The legislation could seriously impact the livelihoods of fishers. Therefore we feel they deserve greater input into any new marine policy.

There is already anxiety within fishing communities. Fishers are being asked to show blind faith in the government. The government wants them to believe that it will look after their interests when history clearly shows that this has not been the case. Obviously what is happening in the fisheries industry right now proves and points to the mismanagement of the government and certainly a lack of confidence on the part of not only the stakeholders, the fishers, but also the communities which depend upon the fisheries as their livelihood.

Fishers have no idea how their fishery will be impacted by the supreme court decision in the Donald Marshall, Jr., case. The government is now asking them to believe that the legislation will not seriously impact their livelihoods. I think the government is asking a little too much.

The government already has some tools available to it to protect the fragile ecosystem. Under the Oceans Act the minister can designate areas for closure if he feels the resource is being threatened. Evidence of this occurred in Nova Scotia when the minister unilaterally made the decision to close the Sable Gully just east of Sable Island.

We are concerned that Bill C-8 will add another confusing level of bureaucracy to the regulatory process. Fishers have to contend with DFO regulations, environmental laws, coast guard approvals, Transport Canada guidelines, and now Canada Heritage.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that Bill C-8 is an infringement upon provincial responsibilities. Although we do not agree with this position, we do agree that substantial provincial government input is necessary for helping to identify future marine conservation areas.

We have a lot more to say about Bill C-8. However at this time we will hold most of those comments until we debate the Group No. 2 amendments.

[Petitions, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a huge petition of some 231 pages with names of people from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They obviously have some considerable difficulty with the AIDA program. In their petition they wish the House to recognize the failure of AIDA and to replace it with an acreage payment. I present the petition to the House and ask the minister of agriculture to do so.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 18th, 1999]

Has the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food developed a plan for implementing a stand-alone, self-directed risk management program for the horticulture industry in accordance with the final report of the National Safety Net Advisory Committee dated June 15, 1998, and, if so, what is that plan?