Rick Borotsik

[Petitions, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 82 pages of signatures from residents of Saskatchewan who have asked me to present their petition to the House of Commons. The petition concerns the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

The petitioners say that the federal minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has failed to meet not only with farmers, but business people and concerned citizens in his constituency, and has failed to protect the true needs of Canadian agriculture. They too wish to have the minister replaced with an individual from the government side who better understands the issues not only of agriculture, but of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would like to file these petitions on behalf of the petitioners.

[Petitions, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today to the House under Standing Order 36. The petitions are signed by residents of Saskatchewan.

The first petition concerns the inability of the AIDA program to provide services to agriculture. It suggests that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should be replaced with an individual who has a better understanding of how agriculture is being affected today and how agriculture should be affected in the future.

[National Agriculture Industry Relief Co-Ordination Act, October 20th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-252, an act to establish a national committee to develop policies and procedures to ensure co-ordination in the delivery of programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or disasters created by weather, pests, shortages of goods or services or market conditions, and the co-ordination of the delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation, and to study the compliance of such programs with World Trade Organization requirements.

Mr. Speaker, you have very briefly identified the subject matter of the bill. We have some difficulties in the safety net programs that have been developed by government thus far.

This piece of legislation would legislate a committee made up of all the stakeholder. The provinces and the federal government would then be able to come to the House to table those reports and propose legislation that would deal with natural disasters in agriculture, as well as other extraordinary circumstances, particularly like we are suffering today in agriculture.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[National Co-Op Week, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to National Co-op Week, which is being held between October 17 and 23, and to recognize the important economic and social role co-operatives and credit unions play in many communities in Canada.

I would like to be parochial for a moment and particularly pay tribute to co-operatives in Manitoba, such as Credit Union Central of Manitoba, Federal Co-operatives Ltd. and Agricore.

Agricultural co-operatives play a major role in Canadian economy: in grains, oilseeds, dairy, poultry and eggs, livestock, fruits and vegetables.

Co-operatives are the grouping of people around a shared objective and operate not for profit but for the economic benefit of their members. They promote initiatives from the grassroots rather than from governments.

Whether it is in agriculture, financial services, insurance or housing, co-operatives are growing, adapting and changing to help shape a better world for all of us.

[Agriculture, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the provinces where Canada delivers the AIDA program they have delivered $90 million to date. To date, 8,000 AIDA applications have been approved and 10,000 have been denied.

Does the minister not believe that those 10,000 farmer do not need assistance? If he does believe that then when will he give them some hope and put some money in their pockets?

[Agriculture, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week the minister of agriculture in a CBC interview said he would use all the resources at his disposal to help farmers.

Last week Alberta provided $100 million. The U.S. government provided $8.7 billion. When will the minister use his influence to put forward similar resources to help stop the bleeding in agriculture?

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre who indicated that agriculture was not referred to in the throne speech at all. He indicated that there was no direction from the government with respect to agriculture.

Does the member believe that the government should have at the very least put together some sort of vision in the throne speech as to the support the government should be putting into agriculture right now? The government does not seem to have any direction at all.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rebut the $42 billion but I will pass on that.

The member for Guelph—Wellington mentioned that she had five Liberal MPs in her riding recently. Why could she not have had those five Liberal MPs visit me over the past summer to see the devastation of the farms, the loss of hope, the despair, the depression and the violence within the families because of the situation they are dealing with? Why could she not bring her colleagues down to see that in her rosy little world?

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have always had a lot of respect for the hon. member for Hillsborough. I know he is here for the right reasons, to do the right things on behalf of his constituents. However, I have to admit that his speech was fairly wishy-washy, if I can use that term and it can be translated properly. It gives the impression of warm and fuzzy. It gives the impression that there is nothing wrong. It gives the impression that everybody is fat, dumb and happy in this country of ours, so just sit back and do not worry because things are being handled well.

He said that all of the newspaper headlines indicated how wonderful the throne speech was. I wonder if he saw the headlines recently about agriculture, which was not mentioned. I wonder if he saw the headlines about transportation, which was not mentioned in his speech, with respect to a potential monopoly situation in the air. I wonder if he saw the headlines with respect to the fisheries, where people are actually committing violence against one another. Is that the type of Canada that he sees, or does he not see that through his rose coloured glasses? Does he not believe that it is the responsibility of his government to try to come up with solutions to those issues?

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is an excellent one.

I go back to my comments about having an understanding as to where we want to go in agriculture. Do we want Canadians to have a reliable domestic food supply? I think that if we asked Canadians, they would say yes. Canadians would say yes to an affordable food supply. We have to talk about the multifunctionality of agriculture with respect to the environment. I think Canadians would say it is an important factor. Do we want to have an independence in that sector and that industry? I think Canadians would say yes.

Those are the questions the government did not ask. If Canadians say yes to all of those, then we have to put a philosophy together that says we will make sure that agriculture is going to exist in our country in the next 20 years and that it is going to be in family farms, as the hon. member has said.

Family farms have changed with evolution, too. Family farms now are anywhere from 4,000 to 5,000 acres in my area, where a family farm used to be one section or less.

We have to be flexible enough to recognize that there is an evolution in agriculture, but we have to make sure that there is still an independent ownership of that agriculture, of the people who live in our communities and who want to continue to grow crops in those communities. We have to protect them against some of the issues the hon. member just mentioned. We have to protect them against some of this intrusion into their flexibility and independence.