Rick Borotsik

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

Mr. Speaker, I left the parental leave to my colleague from Saint John and I thought she handled it very well.

I have two children. I believe very strongly that children should have access to their parents during their formative years, particularly between one and three years of age. I did it as a father. My wife did it as a mother. I am very proud of the way we had our children grow up and develop.

At that time we did not have many supports from the federal government. If those supports are available, we will encourage it absolutely. We have to make sure that our children are taken care of because that is the resource we are going to depend on over the next number of years.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to follow the member for Saint John. I will try my best to liven it up, but as I said it is somewhat difficult to match that enthusiasm.

I am very pleased to be able to respond to the Speech from the Throne as presented by the new governor general. We all congratulate and welcome Adrienne Clarkson to her new post as governor general.

I am pleased to stand in this august House to represent my constituents of Brandon—Souris. I certainly thank them for giving me the opportunity to represent them. I assure them that I will do my best to represent them to the best of my capacity. I will certainly pass on their concerns to the government.

As one of the members of the government said, the throne speech was not supposed to have any substance to it but was supposed to show the vision of the government going into 21st century. By the way, the government succeeded in not having any substance in that speech, but it did not succeed very well in showing the vision of the government going into the 21st century.

My colleague from Saint John talked about a specific area that was neglected in the throne speech, that of housing. It is incumbent upon the government to see where Canadians want to be not only next year or five years from now but ten and fifteen years from now. Housing is only one cog in the wheel of what Canadians require for their well-being and livelihood. I will touch on a couple of others.

The Liberals succeeded in putting forward a very warm and fuzzy Speech from the Throne. They touched on some of the hot buttons, the points of issue Canadians feel very comfortable about. They touched on the environment. That is very good and very positive. The environment is very important to all of us as Canadians. We have to breathe air and drink water and make sure we have sustainability in our agriculture community so we have food to sustain us through the next decade and the next century.

They touched on health care but they talked about the research requirements in health care. They did not really talk about where health care would be going in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, or about what Canadians would like to see as their health care system unfolds into the 21st century. This is not something that we can say is status quo. We have to look to the future.

They talked about children and youth, a very important aspect of our society. The children we bring into this world and this country are obviously a resource and we have to look after them. Unfortunately they did not go far enough with respect to children and youth in our society.

The problem with Canadians today in listening to the throne speech is that they have a tendency not to believe governments any longer, in particular this government. The government has a history of perhaps saying things Canadians would like to hear but of perhaps not implementing them in the way Canadians feel they should be implemented.

I do not have to go very far. I simply have to look at the record. I have to look at the red book. I have to look at the scrapping of the GST which did not come to fruition. I have to talk about the free trade issue. They were going to rip up the agreement, which is one of the major reasons the budget is now balanced. It is the reason the Liberal government can now take credit for something that was put into place by a government that had vision, that could look 10 and 15 years down the road and say that what is right for Canadians now is a free trade agreement so that we are a partner in the globalized trading world of today. If it were a Liberal government that had to put that into place, we would still be hewers of wood and drawers of water.

The Liberals have not fulfilled any of their promises. Canadians today will be somewhat skeptical when they look at the throne speech that was presented two days ago.

The Liberals talk about taxes that will be reduced. Canadians do not believe them because right now taxes are taking a larger portion of their pay packets than what they did previous to 1993.

The Liberals talked about health care and they talked about the research components of health care. What they did not tell us is that by 2003, with the $11 billion put back in by the Liberal government over five years, we will be at the same level of support in health care that we were at in 1993. That is the wrong way to head into the new century. We are going backward, not forward. The Liberals hold it up as being a centrepiece of their platform. The fact is they do not know where they are heading with health care and Canadians are concerned about that.

I think Canadians wanted to have a good feeling as to where this government wanted to head in the future with respect to the retirement of our debt. Our debt did not come to us immediately. As a matter of fact it came to us over a number of years inclusive of the Liberal government and Mr. Trudeau and inclusive of other governments.

We have to put a plan together so that we can reduce that debt. It has to be a well thought out logical plan that extends a number of years into the next century. But there was none of that. What was in the throne speech was that yes, they will deal with it if they possibly can. That is not a plan.

The throne speech did not talk about an area that is very close and dear to my heart and my constituency of Brandon—Souris, which by the way I think reflects society in general, an urban rural area. We have people who are rich and poor. We have people who are young and old. My constituents wanted to hear something about agriculture. Not once was the word mentioned, with the exception of WTO and trade and agriculture put together.

Agriculture is the backbone of this country and always has been. I am frustrated and disappointed. We did not have to come up with the solutions. What we needed was the vision. A government member said “we do not deal with substance, we deal with vision”.

Where are we going with agriculture? There is no support. We are not supported against the Europeans and the Americans right now. All the government had to say is that philosophically agriculture is a very important component to this society, that it believes in a very strong, domestic supply of food for our country. That is all the government had to say. It had to say that the environment is very important and agriculture is an important part of the environment. It had to say that with the endangered species legislation the government talked about, it is important that we deal with agriculture and producers to make sure the endangered species legislation works. The government never said that. It never tied into it. That is vision and that is what is lacking in the throne speech.

That is where we had to head with vision and that is what I did not see.

We talk about the seniors. What about vision with respect to the baby boomers that are now among the seniors? Why do we not talk about retirement in 2010 or 2020? That is vision. This is a reactive government, not a proactive government. I would rather have had something in the throne speech that said there is a change in what is happening in society right now. A huge population is aging. We have to look at retirement. We have to look at government policies as to how those people plan for retirement. There was none of that. What was there? In the last budget the Liberals put into place they increased the CPP contributions by twice as much. That is their plan for retirement into the future. There is no vision. That was lacking in the throne speech.

A pet peeve and a soap box I like to get on is the world of work. Work is changing all around us. There is contract work. People are now doing work in their own homes. There are people who are part time employees, whether they want to be or not. That is the vision. The Liberals have to put a plan in place to accommodate those people in 2000, 2010 and 2020. I am disappointed. What we got were warm fuzzies with no substance. Yes, that is what the Liberals attempted to do and that is what they achieved.

First, we do not believe the Liberals will do anything that they said they would do. Second, it did not go far enough.

If this is the vision of this government, if this is the direction in which this government wants to take us after January 1, 2000, then I am very concerned. Our citizens are concerned.

I have to register my final complaint. It goes back to agriculture. For the government not to have said a word about it is absolutely disgusting. Canadians from coast to coast needed some assurances and confidence. They got nothing in the throne speech and I am very concerned about our direction in the next century.

[Petitions, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table that are of the same nature with respect to agriculture. There are 122 pages of signatures.

The petitions state that the federal minister of agriculture has introduced the agricultural income disaster assistance program fully knowing the shortfall as it relates to agriculture in western Canada and that he has failed to set forth a support program that fully reflects the true needs of agriculture.

We will debate agriculture a little later this morning in the reply to the throne speech. The petitioners are asking that the minister of agriculture be replaced by a member of the House who would be better able to recognize and understand the issues of agriculture.

[Ukraine, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canada and Ukraine have a long history together as upwards of one million Canadians identify with some Ukrainian heritage, including myself. Many of those who emigrated from Ukraine live today on the prairie provinces.

Canada, under the leadership of the previous Progressive Conservative government, was the first country in the western world to recognize an independent Ukraine in 1991.

A notable program that has recently emerged to foster our relationship with Ukraine is Premier Gary Filmon's decision to establish a secretariat to foster linkages between Manitoba and Ukraine.

Furthermore, I mention that the Institute on Governance has developed a two week study tour which involves examining and understanding the Canadian federal government and reflecting on that which can be adopted by Ukraine practice.

I am pleased to welcome to Ottawa today Leonid Kravchuk, Chairman of the State Commission on Administrative Reform, who was the first president of Ukraine from 1991 to 1994. We in the Progressive Conservative party wish Mr. Kravchuk a successful stay in Canada and extend our wishes for Ukraine's continued reformation.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

I don't know where he's at. I was looking for the seventh senator.

I very honestly suggest to the hon. member that obviously would require a constitutional change. I am prepared to look at anything that will give better representation to the country. I will also look at making sure that there is a fair and honest distribution of those senators.

Earlier in my dissertation I said that I had not gotten my head around elections just yet. However, I feel very strongly that in part of that reform we should look at the possibility of provincial governments playing a much more active role in the appointment process, not necessarily the appointments but the appointment process of senators to the Senate of Canada.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Six senators, excuse me. I was looking for the one from Regina. I missed that one.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba already has the third of the 20% of the seats. We have seven senators currently in the province of Manitoba.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was anything of any substance in those comments.

Actually people do not have to call the 1-800 number. If they wish, they can call my office and I will put them in touch with the senators I know with their personal phone numbers. Those phone numbers are listed, so I am sure the hon. member could find them.

The hon. member spent a lot of time, effort and energy getting petitions to abolish the Senate.

I think the hon. member would have been much better suited had he gone out and spent that time and energy trying to find out from those same constituencies where the Reform was going. What was it going to do? Was it going to go to the UA, to three parties or just disappear like most Canadians would like?

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think even the member of the NDP who obviously is a bit of a socialist would agree that individuals are in fact innocent until proven guilty and have gone through all the opportunities for appeal. I am sure that every member would defend that aspect of our judicial system and of our communities.

Again I would say that we as parliamentarians, even though the hon. member may not agree with this, do not do a very good job of keeping that side of the House in order. There are others in this parliamentary system who are required in order to have that check and balance and that control. For a $50 million budget, I certainly have no difficulty in keeping that house.

However, and I am sure the hon. member did not listen very well when I said it, that does not mean there should not be some changes. That does not mean the status quo must stay. That does not mean there should not be some restructuring within the Senate itself. We would have done that a long time ago had those members supported the Charlottetown accord. Instead, they voted against the Charlottetown accord. That would have been in place.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if that were one of the criteria, the hon. member would never have been able to speak in the House since he was elected.

Let me tell him how Bill C-4 becomes relevant to the debate on whether the Senate has a place to play in parliamentary democracy in the country. Bill C-4 had some serious flaws when it came to the House, but a government with a majority has a tendency not to listen to members of the opposition who quite frankly have some very good ideas and thoughts about how legislation could be made better.

Unfortunately that piece of legislation was rammed through committee and through the House. The only opportunity I had to make that legislation better was to elicit the support of the Senate.

The Senate did a wonderful job. The senators went out and listened to the Canadian public. They were accountable to the Canadian public. They held Senate hearings at which they listened to the stakeholders. They made changes that made the legislation better. It is a check and balance. It is an opportunity for parliamentarians to solicit and elicit the other house to make legislation better.

With a stroke of a pen the Reform Party would abolish the Senate. Where would we be? We would have a majority government able to do anything it wanted to the citizens of the country because it has a majority. The Reform Party has no plans. It has no understanding of parliamentary democracy. There is a requirement to have that check and balance.

Should there be reconstruction of the existing Senate? Of course there should but it should be done logically and with a well thought out plan. Let us not do it with vitriolic balderdash. Let us go forward and make sure that not only Canadians agree with the new plan but that the House and the Senate agree with the new structure and plan.

Let me give the House some ideas that were put forward in the Charlottetown accord. The Charlottetown accord came forward with restructuring of the Senate in mind. Who did not support it? The Reform Party did not support it. It did not want to restructure the Senate and make a change to the status quo. It did not want to think logically about how Canadians could be better governed.

The governance of the country was not important to that party. What was important was simply the matter of partisan politics, the hot button issues, instead of health care, agriculture and all other departments that are important to the country which we should be talking about.

Let me tell the House about the Senate. The Senate has helped me in the job that I do. I have that opportunity. When I came here I did not think that what was there was right. In fact there has to be some restructuring, but members opposite should take the time to phone the 1-800 number to talk to the senators. They are very accessible and very open.

Phone the 800 number that has been advertised by the NDP right now. Talk to the senators. Ask them their opinion. There are some very bright, experienced and very dedicated people in that House.

I will not mention names like the hon. member from Saskatchewan did because I do not think it is fair that we use those names in this House, but I can take members to the people who spend as much if not more time in their house than do probably the majority of members of parliament. There are good and bad in every house. I believe that the majority of the senators who sit on our side in the Senate are very good.

Let us talk about what would happen if there was not that check and balance. Simple solutions for very complex issues is where the Reform come on this one; a stroke of the pen and let us get rid of the Senate. Where would we be?

Right now we have a government that sits in power with its majority coming from Ontario. Do we want Ontario to run Canada? I think not. The Reform Party has a mantra that the west wants in. It would certainly be a heck of a lot harder for the west to have its voice heard if it was simply an Ontario or Quebec based government. Now we have the opportunity for the check and balance because we have the other house to call on when necessary.

We talked about an elected Senate. I have to honestly say that I have not got my head around this one yet. I have tried to analyse it; I have tried to look at all the pros and cons which is obviously something some of the members in the Reform Party and the NDP have not done. They simply like to push the button.

I looked at the American system. The member from Regina said that we look at other jurisdictions and what is good and what is bad. I look at the American senate which is elected. I see an administration of one political stripe and a house and senate of another political stripe. They get nothing done. They stop each other. They block each other. That is not good for democracy either. I am not so sure that the elected side of it should be there.

Let me talk about the reform in the Charlottetown accord. We talked about term limitations, something that everybody here should talk about and discuss logically. At one point in time a senator was appointed for life. That was wrong. Now senators are appointed until age 75. That too may be wrong. But what are the solutions? Should we have term limitations? Perhaps. Personally I could support a term limitation on the appointment of a senator.

It was also mentioned there should be some gauge as to what the efficiency and the effectiveness was for an individual. I agree. There should be gauges, attendance requirements and effectiveness and efficiency standards that have to be met. There is nothing wrong with that. We do it in the House. Our gauge and our standard is obviously an election. The Senate should have gauges and standards as well.

We should also talk about the effectiveness of the Senate and how it could be more accountable to the public it represents. The example was given that the senator from Regina has not been seen in Regina. That is wrong. A senator who is appointed to a provincial responsibility and jurisdiction should represent that responsibility and jurisdiction. That is part of the restructuring that should go on within the Senate, but it should not be a stroke of a pen abolition because it is not good governance for this country.

It was also said that senators do not do anything. I just gave the House the example of Bill C-4 which was very important, although the member from the NDP decided that Bill C-4 was not a very important piece of legislation. Probably because he agreed with Bill C-4 we disagreed with it.

Members of this House were treated as fools when Bill C-55 was put through. There was an urgency because we were going to protect the Canadian heritage. We were going to make sure that we would not back down from the Americans. It was a piece of legislation that was absolutely necessary. Where is Bill C-55 now? The only people who held up Bill C-55 to have it checked by the Canadian public was the Senate.

This government will be accountable for that. It was the wrong way to put that legislation through, it was the wrong legislation and it will be accountable. The only one that had the opportunity to bring that out in the open was the Senate.

Bill C-78 is a piece of legislation that came through the House because the Liberals are the majority. It was to take pensions away from superannuates. Thirty billion dollars will be taken away from Canadians because the government has a majority, but the bill has not passed the Senate. There will be accountability to the government because we have that check and balance.

Do not get me wrong. I said earlier that I believe very strongly there has to be some restructuring, but to sit here and say that we will not approve a $50 million budget for the other House is balderdash. It is not the way to do it.

I am disappointed and frustrated that we are not talking about real issues. Canadians should be able to deal with real issues. Canadians should have an opportunity to speak to real issues such as services that should be delivered by this government and that are not being delivered.

We waste our time talking about a budget of $50 million instead of the billions of dollars being wasted by this government or the billions of dollars being taken by this government from legitimate Canadians. Why? Because Reform wants to Senate bash. That is all it wants to do. It is the hot button politics of the Reform Party. Frankly, Canadians are losing when they have representation from the Reform Party.

A member of the NDP said that if most constituents would not support the Senate. In New Brunswick, most Canadians spoke and they did not support the NDP. There is one NDP member. In Ontario the constituents listened and they did not support the NDP. It has no official party status in Ontario. I believe in the electorate. I believe the electorate does the right thing. In this case, they certainly did the right thing.