Rick Borotsik

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

Mr. Speaker, if members would listen they would learn something. We are a party unlike some other parties in the House that do not know whether they are fish or fowl at this point in time. We will not get into those debates now.

When I first came to the House, probably as uninformed as Reform Party members or perhaps not quite as uniformed because I do have a tendency to learn and listen, I too had some questions as to the viability and the responsibility of members of the Senate. I have an advantage because my party has members sitting in the Senate. I have the advantage of listening, learning and keeping an open mind, which obviously sometimes is not shared by other members of the House.

When I first came to the House I looked across the House and saw a government with a majority and a piece of legislation called Bill C-4. That piece of legislation was to revamp the Canadian Wheat Board. It was a very important piece of legislation to my constituents and to others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I must start my dissertation with what vitriolic balderdash we hear from members of the New Democratic Party, of the Reform Party and of the Bloc Quebecois.

I wonder if it has any bearing on the fact that all three of those parties have no representation or membership in the Senate. Quite frankly they never will have any representative in the Senate because they would have to form government.

The Bloc will never form government. The NDP is lucky to even be here and, if the New Brunswick and Ontario elections are any indication, probably will not be here in the future. As for the Reform Party, we do not know where it is. We do not know who the Reformers will be running under, what they will be running under or if they will even be in the House. It would be best for Canadians if they did not come back to the House.

Let me talk about a couple of issues. We are dealing with government appropriations for many departments. We could be standing here today debating the appropriations for the Department of Health, a huge budget and an issue that resonates across the country with every individual Canadian. Health deals with each and every one of us.

We could be dealing with appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, which has a budget of $1.2 billion, not $50 million. Its budget should be increased because there are some very serious issues within the Department of Agriculture such as the development of a long term policy that deals with natural disasters. The member from the NDP should have talked to that because his constituents are being directly affected by what is going on as we speak. Members of the Reform Party should be talking about it because their areas are directly impacted by what is going on right now in agriculture.

We are having a Senate bashing debate. We have a $50 million appropriation and we are having a full debate in the House of Commons when there are issues out there that certainly should be talked about.

[Carriage By Air Act, June 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not wish to take up an extraordinary amount of the House's time, but I would like to speak on behalf of our transportation critic for Cumberland—Colchester.

I would like to take a moment to express our support for Bill S-23. The bill not only receives our support but the support of the Air Transport Association of Canada, a body representing the major airlines and many cargo operators as well. The industry regards this legislation as long overdue and essential for the modernization and commercial viability of Canadian commercial aviation.

I would be remiss if I did not respond briefly to the member from the Reform Party who suggested that because the bill is an S-bill that came from the Senate that perhaps it does not provide a good service for Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not everybody has a lock on all the ideas. The Reform members should certainly recognize that because, quite frankly, I do not believe they have a lock on any good ideas.

The Senate, in its wisdom, decided to bring forward a piece of legislation that is needed and necessary in the industry. The bill amends the Carriage by Air Act by implementing two international agreements respecting air flights, the Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara Supplementary Convention.

These multilateral agreements modernize the rules regarding airline liability for passengers and cargo, and also simplify documentation for the international carriage of that cargo. They were originally established under the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and its amendment, the Hague Protocol of 1955.

The Montreal Protocol No. 4 deals exclusively with cargo. It provides that a carrier is liable for damages to cargo to the limits of the liability, but only after those damages have been estimated. As a result, the carrier cannot escape liability by taking all necessary precautions and cannot be assessed damages beyond the maximum limit, even in the event of gross negligence.

Another important feature of Protocol No. 4 is that it changes airline liability for damage to cargo on board an aircraft by removing the requirement that a plaintiff prove that the airline was at fault. Together, these changes will reduce the litigation and contribution to controlling costs associated with insurance and cargo rates.

The Montreal Protocol No. 4 came into effect in the United States in March of this year and thus puts U.S. carriers at a competitive advantage over Canadian carriers.

The Guadalajara Convention clarifies the relationship between passengers and shippers on the one hand and air carriers on the other. It is also widely in force and clarifies the application of the Warsaw Convention to situations where the contract of carriage was made by a carrier that did not actually perform some or all of the carriage by air.

Bill S-23 has received unanimous support. I say that again. Bill S-23 has received unanimous support. All potentially affected parties, including carriers and their associations, the Air Transport Association of Canada, manufacturers, shippers, tour operators, consumers and the legal profession were consulted.

As I have stated, the legislation is long overdue. All aspects of the bill are already in practice worldwide. Canadian carriers and airlines realize it is good business, so does the PC Party. We support the bill and urge quick passage.

Because it came from the Senate does not mean that it is an inferior piece of legislation. What it means is that it was brought forward by a group of individuals who saw a need, reacted to that need and brought it forward to this House.

The Reform Party will never accept that. It never has, it never will and it never can accept that principle. Quite frankly, it is very frustrating for not only myself but most Canadians.

We will support the bill regardless of the letter on it because it is the right thing to do.

[Carriage By Air Act, June 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member going to deal with this piece of legislation at any point in time in his diatribe?

[Agriculture, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of rocks that can be unturned.

In the Red River Valley there was a program where $10 per acre was allowed for custom seeding. There is a small window that a lot of these producers may well take advantage of if the minister would look at a program like that. He may want to look at the JERI program which would also help producers to recover some of their lost input. Those are the options and those are the programs.

I would ask that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food reply to those and perhaps put them in place right now so that people can see their land.

[Agriculture, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last night we received another two and a half inches of rain on already rain-soaked land.

In 1997 in the Red River Valley only 1,200 acres were affected. Right now, in my area of Manitoba, over two million acres are affected.

In 1997 the Government of Canada provided $26 million to address farm losses in the Red River Valley. To date, the Minister of Agriculture has announced nothing, zero for the people who are being affected by this terrible disaster in southwestern Manitoba.

What is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food going to do for those constituents of agriculture?

[Agriculture, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for taking a proactive approach with respect to the natural disaster that is taking place in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for those people who will not be able to comply with crop insurance, what contingency plan is in place now? What message can we send to those people who will not put a crop in this year?

[Government Of Canada, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been in government for six years and it still cannot stop blaming all of its administrative failures on the previous Progressive Conservative government.

Last week in the House the Minister of Finance tried to blame the P.C. government for the current income gap between Canada and the U.S. That would be like blaming a grade six teacher for failing high school.

It is time the Minister of Finance and the federal government took credit for the Liberal accomplishments over the last six years. It is time to take credit for the Pearson airport fiasco, which cost taxpayers $1 billion. It is time to take credit for the EH-101 cancellation, which cost taxpayers $1 billion. It is time to take credit for the highest personal income tax levels among the G-7 countries. It is time to take credit for raising taxes 40 times since 1994. It is time to take credit for gutting $17 billion from the health care budget.

These are Liberal accomplishments over the past six years and it is time they stood and took responsibility.

[Canadian Armed Forces, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleague for Compton—Stanstead to speak to Motion No. 73 put forward by the Bloc member. I will say at the outset that the Progressive Conservatives, at least the member for Compton—Stanstead and myself, will be supporting this private member's legislation when it is voted on sometime in the near future.

I have heard Liberal members give excuses as to why it is not necessary to have a special committee struck to deal with procurement in national defence. They used excuses such as transparency and openness being in place now. Liberal members also state that procedures are in place which allow Canadians to believe that they are well served and well protected by the process currently in place. I would suggest that is not the case.

This motion came forward because the hon. member believes that the committee system we currently have does not seem to be working in this particular area. I believe that the agriculture committee, on which I sit, works fairly well, is open and transparent. I am very pleased to say that the majority of the government members who sit on that committee are open to honest discussion and honest debate. Some of those members are here today and that was not meant to try to endear them to my heart.

There are certain committees which work, but that does not seem to be happening in the defence committee. Unfortunately there does not seem to be openness when dealing with estimates. There does not seem to be openness when the minister appears before the committee. When members of that committee do not have the opportunity to get the true facts, then obviously it means there is a necessity to put other options forward. This is, in our estimation, a reasonable option under the circumstances.

Let me give the House an example of the efficiency that was spoken of by members of the government. Let me tell members about the cost effectiveness of this government when dealing with military procurement. Let me deal with a very simple example, that of the procurement of the EH-101 helicopter.

The government would love to forget about the EH-101, but that procurement took place rationally, logically and nominally. An agreement was reached to buy helicopters which were required by the Canadian military. However, the Liberal government, in its own fashion and in its own way of wasting Canadian taxpayer dollars, decided at the stroke of a pen that it would, through political expediency, not accept the contract that was negotiated, developed and in place at a penalty cost in excess of $1 billion to the Canadian public. In excess of $1 billion of Canadian public dollars was expended needlessly by the government because of political expediency. That in itself speaks to the need for some type of committee watchdog that will put some openness and transparency back into the system.

A government member recently said “But we do have a watchdog. We do have that backstop. We have the auditor general who comes in and if there should be any improprieties in any part of the process, then that watchdog will look at all of the papers and documents. He will go through all of the process and then he will come forward and say that this was wrong”. He is right, that is what the auditor general does.

The auditor general provides a very valuable service. The problem is that no one listens to him on the government side. They do not listen to the auditor general. They turn a deaf ear and they simply continue with the same type of political expediency that is now in place.

The motion proposes the idea of a committee being struck to deal with expenditures in the military of over $100 million. That is a lot of money. The motion itself reflected that when it spoke to the number of $100 million. Anything below that certainly can and will be dealt with by the department of defence and the treasury department.

The government says that this cannot happen because there is an operational requirement for the Department of National Defence and if we had a committee it would stop the operational necessities of the department. That is not true. One hundred million dollars allows the normal operations of the Department of National Defence to continue. However, there should be an opportunity for anything above $100 million to be vetted by Canadians.

The government talks about Canadians having a return on investment. Canadians need a return on their investment right now. This is one area in which this could begin. If the committee system worked it would not be necessary. If investigation by the auditor general worked it would not be necessary. Unfortunately we can point to too many problems associated not only with this department but with the government.

We will be voting in favour of this motion. We will continue to strive for openness and transparency when it comes to procurement by the Department of National Defence.

In closing I would like to cite two other examples. One of them was a contract that was not tendered but was awarded to Bombardier for $2.85 billion for training. It was done by the Liberal government. I do not think Canadians were well served by that particular contract, which was not negotiated.

The other example I would like to touch on briefly is that of alternative service delivery. ASD makes sense, to a degree, but unfortunately there is no openness, there is no transparency and there is no ability for Canadians or parliamentarians to be able to put forward their opinions on this particular program. That is why a committee of this nature would be a good operational necessity for parliament.

I stand on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and the member for Compton—Stanstead to say that we will support this motion. I wish the government would only listen. It does not understand that what it is doing now does not resonate with the Canadian public. It does not understand that what it is doing is wrong.

All we have to say is EH-101 and I am sure Canadians will understand.

[Agriculture, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments about assistance. An emergency request was made by the province of Manitoba just yesterday to the PMRA to have aerial spraying take place as opposed to land spraying because obviously they cannot get on the land.

My question is for the Minister of Health. What is his department prepared to do to help these farmers who in fact may get some of those acres planted but they need an emergency registration?