Rick Borotsik

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that members of the government have waited around so long to hear some pearls of wisdom that will come from these benches as opposed to the wisdom from colleagues in the National Farmers Union.

It seems like ever since I came to the House it has been this piece of legislation that I have been most involved in. When the new 36th parliament was elected Bill C-4 was one of the first items on the order paper.

I had the opportunity as a rookie member of the House to follow this legislation through the whole process and I can say that there was not only process but there was politics that went along with the process obviously in the legislation of Bill C-4.

At second reading we in the Progressive Conservative Party voted in favour of sending it to committee with the understanding that at committee we would have the opportunity of actually listening to the issues coming forward from the producers, that we would actually listen to the people this piece of legislation was to affect not only individually but as their businesses depend on the ability to market the produce which they grow, in this case the product being wheat and barley by western Canadian producers.

As we sat in committee we heard these producers speak of all the issues and problems with the Canadian Wheat Board. A majority of us outside government listened to what we heard and suggested at that time that the legislation that was put forward by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board was not going to solve the problems of western Canadian producers. In some cases with the legislation it would exacerbate the problems of western Canadian producers, particularly with a very objectionable clause that was put in by one of the members of government.

That was the exclusion and inclusion clause, particularly the inclusion clause suggested in Bill C-4 but which was not suggested in its sister legislation, Bill C-72 which came before members in the 35th parliamentary session.

At the committee level we put forward what we thought were well thought out logical amendments and lo and behold, none of those amendments passed in committee because government felt it was necessary to ramrod this shoddy piece of legislation through totally contrary to what the producers were telling us.

When we got back to the House after coming from committee, we thought perhaps at that time the government would again have a second opportunity to listen to good amendments. At that point the government invoked closure to debate in the House about this very important piece of legislation that affects the majority of people in my constituency.

At that time it went to the Senate. Before I discuss the Senate report further and some good amendments that have been sent back from the Senate, there are a couple of things I would like to say.

If the amendments are passed the Progressive Party will support the legislation. We will support it reluctantly because the legislation does not deal with the issue producers want to deal with, freedom of choice. That is choice in how they market and choice in how they can sell their produce outside of having a single desk marketing system like the Canadian Wheat Board. It does not deal with that. It does not deal with a number of other issues. However, the amendments do modify the legislation sufficiently that it can start the process of changing the Canadian Wheat Board and having it evolve in the 21st century.

When the legislation went to the Senate the Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party both asked the Senate to do another tour of western Canadian producers.

A number of Reform members signed a letter to the Senate asking it if it would not take it back on the road and to listen to those people who unfortunately the government would not allow us to listen to in committee.

The reason I mention the Reform Party is that after the Senate came back with the amendments, the critic for the Reform Party sent out a press release stating that the hearings were a pathetic attempt to justify the Senate's existence. After asking the Senate to take them out, after asking for these amendments to be discussed we had Reform saying that it was a pathetic attempt to justify the Senate's existence. The Reform Party seems to be contradicting itself once again. Not only does the Reform Party constantly contradict itself, these cheap partisan attacks to do nothing for trying to work together as legislators in both chambers to make better legislation for the western Canadian farmer.

When the Senate came back it came back with a number of amendments. I stood in this House on numerous occasions and spoke in opposition to the inclusion clause and the exclusion clause. I spoke because that is what people wanted us to hear and put forward in this package. What happened? The Senate effectively came forward with an amendment that would take out the inclusion clause. The minister does have the opportunity to go back to the producers, but it is this House that will ultimately decide whether any additional commodities will be included in the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system. That in itself is a very positive amendment.

The Senate also came back with a recommendation to cap the contingency fund to a level of $30 million. This was a concern raised to us constantly in committee where there was no parameters with respect to contingency. It was a check-off which producers are getting sick and tired of. It was dollars that would be coming out of their pockets. That contingency fund has been capped at $30 million, which is also acceptable.

I have received some correspondence from Saskatchewan canola growers. They are pleased with some of the Senate committee amendments and are glad that it listened. They are particularly happy with the inclusion clause change and amendment.

A key amendment, something Reform also put forward as an amendment, was the role of the auditor general with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board. We felt and heard the message from producers that if they were the owners of the Canadian Wheat Board why was it that they were unable to get information from the organization there to represent them. It did not make sense.

The Senate listened. It came back and said that for a period of two years the auditor general will have the right to look at the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board, not a balance sheet, not a financial statement submitted by the Canadian Wheat Board but an operation audit by the auditor general. It is good and it is bad. It did not go far enough. We would have like to see a full report from the auditor general to this House and to the actual owners of the Canadian Wheat Board, the producers. It does not go that far but it is a first good step. Again, it is an amendment that got through not by the opposition, not at the committee stage in the elected House but by the Senate.

There are a couple of things it did not deal with. To improve the legislation I wish it would have. All board members should be elected by the producers instead of the 10 out of 15 board members who will be elected, the others appointed by government. Unfortunately that was one amendment put forward by our party and by the Reform Party that was not accepted by the Senate.

The last and the most important change that was not included in the Senate amendments that came forward was the change and the amendment to dual marketing.

One of the major issues that we all heard at committee from the producers themselves was to give them the choice that the hon. members keep talking about across the bench. “Give us a choice. Let us have the opportunity of a dual marketing system where we can choose either the Canadian Wheat Board or the open market to sell our commodities. Or at least give us the option for opting out. At the very least, give us an option of the portion of the commodity that we are producing so that we can market that in some other fashion outside of the Canadian Wheat Board”.

That did not happen. That in fact is the one area of which I say I have some reservations by supporting this amended piece of legislation. It has not dealt with nor has it solved the underlying problem of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The hon. member from the NDP, whom I have a lot of respect for and who I know listened intently at the committee hearings, has put a lot of thought into this. He and I differ ideologically on this particular issue. He feels that this legislation goes way too far, that in fact if the legislation is put into place with amendments, it is going to adversely affect the Canadian Wheat Board. I on the opposite side believe that it has not gone far enough. What it has done with the amendments is that it has allowed the Canadian Wheat Board now to at least evolve into the 21st century. It will give that opportunity.

The hon. member also said that the Canadian Wheat Board organization will be changed in the next few years. He is right. It is going to change because we as Canadians have to change with the global economy.

We recognize that when we negotiate in the WTO in 1999, this is one organization that is going to be on the table. There has to be transparency. There has to be openness. There has to be an opportunity for producers and our trading partners to see that it is indeed free trade, open trade and honest trade. That comes with the opportunity for choice and obviously the opportunity for the dual marketing system.

It has been a very interesting process that we walked this piece of legislation through from its beginning here about nine months ago in the 36th Parliament to where we have it right now. I can honestly state that this piece of legislation has been accepted by virtually no one. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board alienated just about everyone, those people such as the hon. member from the NDP who feel that it has gone too far and those people who feel it has not gone far enough.

It has pitted family against family, brother against brother, father against son and it still has not dealt with the issue. It is going to come back to this House. I hope that I am here long enough to be able to say I told you so and that we should have done the right thing with this piece of legislation when it came forward in 1997.

I said earlier, and I will repeat that if the amendments are approved in this legislation, we of the Progressive Conservative Party will support C-4 and the legislation but reluctantly. We know that it is not going to solve all if any of the problems that western Canadian producers have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. It is late this evening. I know there will be a lot of questions and comments, so I would be more than happy to close my speech.

[Ukrainian Canadians, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Ukrainian Canadian community is commemorating the 65th anniversary of the 1932-33 manmade famine genocide in Ukraine, engineered by soviet leader Joseph Stalin, in which some 7 million Ukrainians perished.

Soviet party leaders with the aid of military troops and secret police units seized every last scrap of food. Whole villages became a mass of corpses. Large parts of Ukraine were blockaded, no food was allowed in, no people were allowed out. While guarded warehouses were filled with grain, Ukrainian peasants were beaten, arrested and even shot for trying to take the few remaining kernels lying on the fields. Their extermination was a matter of state policy.

Food is still a favourite weapon with many authoritarian regimes in the world today. It has been said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

We join today with members of the Ukrainian community and other Canadians in remembering the atrocities of this crime against humanity.

[Income Tax Act, June 3rd, 1998]

I appreciate that, but I would prefer the French horn as opposed to the bagpipes. It can be done in a much smaller location with the French horn.

Does the parliamentary secretary not think that perhaps these musicians do not use their musical equipment for some personal use? They still have the right to deduct this from their taxable income because it is necessary for their employment. Those two excuses do not really cut a lot of ice. They certainly do not have enough behind them to refuse this request to make mechanical tools a tax deduction.

We also talked about what would happen if tax deductibility were allowed by government. The first and foremost issue is that it will develop additional employment. It will allow people to enter into a workforce where there is a desperate need for people. We are not just talking about automotive service technicians, although they are very important. As other speakers have indicated, I have received substantial support from automobile dealers who suggest the inequity should be corrected.

We can also look at heavy duty mechanics. In my area, in particular in the farm industry, we are getting much more sophisticated and larger equipment that requires people who have been properly trained and who have the proper tools to fix the equipment. We have a shortage in this industry. Why does the government think we have a shortage in this industry although jobs in this industry are very good? There is a good wage base, a lot of job security and a lot of opportunity.

Why would young people coming out of high school not want to go to a tech school to take heavy duty mechanics or automobile mechanics and servicing? Because in order to get a job they have to invest $15,000 to $40,000 for equipment and tools. That is the same amount that cannot be written off on a capital cost allowance, a CCA, as one would normally deduct in a business. That would allow them to afford to go into that industry which is a very good industry. Maybe if we did that we would encourage people to get into the industry and we would not have a shortage of mechanics and technicians.

We have a community college in my community which has some very good programs with respect to mechanics. It has difficulty filling those programs, not because there are not competent people who would like to do it but because they cannot afford to do it. This is one of those areas in which the government could look to help the unemployed.

The government says it is looking at it. However, it has been looked at for many years even with previous governments. When members of this government were in opposition, they would have liked to see some changes but now that they form the government it seems that changes move very slowly.

The one thing that moves very slowly in this government is tax relief to Canadians in general. We could get into the very excessive payroll taxes in place now, the increased CPP which we have talked about ad nauseam in this House, the increased EI premiums and EI surpluses which have not been given back. So maybe we could start with one very small opportunity to have government support this private member's legislation so that one inequity and one injustice would be corrected.

[Income Tax Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice that you could join us this evening, and myself particularly, because I know that you will be hanging on every word I am about to utter, as you like to listen very closely to what is being said.

I would like to pass on my thanks to the member for Lakeland who has once again brought forward a private member's bill to deal with what I consider to be an injustice and an inequity that has been around for too long.

I find it very interesting that the issue that is being debated tonight is so very logical. So logical, in fact, that I would have thought the government would have been able to deal with this change to the tax legislation itself without continually having private members bring forward this particular issue.

I certainly wish that the government would listen to what is being said and, if not pass this private member's bill, at some point in the not too distant future, because the issue is a very important one, change the legislation itself.

As has been mentioned before, this is not the first time this issue has been before the House. It is definitely non-partisan. This does not have anything to do with party politics. It simply has to do with logic and correcting an injustice.

In 1992 an NDP member brought forward a private member's bill to deal with the issue. As a member of the government in 1992, a Liberal brought forward legislation to deal with it. In fact, a Bloc member brought forward a piece of legislation in 1996 which unfortunately was not dealt with.

It is a very simple situation. One sector of our society, a very important sector, those mechanics and technicians who look after everything from our automobiles to very heavy duty equipment which is necessary for industrial development in this country, are being mistreated. Because it seems so logical, I am sorry to say that we have to stand here constantly to try to convince the government to make these changes.

What is actually happening is that a mechanic or a service technician is required by their employer to invest capital contributions of anywhere from $5,000 to $40,000. These are not pliers or simple screwdrivers. This is mechanical equipment that is very sophisticated. The automobiles and the heavy duty equipment that is available right now to industry is very sophisticated equipment.

A mechanic, whether a journeyman, an apprentice or a full-fledged mechanic, is required to have the proper tools to fix those pieces of equipment. These tools can cost upwards of $40,000.

We have heard that certain pieces of technical, computerized equipment can cost anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000. The problem is that when the mechanic goes out to buy the equipment, he does so and does not have the opportunity to deduct it from his taxable income. That in itself is an injustice.

When a business buys a piece of equipment, whether it is computer equipment or any other type of mechanical equipment, the business can write it off. It gets what is known as a CCA, a capital cost allowance. The business can write it off, but the individual mechanic cannot do so.

If members of government have ever walked through a mechanical bay, they would have seen the service technicians and the mechanics along with their tool bins. I am sure government members would be very surprised to see the type of sophisticated tools that are required to become a mechanic or a service technician in today's society.

In a previous life I was with a municipal government, which supplied certain tools, but each individual mechanic was required, as a requirement of employment, to bring with them their own tools and equipment. Those tools and equipment, unfortunately, are not at this point in time tax deductible.

We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the government, he and his department were somewhat concerned about this issue. He said that, in fact, there was an inequity and that the government would continue to look at the possibility of change.

He also mentioned two reasons we should be very careful when discussing this piece of legislation and supporting it. First, he said that if we do it for the mechanics we may well have to do it for other employees who are required to have some piece of equipment in order to perform their job.

If there is a possibility of correcting other inequities and injustices, that does not mean this one should be continued. If there are other inequities and injustices they should all be dealt with.

Second, the parliamentary secretary said that we have to be very careful because we have to make sure that these mechanical tools and pieces of equipment cannot and should not be used for personal use.

We talked about the farm equipment that can be deducted as a capital cost allowance. We talked about musicians who can deduct the purchase of a very expensive piece of musical equipment. We talked about chainsaw operators. They have already been dealt with by legislation and can write off their equipment.

I ask the parliamentary secretary “Do you not think that maybe a chainsaw operator will use his chainsaw once for personal use?” Perhaps a musician who has a very expensive French horn, who uses it to generate revenue, will sit down some evening to play it for guests.

[Foreign Affairs, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of allies, President Clinton went against the advice of the state department, his defence department, the CIA and the department of justice to give sensitive missile technology to the Chinese.

Will the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister commit today to discuss Canada's deep concern with President Clinton's role in this unstable and dangerous situation between Pakistan and India before the president goes to China this month?

[Foreign Affairs, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is a powder keg smouldering in south Asia right now.

Team Canada went to China to make money. We know that the government cares more about money than it does about regional security.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps Canada has taken to condemn China, since it is now evident that it was China which transferred technology to Pakistan and made last week's nuclear blast possible, or is Canadian foreign policy for sale?

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could bring this debate to another level, another plain.

I agree that with the Young Offenders Act there must be some rehabilitative process. Right now with the federal government and the provincial governments there are young offender services and programs in place.

I wish the minister would have answered this question herself, but the hon. member for Mississauga West is going to have to do his best. The minister talked about working with the provinces. The minister talked about a consultative process with the provinces. The minister talked about cost sharing with the provinces. Right now federal funding of the young offenders services and programs has been reduced to the point where in Manitoba it is funding only 34% of the programs. In B.C. it is only funding 22% of the same programs that the member for Mississauga West embraces. It is now funding only 31% of the programs in the province of Saskatchewan.

Why is it that the member embraces these programs on one hand, but now all of the funding from the government is removed on the other hand?

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for putting forward this piece of legislation, which I have read. I echo the comments of my colleague in the NDP that it is very refreshing to speak to issues that are important to us as individual members of parliament.

I share some sympathy with the member who submitted this bill that it is not votable. I find that to be unfortunate. I wish that all private members' legislation, bills or motions, were votable in this House. I have had the opportunity to speak to a number of my own that were not votable, although they were very important issues. They are very necessary issues for individual members of parliament, not only for their own constituencies but for the constituency we all serve, the constituency of Canada.

I was confused as I read the bill because it did not speak a lot about the bank mergers. I respect the hon. member in the NDP for his opinion on a number of issues. He has conviction and he is certainly very dedicated to his cause. However, I am not prepared to stand here and not speak to the legislation, and I certainly will not bank bash, which was the soap box given to the hon. member with respect to this piece of legislation.

I will try to home in on what the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is trying to put forward. As I understand it, this bill would amend the Bank Act and the Statistics Act to promote equity in community reinvestment. It is not a bill that talks about bank mergers and the operations of banking institutions and how the Americans are either better or worse than us. What it talks about is a very important issue to all of us, in particular the smaller communities which have banking institutions. Moneys are taken from those communities, whether in deposits, in RRSP contributions, in mutual funds or in other investment vehicles to be invested in other areas, most of them being the major financial centres, the larger centres in eastern Canada.

I understand the theory and practicalities of economy. Let us be serious about it, perhaps a little more serious than the NDP member who spoke, who may not quite understand all of the mechanics of international and national economies.

I believe very seriously that in my own community the banking institutions are good corporate citizens. They become a part of our community, but they have a job that has to be done. That job is obviously to make a profit, which the NDP member would see slightly as a dirty word. I see it as an opportunity for corporations to reinvest in themselves and to help those same employees the member suggested would be impacted by the mergers. They are and have always been good corporate citizens in my community. They are certainly there when necessary to help the community in any number of fashions.

We first talked about reinvestment in the community. The banking institution is there to help people like members of the House to maintain the standard of living they have developed over the past number years in their families. They allow us to purchase our residences, to purchase our vehicles, to purchase things for our leisure activities and to purchase the education that is vital for our families.

They reinvest in the community with respect to commercial and industrial reinvestment. We have heard constantly about small and medium size enterprises, the backbone of the Canadian economy. In most cases the small and medium size enterprises depend an awful lot on the same financial institutions we speak about in this legislation. That is not in all cases because mistakes are made and everything is not perfect in this world. However, in most cases those small and medium size enterprises are assisted by the banking industry, which is good, not bad. This legislation also speaks to those good things. I am very pleased about that.

The legislation also calls for more transparency in the banking institutions. It suggests that the banks should tell us how many dollars are being taken from our communities and how many are being reinvested.

That is as far as it should go. I do not think there should be a quota system. I do not believe there should be legislation saying that if dollar one goes out then dollar one must come in. That changes the whole dynamics of what we realize as being a Canadian economy built on a banking system which is probably second to none in the world.

The PC Party believes in promoting equity in community reinvestment and in strengthening the corporate citizenship of the banks in those communities. However, the measures that Bill C-289 would take to ensure equity are ambiguous and a bit unclear. Under Bill C-289 banks in different regions would be held at different standards. Only those banks in a district with higher unemployment than the national average would be subject to this bill and the accountability that it would bring.

I would suggest that the bill should be applicable to all electoral districts, not just to a selected few. Currently the legislation is not equally applicable to all banks. Judging a bank in Cape Breton differently than one in Medicine Hat is not a solution that will promote community reinvestment.

Government intervention in the lending sector is not the solution to job creation. Lowering payroll taxes and tax relief should be the first steps in promoting job creation.

However, Bill C-289 does propose a very productive step forward in promoting accountability in the banking industry that is very positive. It is a step for which I congratulate the member. But the accountability brought forward by Bill C-289 should not be restricted just to electoral districts with unemployment rates greater than the national average. That same accountability and transparency should be throughout all electoral districts. There should not be any criteria with respect to unemployment rates. It should be applied to all banks across the country.

Currently the Canadian Bankers Association distributes business credit statistics outlining recent credit extended to small and medium size businesses. In fact, the banking sector undertook this practice even before crown corporations began to publish similar reports.

The bill rightfully pushes the level of accountability and transparency further than the current reporting practices of the banking sector. The proposal under section 522.06 where banks would have to analyse their operations systems, rules and practices in order to determine their position relative to community reinvestment is positive.

However, the bill admits that the government would be hard-pressed to apply specific measures to certain banks which did not comply with the bill's intention. Nowhere in the bill is there any mention of how the minister could impose greater lending practices on institutions that do not meet the ambiguous and undefined criteria for community reinvestment.

The PC Party is in favour of having a report published and publicly accessible outlining the commitment the banking sector has made toward community reinvestment. At this point in time we believe that simply publishing this information would ensure greater public accountability in the banking sector. If the numbers are there the public then has the opportunity to make its own decision as to whether sufficient dollars are being reinvested into the community from that one institution and whether the public should in fact support that institution in their community.

If this bill is meant to promote accountability in the banking sector, then yearly reports are the first step in this process. However, if this bill is meant to strengthen job creation in underdeveloped employment regions of Canada, the government should not confuse the issue with accountability in the banking sector. They are two separate issue. I appreciate the fact that we should have transparency in accounting in the system because then we do have a choice, but for the institutions to put that money back into a region simply because of a high unemployment rate is not the way to do it. There are other ways.

Instead of intervening in private enterprise the government should offer small and medium size businesses in Canada the tools to expand and promote job creation on their own. I touched on that earlier by suggesting that the government should help regional development with respect to taxation, which is the major impediment of any regional development, and provide the opportunity to develop those industries.

Offering Canadians tax relief and cutting employment insurance premiums are the first steps the government should undertake to assist regions with high unemployment.

I thank the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for putting the bill forward.

[Hepatitis C, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Health could put this speculation to rest. Perhaps he can tell this House what he is going to enter those negotiations with. What is he going to offer the hepatitis C victims before 1986 and post-1991?

Could the Minister of Health please tell us what he is prepared to put on the table, in fact what the Minister of Finance has allowed him to put on the table?

[Hepatitis C, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that the leader of the Reform Party speaks against the two tier health care system in the policy that his party subscribes to. However, I find it equally ironic that the Minister of Health is subscribing to Reform policy right now.

The new compensation package that is going to be put forward tomorrow speaks to enhanced medical services for those people who were infected with hepatitis C prior to 1986.

Can the Minister of Health please tell me why he is putting the universal health care system in jeopardy with a two tier health care system?