Rick Borotsik

[Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to speak to the Reform motion respecting Canadian families and the role and responsibility of parents.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe that ultimately the raising of children is the responsibility of parents. We believe in supporting families to raise children in the best possible manner so they can become productive citizens in our society. We encourage families to enable the potential of each and every child.

The motion before us today speaks of amending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to allow individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. If we are proposing to amend the charter to allow this, what exactly is it that we would amend?

Section 7 of the charter of rights states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”.

We believe that this section of the charter does not need to be amended to provide families with the ability to raise their children in the manner they see fit. Section 7 provides parents with the right to liberty, freedom to raise their children as they see fit within the common fundamental values of society. We would argue that existing laws already provide parents with the ability to raise their children without undue interference of the state within the framework of the common public good.

What is undue interference? The member proposing this motion speaks of the concern that parents have that if they spank their children in public their children would be taken away from them by the authorities. This he says is undue interference in family life. Spanking a child as a disciplinary measure is an issue which is hotly debated but to my knowledge most child welfare agencies in the provinces regard spanking a child's bottom as a grey area between discipline and abuse. Ways of disciplining children is an issue that should continue to be debated by our society.

What of the necessity to protect children unfortunately sometimes from their own parents? Would the Reform Party amendment to the charter of rights and freedoms prevent the government from exercising its ability to protect children who are suffering from abuse, sexual and otherwise?

Children should be raised within their families. Families are the basis of Canadian society. Parents should be responsible for their children. But the state must have the ability to protect children in situations where the parents are unable or unwilling to assume that responsibility.

Removing a child from the family under current provincial laws is not as simple as members of the Reform Party would make us believe. Child protection workers must use the least intrusive measures possible and social workers are charged with showing that removing the child is in the child's best interest.

Child welfare legislation is quite specific stating that children can only be removed if evidence of emotional, physical or sexual abuse, or neglect can be proven before the courts. Instead, much work is placed in trying to assist families to better deal with the stresses of everyday life so that children are not neglected, not abused and families can work and live together without abuse or neglect.

Is this an undue interference in people's lives? To me this is trying to strengthen the family unit rather than break it up.

It is ironic that the Reform Party proposes an amendment to the charter of rights and freedoms to allow parents to raise their children without interference by the state. The Reform Party's principles and policies state: “The Reform Party recognizes that child abuse and family violence attack the very foundation of organized society. The party supports enacting, communicating and enforcing laws that protect family members against such acts”. Would the Reform Party's own principle not conflict with the motion before us today? The Reform Party's policies and principles appear to contradict the hon. member's motion.

Reform calls for a lowering of the age at which offenders should be tried as adults. Even though these children would still be considered minors, Reform's policy would call for an intervention by the state into the ability of parents to raise and discipline their children.

In conclusion, we do not need to amend the charter of rights and freedoms to allow parents to raise their families in the manner they best see fit. What we need is a better informed discussion on the issues that prompted the member to bring forth this motion. We also need to ensure that family poverty is not the cause of abuse or neglect of children.

As a society we need to focus on the needs of today's children because they will be the ones representing Canada in this House in the future.

I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing forward an issue which should be debated and should be questioned in this House. The issue is not to change the charter of rights and freedoms to be able to accomplish what the hon. member has suggested. One cannot legislate that and good family values. Those family values must and will come from families and the parents of the children themselves.

I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, very proud of the job that my wife, my family and I have done to make sure that my children are constructive members of society. That was done without legislation. That was done with pride and with obvious dedication from both parents, and certainly dedication from my children.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hepatitis C issue is not about faceless, nameless Canadians who are affected not only by this tragic illness but by this government's tragic policy.

Hepatitis C is about our neighbours, our sons, our daughters and people who work and live beside us every day.

One of those people wrote the Minister of Health recently:

You need to hear this from my heart. I live with hepatitis C every day, and don't think it's easy to live with somebody who has only days to live. Hepatitis C has destroyed his liver. Every day I watch him fading away—preparing myself for his death not being able to get physically close. How extraordinary considering that my husband has worked his whole life to support the health care system. The system gave him this disease and now at 47 his only recourse is $700 a month on disability. You've taken away his health, you've have taken away his will and now you take away his dignity.

I only ask that members opposite carefully listen to these words and vote for compassion this evening.

[The Late Father Bob Ogle, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus join in expressing our sympathy to the family of Father Bob Ogle, both his immediate family as well as his religious and spiritual family. Reverend Bob Joseph Ogle died on April 1 in Saskatoon after a courageous and hard fought 15 year battle with cancer.

The 69 year old priest was also a well known missionary, politician and author. In 1979 he became the first Saskatchewan priest to be elected as member of parliament representing the New Democratic Party in Saskatoon East.

Father Ogle is reported to have taken as his personal message a verse from Isaiah: “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They shall mount up with wings as eagles”.

His conscientious work as a priest and as a member of the House gives ample witness to his dedication to his beliefs and to the people he represented.

We give thanks for his service in the House. He did indeed fly like an eagle.

Our sympathies to the family of Reverend Bob Joseph Ogle.

[Infrastructure, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss an issue which is not only of great importance in my riding of Brandon—Souris but transcends into an issue of national importance.

The issue involves providing the city of Brandon the highway infrastructure needed to attract and service the Maple Leaf hog processing plant. This will have a great economic impact not only on the city of Brandon but also on the province of Manitoba and Canada as a whole.

The federal Minister of Transport has said that his department has been generous in funding highway networks. However, the federal government's involvement in highways since the Liberal government took power has been dismal. On average the federal government has allocated only $6.4 million per year to Manitoba highways despite collecting in Manitoba an average of $124 million per year in road fuel excise taxes.

In reality, the federal government has only put 4.8% back into Manitoba roads. This clearly illustrates Liberal government policy toward the provinces. We will take when we are supposed to give. We will take credit when credit is not due and we will lay blame where fault is our own.

[National Agricultural Relief Coordination Act, March 25th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-387, 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 or pests, the co-ordination of the delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation and study the compliance of such programs with World Trade Organization requirements.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the preamble, this particular piece of legislation is to deal with the consistency of programs that are available to agriculturists throughout Canada, particularly the inconsistency with respect to programs that deal with disasters, not unlike what happened with the ice storm of 1998 and the floods of 1997.

It suggests that a national committee be struck made up of 21 members and that it look at these national programs to deal with consistency as well as to deal with the requirements of the World Trade Organization.

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

[Health Care, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that did not sound like the apology I was looking for. The premier of Manitoba also sent a letter to the Prime Minister dated March 11 in reference to his comments on Manitoba's health care: “I hardly think it can enhance co-operative federalism for the Prime Minister to place this misinformation on the record in Parliament”.

Is the Prime Minister's idea of co-operative federalism blaming the provinces for the problems this government has created?

[Health Care, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 9 the Prime Minister during question period told me: “The hon. member should go back to Winnipeg and look at the budget of his provincial colleagues, the Tories, who reduced taxes but did not add one cent to medicare”.

Unlike this government, the Manitoba government has a another commitment of $100 million to health care, has balanced its budget for four years in a row and cut taxes.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister stand up in the House, retract the statement and apologize both to the premier as well as all Manitobans?

[Farm Safety Week, March 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, safe farming is smart farming. That is the theme for Farm Safety Week in Manitoba which began on March 11 and will end on March 18.

A recent study by Statistics Canada revealed that from 1991 to 1995 almost 72% of all farm deaths in Canada resulted from working with or around agricultural machinery.

Without a doubt a farm can be a dangerous place to work and live. On average, 100 work related fatalities occur on farms annually.

StatsCan also revealed that the three prairie provinces have a much higher rate of injuries than those in eastern Canada. That being said, knowledge, experience and technical advances in safety are crucial to reducing farm incidents in the future.

I hope this week that Canadians will take note and further educate themselves to the realities of farming life. It is vital that we do our best to make farming communities the safest they can be.

[Canada Labour Code, March 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to proposed legislation, Bill C-19.

With great respect to the previous speaker, the member for Palliser, I learned a long time ago that in fact there are certain issues that we are going to agree to disagree on. It is philosophical. I will not convince the hon. member for Palliser to think in my direction, nor do I expect that he can convince me to think in his direction.

However, in saying that, there are a number of differing views with this piece of legislation. I will go back to a piece of legislation that I am very familiar with. I look at the parallels of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, Bill C-4, and this legislation. I raise this because both pieces of legislation were flawed when they came to this House.

There was and is a great deal of controversy with both pieces of legislation. Both pieces of legislation were introduced in the previous Parliament and both died on the Order Paper. They essentially came back with very few, if any, changes or amendments although the government at that time had the opportunity to listen to the people who would be affected by both pieces of legislation.

In the case of Bill C-4, western Canadian farmers would be affected. Bill C-19 would not only wrongfully impact the business community in Canada but also the unions in Canada. It is a very divisive piece of legislation that will not resolve any of the current outstanding issues.

I would say to the member for Palliser that I am not a unionist, I never have been, nor have I embraced the philosophies. However, I am a fair individual who believes that there is a need for labour unions. I have negotiated across the table from labour unions and I believe very strongly there is a need and a right to have fair management-labour relationships as well as negotiated settlements in any type of labour contract. I honestly believe that, and it can be achieved.

I also believe there is a need for balance which must be there in order for both parties to put their prospective positions on the table and to come to a negotiated agreement. Bill C-19 does not provide the balance. It has, unfortunately, taken the balance and given it to one side of the equation, one side of the argument. I believe the hon. member would have spoken against the legislation because there was an unfair balance if it would have come forward such that it changed the balance in favour of management and corporations.

There is an unfair balance in this legislation. There is substantial controversy out there. I wish the government would have put forward a well thought out, logical piece of legislation that incorporated that balance.

I will read some headlines from several local papers: “Business anxiety is mounting over the proposed changes to the Labour Code”; “Liberals ready to duplicate ill-conceived Ontario labour law”; “Shippers fear scheme will increase labour strife”; “Grain ports law angers B.C. business”; “New labour code rules benefit unions”; “The higher unemployment bill”, referring to Bill C-19; “Closer examination reveals flaws in rewritten Labour Code amendments”. After having read these articles, I understand there is a great deal of divisiveness in the business community.

Our party has already spoken about a number of concerns with this legislation. Without question our first and foremost concern is with the replacement workers clause in Bill C-19. It is unfair. When the Sims report was tabled, this was one of the areas that was not agreed to in the report. There were some serious concerns about it and a minority report argued against a general ban on the use of replacement workers. It changes the balance of power to the unions as opposed to having that balance between management and labour.

There is another area of concern that is very real and serious with respect to Bill C-19, that of the offsite workers. This is an invasion of privacy, an invasion into a person's ability to be employed in Canada without having others access your employment ability on offsite workers from a particular corporation. It is a travesty that the government would put this forward in this bill.

We are also concerned about certification not requiring the majority vote of the employees. It is very serious when others can dictate to the majority what it will have to do according to the minority speaking.

Another area of concern is that of the work stoppage at ports, the shipment of grain and other commodities. I have some mixed feelings about this particular clause in the legislation. I believe very strongly that for too long western Canadian farmers have been held hostage by unionized workers in the ports and the railroads. They are always held hostage at the time of year when it is most vital. The transportation of the grains should be allowed through to the ports so that our reputation as Canadian producers is not going to be impacted by not having just in time delivery with these commodities.

I have mixed feelings that this particular clause in the legislation is a good clause. However, I would not like to see this clause changed to benefit labour. If it is good for grain, it should be good for other commodities. All commodities should be treated equally. If it is good enough for grain then there should not be work stoppages because the ramifications of the position in the world marketplace.

Other commodities should be given the same co-operation. Those other commodities are in most cases directly related to production of agriculture. Fertilizers should be given the same opportunity. We have other commodities such as coal and potash. We have major commodities that should be given the same opportunity in this legislation as what is given to grain. However, I would not like to lose the clause that speaks to the grain component if that whole clause was going to be rewritten.

Our party is on record as saying that we will be opposed to Bill C-19. My preference would be for the government to see the error of its ways and take this legislation off the table. It should take it back to the Canadians, the business community, as well as the labour unions to try to negotiate and work out a fair and balanced approach to the changes to Bill C-19.

It should have been done with Bill C-4 where there was such a backlash with the legislation. In fact, when the legislation is being approved, it will not solve or resolve any of the problems. It should be done with Bill C-19. The government should learn from past mistakes to take the legislation back and bring forward to this House a balanced piece of legislation that will ensure that all sides of this equation and argument will be satisfied.

[Immigration, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. Perhaps she would like to share with the House today exactly what that balanced approach means. Does that balanced approach mean that the language recommendation will not be accepted by this minister?