Rick Borotsik

[Rural Road System, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to sum this up as quickly as possible.

I must, however, refute a couple of the comments by the parliamentary secretary. As usual, there was quite a substantial amount of fearmongering. Not once in the motion does it deal with $4.4 billion per year going into this program.

What it deals with is a portion of the excise tax raised on gasoline to go into an area where it was meant to go in the first place, highways, roads and, in this case, rural road reconstruction.

I am not suggesting for a moment $4.4 billion per year. What I am suggesting, however, is a plan. Is that too much to ask for, a priority that is being set and a plan that is set to deal with the priority? It may well mean $250 million a year over a 20 year period. It may well mean $350 million a year over a 10 year period. However, all I am suggesting is that the government get its head out of the sand and understands that there is a serious problem out there.

The hon. member from the Bloc unfortunately likes to make sure there are distinctions between federal and provincial jurisdiction. I am not getting into provincial jurisdiction. If indeed the plan should be that the provinces ultimately make the decision as to where that money should be spent I would applaud that. Take the money being generated by federal taxes, give it to the provinces and then they can apply it to the priorities on road construction. It is not that difficult a concept.

If provinces are now spending their dollars to fix federal responsibility roads then those dollars cannot be spent for provincial roads. This is not difficult to understand, so please do that.

There was some suggestion that other priorities would be affected substantially such as health care, education and all those wonderful priorities that we all recognize as being very major priorities. I suggest then that perhaps the $500 million that was spent in cancelling the EH-101s could have better been spent on road construction.

I suggest the $800 million blown by this government on the Pearson airport deal could have better been spent on road construction. Let us not confuse the issue with the priorities of health care and education. Let us just suggest there is a problem. A plan should be put in place and the plan dealt with.

We can talk about a national highways program with the next private member's motion I would like to table.

[Rural Road System, May 8th, 1998]

The equalization payments have already been cut. The equalization payments have been reduced by some 35% in the meantime. I am trying to concentrate specifically on the excise tax that is being collected, $140 million out and zero back into roads.

In reality the federal government has only put 4.8% of the money it collects from Manitoba road users back into Manitoba roads. That is deplorable.

It should also be noted that of the $27 million the western grain transportation adjustment fund allocated by the federal government to Manitoba in 1997 very little went back to roads. The Liberal government of the day decided it was best to put it into the electronic highway as opposed to the rural infrastructure program.

There are some alternatives. As a matter of fact the president of UGG said that moneys generated from the sale of the hopper cars that will take place, the $250 million to $350 million, should go back into rural road infrastructure. Its president, Mr. Ted Allen, said that investment in road infrastructure at both the federal and provincial level had failed to keep up with the pace of the burgeoning growth in the agriculture sector.

When the hopper cars are sold, the money should not be put back into general revenue for these wonderful programs that are thought up. The money should be put back into the programs that we should have right now such as rural roads.

The president also noted that the federal government collects over $4 billion in fuel tax revenue annually, but last year spent only $270 million nationally in road infrastructure. That being said I would like to say that the federal government in fact does have a mandate. It is a federal responsibility to make sure that the infrastructure in the transportation system in this country is in working order.

The economy that is developed and generated from rural Canada is immense. We have to make sure that the infrastucture stays in place in order for us to enable the economy to further develop. We must further develop that infrastructure.

I do have an opportunity to wrap up in the last five minutes. I will be more than happy to do that.

[Rural Road System, May 8th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should apply a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales to the maintenance of the rural road system in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is a beautiful sunny Friday afternoon in Ottawa. I know the majority of members in the House would much prefer to be in their ridings or with their families. However, I assure them that I will make sure I keep their attention totally rapt on an issue that is extremely important not only for constituents in my riding but for constituents throughout our great country.

The issue I have brought forward is not a terribly romantic one. It is not something that people can stand on soapboxes, make wonderful speeches and get very emotional about. Even though there is no romanticism tied in with the issue, I can assure it is a very vital issue. The issue is one that is the economic lifeline of rural Canada, particularly western rural communities.

The motion as put forward has not been deemed to be votable, which is unfortunate and I mean that very sincerely. I know members of the Liberal government would be more than happy to support an issue of this nature. A number of members on the government side have these issues and problems cropping up in their communities, particularly those in rural Ontario.

This is the economic lifeline of rural Canada. This is the economic lifeline of western Canada wherein the commodities produced in rural western Canada are commodities that have to travel across a transportation system to get to market.

The agricultural industry is a huge industrial sector in Canada. We are known nationally and internationally as the providers of agricultural products second to none. In order to take the product from the farm gate and get it to world markets it requires a transportation system and infrastructure that are in proper condition.

Sir John A. Macdonald saw transportation as a link of this great country. He saw it through the railroads. Now our transportation systems have changed quite dramatically over those years. We now have dramatic changes in air travel. We have dramatic changes in rubber traffic and travel on road systems. In fact, back in Sir John A.'s day he would not have expected the kind of travel we have now on the electronic highway. If the truth be known, it is still the simplistic transportation system of roadways that is so very important to our country.

Rural infrastructure is deteriorating as we speak. The rural infrastructure is in peril. It is in absolute disarray at this point in time, the reason being there are no federal tax dollars going into our national highways.

Because of Liberal policy, the reduction of transfer payments and their impacts on provincial governments, provincial governments have cut back on their own infrastructure. They are also responsible for ensuring our national highways are maintained, upgraded and rehabilitated.

There is no federal money going into the national highways program. The reconstruction and maintenance of the Trans-Canada Highway are done on the backs of the provinces. The provinces spend their money. I give them full credit, particularly the western provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. They have done an exemplary job with perhaps the exception of Saskatchewan which has not put a lot of money into the Trans-Canada Highway. The other three western provinces have put substantial dollars to twin the highway which is the vital transportation link across the country.

They have done it with provincial dollars and without federal dollars. Thus they do not have any provincial dollars to put into secondary roads. I speak today of the secondary roads which are the vital link to our rural communities and to major market areas. That downloading has caused severe problems.

Let us look in our mind's eye at producers in rural Manitoba, rural Saskatchewan or rural Alberta. No longer do have the vital rail links we have talked about, have heard about and have in fact experienced. As a result of CN and CP rail abandonment programs the short lines going into communities have now been abandoned.

The only option for producers in the areas is to transport their commodities—and we are talking huge bulk commodities in most cases—across rural municipal roads that do not have the benefit of tax dollars to the same degree as federal government. These roads unfortunately cannot be maintained by small rural municipalities which have a smaller assessment base today than they had previously.

Producers are taking the commodity and transporting it many more miles than they had to years ago. In their wisdom grain companies, and rightfully so, are developing new and major grain terminals, high throughput terminals. By example, I have four new terminals being built in my constituency.

With four new high throughput terminals also comes the abandonment of the smaller grain elevator which in most cases was located close to the producer. Producers only had to travel perhaps 5, 10 or 15 kilometres to arrive at an elevator. Now they have to travel in some cases up to 100 kilometres on rural roads for which there is no money available for maintenance.

Producers are now using much larger vehicles such as semi-trailers and B-trains or a semi-trailer with a little pup attached. Unfortunately they take a grave and great toll on highways in the rural areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. This is a great dilemma for the RMs. Because of the downloading from the provinces and no money coming in, obviously the opportunity of getting product to market becomes less and less possible and more and more expensive.

This little preamble explains why I am here, why we are here and why this issue is so very important. The real issue is how to get dollars to the real area of responsibility. The real responsibility lies with the federal government. It lies with the federal government to put in place a national highways program.

I will not talk specifically to that right now, but let us look at the waterfall effect. If there were a national highways program where the federal government put in dollars and provincial governments did not have to spend money on the Trans-Canada Highway or major routes, they could then put their money back into where it is necessary right now in rural municipalities.

Canada remains the only developed country in the world that does not have a national policy for highways. Canada has a national policy for air, marine and rail, but none for the mode that conveys the most people and the most goods. That is deplorable.

I am asking today that dollars be identified simply from a percentage of the excise tax raised on fuel. This does not take a rocket scientist to understand.

The federal government collects from taxpayers billions of dollars a year through taxes on fuel. Virtually none of that money goes into the actual area it should, infrastructure and road improvement. It goes into this big black hole called general revenue and is spent on wonderful projects the Liberals see fit to support such as the backbencher's millennium fund and other areas of responsibility. It certainly has not gone into the compensation package for hepatitis C victims, but I was not to mention that in this speech.

The federal government has said it would allocate 50 cents of every dollar of anticipated surplus for new priorities. It would be my humble opinion to suggest to the government it should start helping rural Canada by endorsing the principle of the motion.

The motion calls on the federal government to make a real commitment to rural Canada. The rural road system is a vital element to Canadians from coast to coast, but in particular my area of responsibility, western Canada, has not been given a fair and equitable consideration in this matter.

That being said, the committee on Private Members' Business did not deem the motion votable. Unfortunately the majority of committee members did not see it as an important enough issue to deem it votable. I think there would be a wide range of support from all members if in fact they had the opportunity to vote on the motion.

Western Canada will receive less than 2% of all federal investment in highways during the next five years. Cash flow projects from Transport Canada suggest that during the next five years the federal government will contribute about $900 million to eastern Canada for highway construction. Western Canada will receive $13 million, of which zero goes to Manitoba, $2 million goes to Saskatchewan, zero to Alberta, $6 million to B.C., $4 million to Yukon and $900,000 to the territories.

It is clear that municipal governments cannot continue to carry the financial burden of the maintenance of these roads without more financial contribution from the federal government.

In Manitoba alone the federal government will collect approximately $140.7 million in road excise tax this year and zero will go back to Manitoba in that same time. The federal government has not committed any funding toward Manitoba's provincial highway system for the 1998-99 fiscal year.

In the years between 1992 and 1996 the federal government allocated on average $6.4 million per year to Manitoba despite collecting in Manitoba an average of $124 million per year.

[Hepatitis C, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if I had any aspirations I certainly would do a much better job than the Minister of Health in leadership campaigns.

Before meeting with the provinces the Minister of Health had better ask for authority from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to get the right direction when dealing with the provincial health ministers.

Do you have a contingency plan? Are you going to meet the provinces as a eunuch or are you going to have the opportunity to develop certain financial contributions to the hepatitis C victims?

[Hepatitis C, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the news just does not seem to get any better for the Minister of Health, does it?

The minister has stood in this House for the last five weeks and talked about an arbitrary cut-off date of 1986. Reports now are that federal regulators were aware as early as 1981 that in fact there was a problem with the system. The Krever report says compensate all the hepatitis C victims.

Will the minister finally accept responsibility to compensate all the victims and stop hiding behind the provinces?

[Official Languages, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride as Canada's official languages commissioner, Dr. Victor Goldbloom, presented a merit award to the host society for the Brandon 1997 Canada Summer Games in a ceremony this morning in Winnipeg. The commissioner presented the award for Brandon's excellent achievement in providing service in both official languages during the games.

English and French were both well represented at the Summer Games, starting with brochures and pamphlets and including interviews with participants.

Translation of the results was also completed in a quick and efficient manner in order to provide all who attended with the best possible services in both official languages.

I conclude by voicing my appreciation to more than 400 bilingual volunteers who made this possible and who are sharing in the pride of receiving this national award today.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I know that is a rhetorical question but I will give an answer regardless.

Absolutely. And remember it is the premier of a Conservative government in Ontario who in fact has shown that there is compassion. I particularly like what Mr. Harris said with respect to the same commitment prior to 1986, this arbitrary line. Anybody pre 1986 will be treated in the same fashion as anybody post 1986. This is only fair and compassionate. I congratulate Premier Harris for writing the letter to the Prime Minister. I just hope that the Prime Minister will listen.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member from Winnipeg. I understand that the member was involved in 1993 on the health committee and in fact wrote a minority report suggesting that there should be a review of the blood supply. We have that review. We have the Krever report and the Krever report is not being followed by the government.

The Krever report specifically said that there should be compensation and it should be fair and equitable to all victims of hepatitis C. You cannot have it both ways, one side of the government saying we should have the review on the Krever report and having another on the opposite side saying that it is the responsibility of the provinces.

It is not the responsibility of the provinces. The responsibility lies with the federal government and the Minister of Health and no one else. The Minister of Health has every right to provide leadership in this situation. He stands there and hides behind the skirts of the provinces saying that when there are 10 provinces and a federal government negotiating the deal it has to be a good deal.

The Minister of Health and the government had every right and every honourable requirement to go out and do the right thing, to make this negotiated settlement fair for everybody. Do not hide behind the provinces.

Now the provinces are finally coming forward after the bullying tactics on a negotiated settlement and saying that what they have done is wrong. If it is wrong, the government should live up to that responsibility.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is most difficult to follow my illustrious leader in such a passionate debate on an issue that certainly exudes much passion.

The member for Mississauga West I hope would also pay me as much respect as he does my leader, for in fact the message that is brought by our caucus and by our party is the same message, one of fairness, equality and compassion for a group of individuals who through no fault of their own have found themselves in a very untenable situation.

The issue facing us is one of fairness and equality. These are not faceless people who have been infected by hepatitis C. These are our neighbours, our friends and, in some cases, our family. They are people who we walk beside on the street, people we sit beside in restaurants and people we work beside. These are people who, through no fault of their own, received a tainted blood transfusion which came from an organization and a government that guaranteed the blood supply was safe. However, that guarantee was not there and these people are suffering the consequences.

I was at the gas pumps in my constituency just last week when an individual walked up to me, knowing who I was, and introduced himself, saying that he was one of the victims who was infected by hepatitis C.

They come to us from all walks of life. They come to us to tell us their stories, stories that wrench our hearts, if in fact there is any compassion in our hearts. It has not been seen on the other side of the House.

We have heard excuses. The Minister of Health has stood in this House for the last five weeks and extolled the excuses of government. The Minister of Health said “I am sorry, there will be a cut-off date”, and that arbitrary cut-off date will be January 1, 1986. Anybody before that arbitrary cut-off date is going to be thrown out like bathwater.

What would happen if it were your family, Mr. Speaker, or your friends who were infected in December 1985, one month prior to this arbitrary cut-off date? Those individuals do not matter to this government. Those individuals do no matter as Canadian citizens because they did not fall within that magic timeframe beginning January 1, 1986.

There are instances of tainted blood causing hepatitis C after 1990, but that does not matter because the arbitrary date of 1990 that has been developed by the Minister of Health is the date that is going to stand for those individuals.

That arbitrary date was struck by the Minister of Health. Make no mistake about that. His excuse is that there were tests that could have been used between the years of 1986 and 1990. The government's position is an excuse and that is all it is. When the government sat down with the provinces to negotiate—and I use that term very loosely—this federal-provincial deal an arbitrary decision was made. The Minister of Health stood in the House and said it was not about money. He stood here and said that the issue of compensation is not about money. I would suggest that probably is not the complete truth. The minister also stood here and said that it would bankrupt the health care system. We cannot have it both ways. It is not about money. It is about compassion. It is about fairness.

As my leader indicated, when they negotiated, had we been flies on the wall, I am sure the negotiation would have gone something like this: “We will put in x dollars and the provinces will put in x dollars. If you do not like the deal we will remove our money from the federal side of the table”. That is not negotiation, that is bullying. When the provinces are bullied into signing a deal like that and then the government stands in the House and gives another excuse that the agreement was signed by all 10 provinces so it has to be a good deal, it does not have to be a good deal. It was bullying on behalf of the federal government because of money. Make no mistake about that.

Then there is the other excuse. There have only been a few of them and they have been parroted here for the last five weeks. The other excuse from the Minister of Health when he stood up was that it would jeopardize the universality of medicare as we know it in Canada. Not true. The universality of medicare in Canada today as we know it, would continue even if and when a compensation package is extended to cover those individuals not covered under this particular package.

A precedent has already been set. It is the 1991 settlement to victims who contracted HIV through the blood system. Those individuals extended beyond that particular date. It extended to anyone who was affected by HIV. The precedent is there and our country's medicare system is still there and is still alive.

Those are the excuses. Let us talk about the real issues concerning hepatitis C. The real issue is that the Minister of Health fears class action suits, as well he should. There are class action suits which are filed now by a number of organizations. The Minister of Health, Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance will be hoisted by their own petards when those class action suits get to the courts because of the following reasons.

First, the compensation and the class action suit is medically sound. It is medically sound because we know that these people were infected by tainted blood. It is a legally compelling argument. I defy the government to defend an arbitrary date of January 1, 1986 from a class action suit. It is not going to happen. We know full well that the class action suit is going to be successful. We know that it is financially sound. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance could get together and put a fair compensation package together.

I should not do it but I will talk about some of those other areas of waste by the government in its first and second terms. I remember half a billion dollars at the stroke of a pen was wasted when the government decided it was not going to go with the EH-101s, but that was okay because that was political. This is compassion. That is not okay.

Then there was the Pearson airport fiasco. Somewhere in the area of $750 million was wasted by the government on that particular political issue. But that was politics, that was okay. When it comes to compassion, there is no $750 million for the victims of hepatitis C.

I talked about it not being a precedent. This is not a precedent. We have had it in the past with those infected with HIV through the blood system.

Politically transparent. This is total transparent politically. We have a government that bullied the provinces into making a negotiated settlement. We have a government that forced its members to vote against a motion that its members wanted to support.

We see constantly day in and day out in this House a Minister of Health who is unable to sell to his finance minister and his cabinet a package that should be sold. He stands up and uses the excuse that 10 provinces have signed it so it must be good. He uses the excuse that the medicare system cannot support this type of compensation package.

Politically unsound. We see the reports now on how the government is being affected by this particular negotiated settlement. We see the transparency politically when now the provinces are coming out and saying that it is not a good deal negotiated with the federal government.

We see the provinces. In the province of Ontario we talk about Premier Harris walking tall. He does walk tall. Premier Filmon walks tall. We see B.C. coming out now and saying that it is not a good deal, that it wants fairness and equity for everybody.

How can the minister and the government keep the tenet that this must be a good deal because 10 provinces have agreed to it? Ten provinces did not agree to the government cutting transfer payments to the provinces. Not one province said that it was really happy to have its health care in transfer payments which were cut by this government.

I did not see any member of the government front benches stand and say that it cannot be a good deal because no province likes it. They stood up and said that they were going to do it anyway. They had the responsibility of leadership. They had the responsibility to put in place a fair and equitable package for everybody. They failed and they failed miserably. They failed their leadership opportunity to stand up and do what was right. Even the majority of backbenchers on the government side want that fair package.

I would like to see the government support this motion to have open negotiations with the provinces, to have the hepatitis C victims available so that they can make sure that the right and honourable decision is made at those reopened negotiations.

[Manitoba, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I rise today to congratulate Premier Gary Filmon on the upcoming 10th anniversary of his election as premier of the dynamic province of Manitoba.

Both the province and the premier have much to be congratulated for. Despite the devastating flood last year the Manitoba economy is on track to post one of the strongest growth rates in this country this year and next. As well, the province posted the lowest unemployment rate in 15 years at 5.7%. Much of the credit is due to the Filmon government's tradition of delivering on its promises of sound fiscal management. Today the province has the toughest anti-deficit legislation in Canada and has balanced its books in the last four years.

While Canadians across this country remain impressed with the Filmon administration's numerous fiscal achievements, they also recognize the premier's commitment to Canada's social programs, one of the most important being health care. In spite of federal transfer cuts in the last budget Manitoba's last budget detailed an additional $100 million in spending on health care.

The premier does embody the true principles of Canadian tradition, socially progressive and fiscally conservative.