36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 91
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 23, 1998
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1005
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPETITION ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-393. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Seniors Benefit Package
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1010
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1025
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1040
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1045
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1100
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
1115
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1120
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1135
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1150
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1215
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1220
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1225
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1240
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1255
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1300
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1305
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1320
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1325
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1340
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1355
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RACISM
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-4
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA BOOK DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
1400
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HUMAN RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIAN MONUMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD BOOK DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATUS OF WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATUS OF WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1405
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOM HASHOAH
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINING HALL OF FAME
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOOK AND READING SUMMIT
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1410
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GRANBY ZOO
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LANTZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1425
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1435
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1440
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BOOK INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1445
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING SERVICES
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Serré |
1455
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORESTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1500
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Interparliamentary Associations—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1505
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1510
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1515
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Voting
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Interparliamentary Associations
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1520
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1525
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1540
1545
1550
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1605
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1620
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1625
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1630
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1645
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1700
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1705
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1710
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Division deemed requested and deferred)
|
1715
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1720
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1745
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1750
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1755
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1810
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1815
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Devco
|
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 91
![](/web/20061116175212im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 23, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 it gives
me great honour to table in the House of Commons, in both
official languages, the government's official response to the
report on the multilateral investment agreement, pursuant to the
subcommittee on trade, wherein Canada's government agrees with
all of the 17 recommendations.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
* * *
1005
[English]
COMPETITION ACT, 1998
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act,
1998 (negative option marketing).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give first reading this
morning to this bill which would amend the Competition Act to
deal with negative option marketing.
The objective and the thrust of this bill is to prohibit certain
financial institutions, including broadcasting and
telecommunications undertakings and companies to which the
Insurance Companies Act applies, from charging money to their
regular clients for the provision or sale of a new service
without the expressed consent of the client.
I would point out that this dovetails with a report released by
Industry Canada under the office of the consumer which identifies
negative option marketing as being the area in which a number of
industries have targeted growth. This is simply intended to
protect consumers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, just as the
Minister for International Trade is about to fly off to Paris to
meet with his OECD compatriots to work hard in the next few days
on the signing of the multilateral agreement on investment, I am
presenting a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents
who are adamantly opposed to the MAI as they presently understand
it.
They believe that it is an attack on Canadian sovereignty. They
believe that it will expand and entrench unprecedented rights to
transnational corporations and that it will severely limit our
government's ability to promote economic growth and job creation
strategies. They speak to the fact that we are now in court with
Ethyl Corporation of the U.S. over the fact that we tried to
improve the environment of Canada and we are being sued over
that.
They also mention the fact that certain clauses will be locked
in for 20 years. I could read a long list, but I will not.
I believe the point is well taken that these folks do not like
the MAI as they know it and are asking parliament never to sign
the multilateral agreement on investment in spite of the
minister's best efforts.
SENIORS BENEFIT PACKAGE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from a number of residents in communities throughout
British Columbia who are hearing rumours about the government's
intention to introduce a seniors benefit package. Knowing what
the provisions were for the last package they are totally
panicked.
They believe there are all sorts of hidden agendas here and are
simply worried that the government is up to no good basically.
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I suppose
because it is tax filing time this is what initiated this last
petition. A whole number of people feel that our present tax
system is unfair, unjust and biased in favour of certain
Canadians at the expense of others. They are simply asking for
comprehensive tax reform.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the residents of West Kootenay—Okanagan, I
present the first in a series of petitions in which the
petitioners draw to the attention of the House that violent
crimes committed by youth are of great concern to Canadians, that
the incidents of violent crime by youth would decrease if the
Young Offenders Act were amended to hold young persons fully
accountable for their criminal behaviour and that increased
periods of incarceration could deter young people from committing
criminal acts.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to significantly
amend the Young Offenders Act, including but not limited to
making protection of society the number one priority, reducing
the minimum age from 12 to 10, allowing for the publication of
violent young offenders' names, increasing the maximum three year
sentence for all offences except murder to seven, increasing the
penalty for first degree murder from a maximum of 10 years to 15
years, and ensuring parental responsibility.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including Canadians from my riding of Mississauga
South.
On behalf of the family, the petitioners would like to draw to
the attention of the House that managing the family home and
caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which
has not been recognized for its value to society.
1010
The petitioners also agree with the National Forum on Health
report which stated that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families who choose to provide care in the home to their
preschool children because it does not take into account the real
costs of raising children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon parliament to
pursue tax initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination for
families who choose to provide care in the home to preschool
children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 86
.[Text]
Mr. John Reynolds:
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please provide:
(a) the rationale and justification for the right-of-landing-fee
(ROLF) as it applies to the sponsorship of family members; (b) the
total revenue collected as a consequence of this aspect of this
fee since its inception; (c) the location of this revenue item
within the public accounts for this department; (d) the amount
spent from this collected revenue on Language Instruction for
Newcomers (LINC) and an item breakdown on the use of this funds;
(e) an outline of the accounting process in place to ensure proper
use and distribution of this fund for LINC; and (f) any studies or
documentation that may identify the LINC program is not
duplicating English as a Second Language (ESL) program?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): (a) The introduction of the right of landing
fee, ROLF, by the government in February 1995 was in response to
extensive public consultations held by the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, in 1994 and to the
government-wide program review exercise. During the public
consultations it was recognized that, if the department was to
continue to provide an acceptable level of service to immigrants
in view of the government-wide commitment, a greater share of the
costs should be transferred from the taxpayers to the direct
beneficiaries of immigration services. Further, program review
made reduction of the federal debt a priority for all government
departments.
The government concluded that the acquisition of permanent
residence and Canadian citizenship had tangible and intangible
value to the recipient. This value was derived from access to an
enhanced economic and social opportunity in Canada as well as
access to a wide range of programs and services available. The
right of landing fee provides partial compensation for the many
rights and privileges that landed immigrant status confers.
(b) The ROLF was implemented February 28, 1995. Since its
inception a net revenue, revenue minus refunds, of $458.5M has
been generated.
Family class immigrants 19 years of age and over represent
approximately 24% of all permanent resident landings in Canada.
On this basis, total ROLF revenue derived from family class
immigrants is estimated to be $110.04M.
(c) Citizenship and immigration revenue, including revenue
derived from the right of landing fee is located in the public
accounts, details of expenditures and revenues, volume II, part
I.
(d) All revenue collected by CIC is deposited to the credit of
the consolidated revenue fund, CRF. The revenue generated by the
ROLF does not go directly toward the department's budget. The
ROLF revenue assists to generally offset the costs throughout the
immigration portfolio.
The language instruction for newcomers, LINC, was funded by
$102M in fiscal year 1997-98 from CIC's contribution budget.
(e) Please see response for (d) above.
(f) Under LINC, CIC funds organizations for the provision of basic
language training to adult immigrants in one of Canada's official
languages. In some communities, other levels of government will
fund language training options also.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 28, 1997, I asked Question No. 33 and again on
December 2, 1997, I asked Question No. 56. I have asked the hon.
gentleman opposite on a number of occasions about the placement
of these questions. The questions relate to the Oak Bay Marine
Group, a company owned by Mr. Bob Wright, and a company perhaps
favoured by the minister of fisheries. I wonder if the member
can tell me the status of those questions.
As well, on December 1, 1997, I asked Question No. 51 which has
to do with the aboriginal fisheries. Again it is another
question which the minister may not be too happy to answer, but I
would like to know what is happening to my question.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have once again noted
Questions Nos. 33, 51 and 56. I did follow up the previous time,
I assure the hon. member, and I will do so again.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that all the remaining
questions shall stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.) moved:
That this House urges the government to act on the recommendation
of Justice Horace Krever to compensate all victims who contracted
Hepatitis C from tainted blood.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. According to Standing Order 43(2), I
would like to advise the House that Reform Party members will be
dividing their time during the speaking rotation today.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, some victims of hepatitis C
from tainted blood arrived on the Hill on Monday. They asked for
a debate in the House. They asked the Prime Minister for that
very thing. They sent him a letter saying “Could we please
debate this? We do not think it is fair that some individuals
should be compensated and others not”.
The official opposition today is providing that debate by using
our opposition day, a supply day, to do that.
The victims felt frustrated and angry and in fact impotent, they
told me, and I, along with other members of my party, am honoured
to be able to provide that voice.
The government's decision to compensate half of the victims is
based upon some rationales. I would like to go over those
rationales and try to refute each one of them in turn.
The first rationale is that the timeframe, 1986 to 1990, was
unique.
The second rationale is that if they compensate everyone there
will be a huge precedent set.
The third rationale is that the floodgates of medical claims
would open wide and it would put at risk our health care system.
The fourth rationale is that since all 13 governments in Canada
signed on to this agreement it must be right.
In turn, let me address those rationales. I consider them to be
debating arguments rather than principle arguments.
1015
The timeframe of 1986 to 1990 is an arbitrary legal phoney
dividing point for the following reasons. It is very evident
that regulators messed up; Judge Krever said so plainly and
clearly. The special new test the government said was
unavailable before 1986 was developed in 1958. I have practised
medicine in this country and I have used that test for much of my
medical career.
The ALT test was by no means new. In fact, as it became more and
more useful for determining whether or not hepatitis C was
present in blood, other jurisdictions used it much earlier than
1986. For comparison, in the United States it was used in New
York in 1982. It only became a regulatory thing with the U.S. in
1986 when they said that since everybody was using it they should
make sure that it was a federal regulation. In 1981 a premier
official of the Red Cross in Canada recommended the use of this
test. It was available and was accepted before. The date is an
arbitrary legal date.
I do not mean to be really harsh on this but I think that
decision is despicable.
Speaking on the issue that the floodgates would open, that the
floodgates would sink our medical system, a precedent is a
precedent. Two main precedents have been set on this issue in
Canada for other medical issues, the thalidomide tragedy and
compensation for HIV. I will be specific about HIV because it is
so close in time and it is from the same contaminated blood.
There was no test available in 1989 for HIV. Compensation for
all HIV victims in Canada who got HIV from tainted blood was
offered and accepted. Has there been a floodgate of spurious
medical claims because of that? Of course not. Canadians'
compassion recognized that the severe effect HIV had on those
individuals was a specific medical tragedy. Hepatitis C was as
well.
The health minister went on to say that other medical
misadventures like breast implants or obstetrical tragedies would
be under the same cloak if we were to compensate all victims of
hepatitis C. That is wrong. As I said before, I have practised
medicine. I had medical malpractice insurance. If I made a
medical mistake, I would personally be sued for that mistake. I
am thankful that never occurred over a 25 year span. This was
for personal errors. If a manufacturer were to make faulty
medical devices, it would be sued. The minister's argument is
absolutely wrong.
Let us go to the experience in other countries. Other
jurisdictions have decided to compensate all victims of hepatitis
C. Ireland comes to mind. I had a chance to talk with officials
from Ireland. Their plan goes back to 1996 when they started
paying individuals. I asked them if there had been an outpouring
of frivolous claims or claims from other areas of medical
malpractice. Zero. Not one single claim. The argument provided
by the minister is absolutely ludicrous. It is just a legal
argument.
In Ireland the officials said that their government tried to
inflate the numbers of victims to make it look as if it would be
a huge expense for the Irish public. That is an interesting
thing which our government is trying to do. The Hepatitis C
Society of Canada has told me that its number of victims is about
one-third the number the government is trying to foist on us. I
do not understand this. The effect of other precedent setting
compensation packages on the medical malpractice system in Canada
is one big fat zero and Canadians know that. Hepatitis C
compensation would do exactly the same thing.
The other argument is that since all governments have signed on
to this agreement, it must be right.
Every single government in Canada is implicated in this tragedy.
Krever has said that the provinces as well as the federal
government are responsible. The federal government takes the
brunt of this responsibility sadly, but just because 13 people
rob a bank, does that mean robbing a bank is right?
1020
The arguments fall completely apart. The regulators in Canada
failed. A huge human tragedy resulted. Canadians were harmed.
Compensation should be paid to all those individuals.
I have an escape for the government. I believe we should always
try to provide an escape clause for the government. It knows it
has made an error in this. Here is how it can save face, look
compassionate and say that it has listened.
A compensation package for everyone should be based upon some
principles. First it should be non-adversarial. They should not
have to go to the court. Second, payment should be based on
showing a direct connection between hepatitis C and a blood
transfusion. That involves some scientific evidence. Third,
there should be the ability to return in a non-adversarial sense
if the disease worsens. Finally, there should be the ability to
go to court if an individual is unsatisfied with the compensation
package. They should not be forced into taking a compensation
package.
These principles give victims dignity and virtually all the
funds go to the victims, not to lawyers.
On the issue of the Prime Minister saying that the vote coming
from this supply day opposition motion is a vote of confidence,
that is another feeble excuse to give his backbenchers the
ability to vote as they should. Surely the Prime Minister as an
experienced politician knows this. There is a very specific
reference in clause 168 of Beauchesne's saying that the standing
orders have completely deleted the ability of a confidence motion
to follow upon the debates from a supply day motion. It is plain
to see. I am going to table this so that the Prime Minister can
read something he should have known.
All we ask, and this is something that is sincere and honest and
open, is for the government to look at this principle. If the
government is absolutely certain that there should be no
compensation for any other victim of hepatitis C, let members
vote freely. If the government will do that, the victims who
came to Parliament Hill on Monday, those individuals who felt
impotent and alone and hurt by this government decision will say
that they have had the debate and their day in the House of
Commons of Canada.
That is my plea. That is my wish. That is my hope. I
challenge the Prime Minister to allow that to happen.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the member for his work on this issue. Everyone in this
House knows he has taken a leadership role in this issue.
Aside from the moral persuasion that we use in this House from
time to time, what else can we do to convince other members on
the government side that this vote has to be won?
We have to prove to Canadians that we are a compassionate
country. In my opinion, this is probably the worst travesty in
the history of health care in this country.
Aside from moral persuasion, what can we do in the next number
of days to ensure that this very important vote is won on the
floor of the House of Commons?
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, moral persuasion is
sometimes a powerful persuasion. The persuasion I see as the most
effective is the persuasion of the victims.
We have a few days now between this debate and when the vote
will take place. I simply ask the victims who have suffered to
go to their MPs.
I expect them to come to me with their faxes and their letters,
but best is for them to look their members of parliament in the
eye and express what this disease has meant to them. Look them
in the eye and ask “Do you agree with giving compensation to
some and no compensation to others?” When that happens I do not
care what the Prime Minister says. I do not care what the Prime
Minister does. An individual in their heart will have to say “I
do not believe it is fair to turn some out on the street”.
1025
The victims will keep this debate alive. The press have asked
me over and over again how I will keep this debate alive. This is
not for me nor is it for the member who also has had a profound
interest in this issue. This is for people who have been harmed
by a public system. Those victims will not go away. The
government will have this hanging around its neck for the rest of
this term unless it says that it made a mistake. The government
does not have to lose face. We are not going to vote its members
out of office for this but if they continue with this, their
offices are at risk.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to seek a comment from the member
particularly with respect to the matter of confidence.
I would like to reaffirm the interpretation the member gave to
the standing orders. When considering an opposition day motion,
for a decade now opposition day motions have not been
procedurally speaking matters of confidence. A long time ago we
changed the rules so that precisely what the Prime Minister is
trying to create in the context of this opposition day motion
would not occur. In days before that rule change, members would
always vote according to which party they belonged to, which side
of the House they belonged to because these motions were
considered to be matters of confidence.
They are not matters of confidence and can only be made matters
of confidence in two ways. First is by the leader of a party
declaring it so and second is by the members of that party whose
leader has declared it to be so abiding by that particular
declaration.
I would like the hon. member's opinion on this. This is a
perfect opportunity for members of the Liberal backbench to say
“No, we are sorry Mr. Prime Minister but we think this should
not be regarded as a matter of confidence”. It is not part of
the government's platform. It is not part of the government's
budget. It was not in the throne speech. It was not in all that
which might be legitimate we argue might be a matter of
confidence. It is an entirely separate issue on which parliament
should render a judgment unhindered by the confidence convention.
I would join with the hon. member in calling upon Liberal
backbenchers to seize this moment to make parliamentary history
and say from here on in that we do not accept that these kinds of
things will be needlessly made matters of confidence.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr Speaker, the member is quite an expert
in the rules and I claim not to be such an expert.
Let me read from the rules. On December 20, 1984 the House
removed references in the standing orders which described votable
motions on allotted days, that is today, as questions of
confidence. That was removed. They are not questions of
confidence.
I commit to the Prime Minister that I and my party will not make
this an issue of confidence. The government will not fall on the
basis of this. It cannot fall. If the Prime Minister says it is
a matter of confidence, I think he is making a grave error. I
once again strongly encourage him to allow members of parliament
to vote with their hearts.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a privilege to speak to this issue. I am going to cover
the issue of confidence and exactly why this government is
incorrect on this issue. I am going to refer to another issue
which happened in this House almost two years ago today.
The issue we have before us today is actually one of integrity,
fairness and leadership. I was raised to believe that you had to
pay for your mistakes and be responsible for your actions. I
think such is the case for the federal government on this issue.
1030
The issue of compensating people who have contracted the
hepatitis C virus because of receiving tainted blood, further as
a result of government actions, must be dealt with in a fair and
just manner.
It is ironic that today we are dealing with a health minister
who has failed to answer the call of the victims of hepatitis C.
Two years ago that same health minister was the justice minister
who was asked to come into the House on the call of some other
victims. That is when the Reform Party tabled a national victims
bill of rights. Of course we all know what happened to that.
That same minister stood and said “Yes, we all care about
victims. We are really concerned about victims and we will do
something about this. We will develop a national victims bill of
rights”. Today what do we have? Nothing, zero, nil. Just a
bunch of rhetoric. It is ironic that it comes from the same
individual who is now the health minister.
Today we have no victims rights and we have no hepatitis victims
getting compensation. Is that familiar or what? We are looking
at the same instance where the heat was on the government by
victims of crime all across the country. It bent, took it into
the House of Commons and said something would be done. The heat
went off and it was dropped. It is so typical. Canadians often
wonder why they lose confidence in the people sent to Ottawa.
This is exactly why.
I will read something that is very interesting about the issue
of confidence. Two years ago, when I dug back into the
Hansard debates, I asked a question of the very same
minister who was then the justice minister on a supply day, which
is rather ironic, as it is today:
Earlier today the justice minister said he was willing to support
the Reform Party's efforts to develop a national victims bill of
rights.
He also indicated there would be a free vote on that issue today
at 6:30 p.m. Could he confirm it?
The minister's response was:
The answer of course is that when there are resolutions, as there
are today involving victims rights, members of this party vote as
they see fit. I already told the House this morning that I am
going to be voting in favour of the resolution because I share
the objectives expressed by the hon. member. I expect that other
members of the government side will vote as they see fit.
This is the identical issue. It is about rights. It is a
supply day. It is about confidence in a vote, and yet two years
ago the same minister stood in the House and said that was no
problem. Today, when faced with an even more compassionate issue
as far as victims who are in varying need of health care, of
compensation, the government says it is not an issue of
confidence.
It is an issue of confidence and therefore we must vote together
on it. I just do not understand what is with this government. It
does not make sense.
Let me ask my colleagues and those watching today whether this
is the expectations they have of a minister and a government. Is
this what they are wanting, a flip flop as they see fit? I think
not.
I guess one of these days this will come back to haunt the
government. The government cannot keep changing the rules as it
sees fit.
Let us talk for a moment about the practicality of the
government and the minister not compensating those who have
contracted hepatitis C. The first issue I think about is the
multimillions of dollars that will be spent by those already
victimized trying to receive compensation given to others in
identical circumstances.
What kind of logic is there in this? These people are already
victims. Now the government is demanding that these people get
the same compensation given others by an arbitrary cut-off line.
They will have to go to court and fight. Many of them cannot
afford the bills.
1035
Who gets something out of this? The lawyers will get wealthy, I
am sure, all across this land. But what about the victims? It
does not make sense. I would like to see members on the other
side justify this in those terms. Many victims of crime call
that revictimization, and I would agree with them.
Let us talk about another issue. Justice Krever spent four
years looking into this issue and spent millions of dollars
trying to find a fair and reasonable answer to the issue. His
recommendation after four long years, which I presume the
government would like to accept, is to compensate those infected
with hepatitis C; not those over 40, not school children, not
women, but all those who have hepatitis C. That is as simple and
as clear as a bell. Does this make sense? Of course it does.
Then why is there an arbitrary decision to cut a line and say
that some will and some will not? Does that make sense?
Let us talk about something even closer to home for many of us.
The government over the last number of years is well known to
have blown multimillions of dollars out the door, billions of
dollars in fact. It calls this an issue of money. The
government asks if it goes down the line and compensates
everybody, can it afford it.
Let us look at some other things the government says it can
afford. $1.4 million over three years to the Czech municipal
authorities is okay but compensating those prior to 1986 is not.
$473,000 to look at an overhaul of the Czechoslovakia judicial
reform is okay but compensating hepatitis C victims is not.
$500,000 to reintegrate Malian soldiers back into their society
is okay but compensating hepatitis C victims prior to 1986 is
not. $14 million to provide Canadian built locomotives to
Senegal is okay but compensating victims of hepatitis C prior to
1986 is not.
I really think the average taxpayer or the average person looks
at issues like this and asks “Why is that okay but compensating
those prior to 1986 is not? What kind of rationale could a
government come up with to justify that?” Is it fair to
Canadians? I think not.
$450,000 to establish a Lebanese parliamentary institute is
okay, yet the government does not have the courage of its
convictions to treat its own Canadian citizens fairly. It is
quite shameful actually.
The government has compensated all AIDS tainted blood victims.
The government has compensated the east coast fishermen for the
loss of their fishery. In opposition the Liberal politicians
before us pressured the Conservatives to compensate all
thalidomide victims. Now they exclude, arbitrarily I might add,
all hepatitis C victims prior to 1986.
I understand my time is up, but I do have an amendment to the
motion. I move:
1040
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The amendment appears
to be in order.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the member who just spoke talked about how this would
force many hepatitis C victims to go to court and how the
government would use money defending itself.
Would he comment on the fact that the government is using
taxpayers' money to defend itself against taxpayers and the
position that puts taxpayers in when going to court to defend
themselves against the government and supplying the money to
their opponents so they can fight them?
I also have another question if it is appropriate. I know there
are certain rules in the House and I do not want to go against
those rules. Approaching it from the other side, could the hon.
member comment on what impact he thinks the speech he just made
had the single Liberal listening to it?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I will answer his second
question first. It is ironic that all opposition parties raise
this issue. We raised it yesterday and for months and months
now. Yesterday we gave the government notice in the House that
there would be a very special debate on the hepatitis C issue.
The media looked at it. The rest of the country is looking at
it. Ironically I find one Liberal member in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I know that this would be of interest
to all, but I think the hon. member also knows that it is
improper to refer to the absence of others. I think that is what
he is in effect doing.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Come on, Randy, tell us who it is.
The Deputy Speaker: I have made the argument that the
member is referring to the presence of one but the effect of
that, as he knows, is to refer to the absence of the others. I
know he would not want to do that. It would be a breach of the
rules.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I make no attempt whatever
to say there is only one Liberal in the House.
The issue concerns everybody in opposition. This is not
something where the government can sweep it under the table and
hope it goes away. It will just not go away. It has to learn
that absence does not make the parliamentary heart grow fonder.
In fact it is just the opposite.
The other issue my colleague asked about was paying the bills
for this. This is ironic. Why is it victims across the country,
whether it is hepatitis C victims, victims of crime or victims of
virtually everything in our society, end up footing the bill and
fighting for rights the government has arbitrarily given to
others? The cost will not only be enormous personally for some
of these people. There will be the costs to government, court
costs, judicial costs and the cost of legal aid lawyers. It will
go on and on for years. Yet the government steadfastly says that
is okay, that it is their problem and not its problem. It is a
sad case for victims of hepatitis C.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I stand on behalf of the New Democratic Party and thank
the Reform Party for its motion today. I also wish to thank
publicly all hepatitis C victims and AIDS victims in Nova Scotia.
However I have a slight concern. I will be corrected if I am
mistaken, but we certainly do not like the idea of a two tier
compensation system for hep C victims.
Having said that, I would like to ask if they believe in a two
tier health system. In Alberta Bill C-37 is now about to become
legislation, which will do erode the public health care system.
Would the hon. member comment on that?
1045
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, leave it to the NDP to
bring something like that up when we are talking about hepatitis
C.
The issue of health care is another issue that we have gladly
debated in this House from time to time. What the NDP should do
today is focus on a very important issue that is over there, not
over here. The NDP would be very wise in this House today to try
to understand the situation as it is.
We have thousands upon thousands of people who have arbitrarily
been excluded from compensation by a government that cannot
justify it. We have victims across this country who have been
arbitrarily shut out of a system by a government which is wrong.
The NDP would be very wise to maybe expand its horizons. The
House would be better off as well.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the
previous two interventions and to the questions and answers
associated with them. I am more relieved now that we are back in
focus. I thought initially, without being sarcastic, that the
issue was no longer one as indicated by the motion but rather one
of wrangling about parliamentary procedures.
It is important that on an issue like the one before us today we
think in long term vision, we look at the errors of the past, we
try to reconstruct and go forward.
In dealing with the complex issue of assistance for those
Canadians infected with hepatitis C during a time when the blood
system could have responded differently but did not, it is
important to point out that all Canada's governments, the
territorial and provincial governments of all partisans stripes
as well as the federal government, have taken decisive actions to
ensure that such tragic events do not occur again. It is a point
that should be kept in mind as we debate the issue over the
course of this day.
It is also important to keep in mind that public faith and
confidence in blood safety have suffered as a result of past
events. We should not exasperate that. Canadians need
reassurance that the blood supply, the blood system today, is
safe and effective in Canada as it is in any other country. That
is what I would like to speak about today, the progress made by
governments to resolve the issue of confidence in blood safety.
I am pleased to inform the House on how governments, this
government in particular, are working together with partners to
build a new, safe and integrated blood system. In speaking about
that progress, I will be speaking about partnership. Restoring
confidence in blood safety and building a better blood system
hinges on bringing many partners together to achieve a common
goal. Partners and stakeholders are essential to any effective
national system. This spirit is our guide in building a better
blood system where all stakeholders can have confidence that they
play a role and have a voice that will be heard.
In Canada, as elsewhere, governments, consumers, those harmed,
their families, specialists, scientists and others have all been
working to ensure safer blood supplies and better systems of
delivery.
1050
In Canada we have made a great deal of progress in designing an
appropriate structure for our new blood system. Working closely
together with our provincial and territorial partners who own and
operate the blood system as a part of their health care systems,
we are well on track with transition plans.
A transition bureau has already been appointed. The bureau is
working hard to ensure that the new Canadian blood services is up
and operating as soon as possible with a target date for
September 1998. Of course many operational details still have to
be worked out. However, all those involved are committed to
making the transition as smooth, as seamless and as safe as
possible.
Canada's new blood system is a product of consensus and
partnership among all key stakeholders. This is only right
because the blood system belongs to each one of us.
By continuing to work together partners and stakeholders will
achieve a new system in which we can all take pride. This is not
just a technical or management exercise. Rebuilding confidence
means earning respect and the good faith of blood donors,
consumers, patients and all our citizens.
Mr. Justice Horace Krever's commission provided a clear
assessment for Canadians about what went wrong in the 1980s and
how we can ensure that it never happens again. Justice Krever set
a path that governments and stakeholders are following. The way
he has shown was drawn from what he heard during the extensive
hearings of the commission and his careful deliberations on the
events of the past.
One way we can show we have learned from the past is by building
a system with all the feasible safeguards to ensure the past does
not happen again.
Throughout the course of public hearings of the commission
consumers, transfusion medicine specialists and management
experts identified many deficiencies in the old blood system.
They identified flaws as a lack of systematic, co-ordinated and
rapid response in the face of emerging safety risks. They saw a
lack of accountabilities for safety and governance. They saw
rigid financing arrangements that did not reflect the focus on
priorities of safety. They observed a fragmentation in blood
science and research and development. Governments saw all this
as well.
The Government of Canada took a lead role in bringing provinces
and territories together to discuss ways to solve these problems.
We asked consumers and scientists to join in the discussion. We
consulted, we listened and we considered options.
Last September at a meeting in Fredericton, Canada's health
ministers built on the substantial progress that had already been
made and made a decisive step forward in the creation of a new,
single agency to manage Canada's blood system.
The new Canadian blood services moved a step closer to becoming
fully operational by September 1998. That agency will be
responsible for managing all aspects of an accountable, fully
integrated blood system. It is based on four key principles that
government set out for the new blood system in 1996, principles
which partners and stakeholders endorsed with enthusiasm.
First, the safety of the blood supply is of paramount importance
if we want to earn the confidence of Canadians.
Second, a fully integrated approach is essential if we are to
have a clear and coherent system in which all participants work
effectively and co-operatively.
1055
Third, accountabilities must be clear so that people inside the
system and outside it know who is responsible for action.
Fourth, the system must be transparent because it needs to
operate in full view with its windows and doors wide open for
public inspection. All those involved in the planning of the new
blood system will examine his advice carefully.
Let me say a word about Quebec. So far, Quebec has decided not
to be a part of the blood system plans. Quebec is pursuing its
own efforts to incorporate the blood system operations in its
health care system.
Ways to collaborate with the Canadian blood system and the new
blood system can be discussed. Of course blood and blood
products used by patients in Quebec have to comply with federal
regulations for safety and efficacy, the same as anywhere else in
Canada.
What role does the federal government play in the new blood
system? The role is quite different from that of the provinces
and the territories. The provinces and territories are
responsible and accountable for the national blood program. They
set funding, broad health policy objectives and ensure the
overall integrity of the system. The Government of Canada is
supporting them as they manage the transition to the new system.
This is very much in keeping and consistent with our role in
pursuing better ways to improve and enhance the health of all
Canadians.
For that reason, the government agreed to provide a grant of up
to $81 million to support the start-up of the new system. Will
the Government of Canada play other roles now and when the system
is up and running? Of course.
Blood safety is a priority for the government and the government
will continue to work to make blood as safe as it can be.
The Deputy Speaker: I think it is fair to say that the
hon. member's time has expired. It is time for questions and
comments.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the motion
today is pretty specific, to decide whether members of Parliament
agree with compensating all the victims of hepatitis C as Justice
Krever suggested.
I listened carefully to the member's commentary and I have not
heard much on the actual motion. I would like to ask him a
direct question.
Does he believe that Justice Krever's recommendation should or
should not be followed?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question
because it allows me to remind myself and everyone else that the
motion gives us an opportunity to address the entire issue.
Like the member opposite, I was a little dismayed that we were
not addressing the issues as he presented them or had begun to
present them but we were talking about procedures.
Since he has raised the question of the relevance of Judge
Krever's impact on the motion today, I regrettably could not
finish so that I would have satisfied his question prior to its
being raised.
I will take the opportunity to do that now. I want to advise
him that in dealing with Judge Krever's very comprehensive report
one must take into consideration the nature of risk in a complex
biological substance such as blood and blood products. Canadians
understand that even when safety is at its highest, the very
nature of blood means that we can never let our guard down.
Judge Krever advised Canadians that because of the nature of
blood there should never be complacency about safety. How to make
a safer, better system which is prepared to face new and emerging
threats to safety is one of the key challenges facing all those
involved, including governments, scientists, medical and
technical specialists, patients and donors.
Health Canada is a regulator of the blood supply system. Health
Canada regulates blood and blood products under the Food and
Drugs Act and the department conducts national disease
surveillance.
Those roles preclude active involvement in the operation of the
blood system, but as a regulator Health Canada is committed to
the same high standards of accountability, openness and
transparency that we expect from the provinces and territories in
the operation of their blood systems. Canadians deserve no less.
1100
Let me describe some of Canada's recent efforts to strengthen
the blood safety system, which is directly relevant to the
member's question. First, Health Canada has established a blood
safety council to advise the government on matters of blood
safety and to be a source of information and guidance on such
matters from a national perspective. Consumers sit on this
council.
Second, the department is working actively with other partners
to reduce risk of bacterial contamination of blood. Third, it is
developing a regulatory framework that will take blood regulation
forward into the future. It has an expert advisory committee on
blood regulations to provide expert input on specific blood
regulatory matters. Fourth, disease surveillance capacity
related to blood safety has been strengthened. A blood-borne
pathogens unit has been set up and improvements in field
epidemiology have been made. I am happy to say that today Canada
has a stronger capacity to respond to new and emerging blood
safety risks as a result of such improvements, improvements
recommended by Judge Krever. This is evidence that the
government attaches great importance to blood safety.
Members want to know that the government is working to identify
potential new threats to the safety of our blood supply and that
it is ensuring that never ends. The government will provide a
million dollars a year to the Canadian blood services, money that
will be specifically targeted for blood science, research and
development. That funding will keep Canadians in the forefront of
blood science and maintain Canada's position in international
blood research.
I know members want me to use the rest of the time to point out
that in the new system Canadians are building, better science
will be there to support strong and effective regulations. It
will be there to help the system meet the highest safety
considerations and it will be there out in the open for all
stakeholders to review.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments has
expired.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise this morning in support of the Reform motion,
which states “That this House urges the government to act on the
recommendation of Justice Horace Krever to compensate all
victims who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood.”
When my leader made me responsible for health upon my arrival
here in 1993, the tainted blood scandal was one of the very
first issues I had to look into. I did so with great compassion
for the victims of this tragedy. There are no words to describe
what has certainly been one of the worst scandals of modern day
medicine in Canada.
Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has asked more than 100 questions
about the inquiry into the tainted blood scandal. These
questions were always intended to advance the inquiry presided
by Justice Krever. Parliamentarians will recall that this
inquiry ran into some roadblocks.
These roadblocks were not always set up by people outside this
Parliament. The government of the day seemed intent on throwing
a monkey wrench into the process so as to stifle the tainted
blood inquiry.
1105
The blood inquiry has gone on for four years and cost $15
million. We also know that documents that could have been very
useful to the inquiry were destroyed and that this did not seem
to worry the government unduly, because those who destroyed the
documents have gone unpunished.
There were also the attempts to block Judge Krever's efforts
through the courts. These attempts were never justified, any
more than the sometimes extreme comments made about the inquiry.
In November 1996, the Prime Minister maintained that the law
prevented him from disclosing documents that included
transcripts of cabinet deliberations in 1984, the time when
scientists were sounding warnings about the discovery of a
dangerous new virus in blood banks.
We are being told that only those who contracted the disease
between 1986 and 1990 are being compensated because, although
that was when the facts were known, preventive measures had not
been taken. We know that there were cabinet transcripts setting
out the situation as early as 1984, so why were these documents
not disclosed? One could suspect that they contained evidence
that the government was starting to realize back then that the
hepatitis C virus and other viruses were contaminating blood.
Under the current program announced by the federal and
provincial health ministers in Toronto on March 27, the federal
and provincial governments are going to contribute $1.1 billion
to a compensation fund for hemophiliacs who contracted the
disease, but only if they did so between January 1, 1986 and
July 1, 1990.
This fund will also be used to help those individuals infected
by a spouse or parent during this period, as well as those who
contracted HIV from a spouse or parent infected by blood or
blood products.
Of this amount, the federal government's share will be $800
million. The provinces will put up the other $300 million, and
will contribute an additional $1.6 billion over the next 30
years for drugs and various forms of health care.
In my opinion, this represents an enormous effort, in these
times of tight budgets and cuts to federal payments to the
provinces.
The program is restricted to victims who contracted hepatitis C
between 1986 and 1990, because the Red Cross and the governments
did not take advantage of tests available, in the U.S. in
particular, during that time. Prior to 1986, there was no
effective test for detecting the disease, which was not known in
the form hepatitis C takes today. The governments therefore
acted in accordance with what was known at the time.
In my opinion, this program and the governments which signed it
were in good faith.
Now, however, with a bit of hindsight, we see certain signs that
could enlighten us as to the birth of this program and all that
could be added to it. We should keep in mind that the provinces
will have to spend another $300 million, in addition to
providing all health care services and drugs required, at a time
when they have just experienced extraordinary cuts to the Canada
social transfer.
An hon. member: Extraordinary cuts.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: As my colleague has just said, these cuts
could even be called extraordinary.
1110
When a government, which is also one of the key parties with
responsibility in this entire affair, turns up with a zero
deficit and a budget surplus which will probably be $20 billion
by the end of 1998, I believe that finding a few million dollars
to distribute among all hepatitis C victims is no big deal.
Regardless of what may have happened, these people were
contaminated through blood and need support.
Since coming to power, the Liberals have reduced the deficit—I
want to refer to this again and I am going to provide
figures—mainly by passing the buck to the provinces. Between 1994
and 2003, this will amount to $42 billion out of the coffers of
Quebec and the Canadian provinces.
That amounts to 52% of the cuts imposed, while the federal
government's share amounts to barely 12%. This is an eloquent
first clue as to the financial situation of the governments.
By the year 2003, Quebeckers and Canadians will face an
additional $30 billion in federal cuts to health care, education
and social assistance. The provinces, obviously, are going to
have to figure out how to absorb them, as it is they who will
have to bear the burden and not the federal government. In the
meantime, the federal government is coming up with budget
surpluses, and by 2000—and I say 2000 advisedly—the employment
insurance fund will have accumulated an excess of $25 billion on
the backs of workers, the unemployed and the sick.
The representatives of the governments that agreed to compensate
the victims of Hepatitis C as humanely as possible did not all
start off on the same footing in terms of their ability to pay.
The tainted blood scandal in Canada is a national tragedy, which
appeals to Canadians' and Quebeckers' sense of compassion. The
point of the exercise is not to point the finger, but more
importantly to provide justice to the victims of a tragedy of
unprecedented proportions.
This government prides itself on taking full responsibility for
the safety of Canada's blood system. It can and must set up a
special no fault program. Then, afterward, the issue of setting
up a more extensive no fault system should be debated by
Canadians as a whole.
For the time being, I invite all Liberal members in this House
to support this motion to make it clear to the government that
it has a moral and financial responsibility to correct an
incredibly unfair situation.
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue has
tragic implications. I have been involved for six or seven years
for the simple reason that one of my constituents, Mr. Saumure,
is an innocent victim and is fighting over this issue. I think
everyone in the House knows that.
I was deeply touched by Mr. Saumure's testimony. Two of his
brothers died of that terrible disease.
We must vote on this motion and anyone who cares would want all
those who were contaminated to be covered by a compensation
agreement. After all, they are innocent victims in all this.
In my opinion, the initiative should come from the provincial
health ministers. If the provincial health ministers—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mark Assad: Mr. Speaker, could I please continue?
1115
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would ask members to
recognize the hon. member's right to put his question or to make
his comment.
Mr. Mark Assad: Mr. Speaker, if provincial health ministers took
the initiative, I am convinced that the federal health minister
could open the door and reconsider the whole issue.
It was rather difficult to get the provinces to approve the
agreement that was signed. If the Minister of Health rose in the
House and said he would consider the possibility of compensating
the other victims, the provinces would most certainly say that
he should foot the entire bill. This is a fundamental issue for
everyone concerned.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Mark Assad: All this shouting is absolutely useless. What is
needed is a consensus between all governments on this issue. We
have a bunch of whiners on the other side, the NDP—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Gatineau
has the floor.
Mr. Mark Assad: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the NDP's convictions
are as strong as its shouting is loud.
It is very simple. We need a consensus among all governments on
this issue. If the provinces take the initiative, I am convinced
that the Minister of Health will agree to reconsider the whole
issue of compensation.
So I am asking my colleague if she agrees.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I would say that I am not at
all in agreement and that I am very surprised by the stand taken
by the hon. member, who made the headlines today with his
extreme compassion for all hepatitis C victims and who,
according to the newspapers anyway, would like to vote against
his party line.
He tells us today that what is needed is the agreement of all
provincial health ministers, when the provinces have reached
their limit, as I gave figures to show earlier. So far, they
have made an exceptional effort, doing everything they could.
I would like to tell the hon. member that, when this same
government that is forking out $900 million for submarines to
keep the military happy, that is spending $2.5 billion on
millennium scholarships that nobody wants, and that is buying
over $1 billion worth of helicopters, cannot even come up with a
few million dollars to compensate all hepatitis C victims, I
hang my head. It is unbelievable that the provinces are being
asked to do more, when they must manage the health care system.
I appeal to the intelligence of all members of this government
and urge them to vote in favour of the Reform motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for questions and comments
has expired.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
given that the Prime Minister has declared this motion, I would
say contrary to the spirit of the rules of the House, to be a
matter of confidence, we can already see Liberal members running
for cover, hiding under any little rock they can find from the
reality that they are being presented with a compelling case for
the Liberal backbench exercising the freedom which is theirs,
both individually and politically, to tell the Prime Minister
this is not and should not be declared a matter of confidence.
1120
One can imagine the Prime Minister going to the people of Canada
and saying we have resigned because parliament did not agree with
us on our hepatitis C compensation package and we are going to
have an election. That is what the Prime Minister said, he was
willing to have an election over this particular package.
One can imagine what that election might be like. I think if we
were to have an election which in effect would become a
referendum of a sort on whether this hepatitis C package was
legitimate and reflected the values of Canadians, the Liberals
might be surprised to find out just how much of a majority of
Canadians agree with the views that are being expressed on the
opposition side here today.
People who are suffering from hepatitis C and who contracted
that because of tainted blood should not be divided into two
groups, those who qualify for compensation and those who do not
on the basis of some arbitrary judgment arrived at 1986 as the
dividing line. We know the use of 1986 as the cut-off date is
something that could have been argued otherwise by the government
if it had wanted to do so. It is not a hard and fast argument
that the government is making. We know that the liability issue
is not as clear as the minister would like us to believe.
The ALT test used to screen non-A, non-B hepatitis, as it was
then called, was developed in 1958. In 1981 a New England
Journal of Medicine study recommended this surrogate testing
to screen for hepatitis C as did another eminent North American
medical journal in the same year.
The Krever report on page 638 shows that the Red Cross and the
federal health department discussed the test in 1981 but rejected
it due to the expense. The victims were abandoned then due to
the cost of prevention and they are being abandoned now due to
the cost of compensation. In both cases we have governments
making decisions, not on the basis of what is right, what is
morally just, of what reflects the values of Canadians, but they
are making these judgments with a calculator in their hands.
At the same time we know about the billions of dollars that are
spent by the federal government, and for that matter by
provincial governments, on many other things that are less
deserving than compensation for people who have innocently been
contaminated and made to suffer as a result of tainted blood.
I want to address the question that was raised by the member for
Gatineau having to do with what appears to be the Liberal
argument now that somehow the provinces should show leadership
with this.
Next month I will have been here 19 years and I have heard a lot
of spurious arguments in the House of Commons. But this has to
be one of the worst I have ever heard, that the provinces should
pick up the tab and show leadership on an issue of compensation
for victims who suffered because of mistakes that were made by a
federally regulated agency.
This really has to be a line of thought that could only be
developed by a Liberal backbencher looking for a place to hide
because of a lack of courage to stand up to the Prime Minister
and say this is not a matter of confidence, this is a matter of
doing the right thing and we are going to vote to do the right
thing no matter what we are told to do.
Surely it was up to the federal government to provide leadership
just on the basis of who was responsible, who was the regulatory
authority. The provinces already have the burden of looking
after the people who are sick as a result of this and are having
to bear that burden in the context of billions of dollars being
removed from their health care budgets by the cutbacks that were
perpetrated by this very government. To turn to those provinces
now and say they should show a little more leadership on this is
absolutely preposterous, politically and morally, that the
federal government should turn to the provincial governments and
say they should show more leadership when they are not in a
position to show that leadership because of the very cutbacks the
federal government has brought about.
1125
We in NDP support and have supported all along the notion that
the people who contracted hepatitis C as a result of tainted
blood should be compensated no matter when they were
contaminated. We support the Reform Party motion on this and we
urge the government backbenchers to. Perhaps it would help if
all the House leaders of the opposition parties got together. We
are going to be saying this individually throughout the day.
To make it clear, we do not regard this as a matter of
confidence. We do not think that if parliament were to say to
the Government of Canada that it does not think its compensation
package is adequate, change it, make it more generous, make it
more compassionate, that this is something over which a
government should fall, something for which there should be an
election call. The only person making that ridiculous claim is
the Prime Minister. He stood in the House yesterday and said
this is a matter of confidence.
In fairness, the Prime Minister is acting within the rules of
the House. The member earlier was talking about the McGrath
committee in which we recommended that, if implemented, all the
matters of confidence be removed from the standing orders of the
House and that confidence be a matter of political determination.
The Prime Minister is politically determined that this will be a
matter of confidence.
It is now up to the Liberal backbenchers to politically
determine, to individually determine whether the Prime Minister
has made the right decision on this or whether they have an
opportunity on Tuesday to make parliamentary history, to say to
the Prime Minister he has made a mistake on the package in the
first place and by declaring this a matter of confidence.
They should vote the way they think is right in spite of what he
said about this being a matter of confidence because when they
think it over, if the motion were to pass and parliament were to
express that the compensation package is not good enough, the
Prime Minister will not see the governor general the next morning.
The next morning they are going to say that maybe they should
rethink the package, maybe they should expand it, maybe it should
be more generous, have a motion of confidence passed in the House
or simply declare that it was not a matter of non-confidence.
All these things are possible within the rules.
I urge the Prime Minister to see things differently. I urge
Liberal backbenchers to see things differently. They are on
shaky ground, ethically and politically. I do not think
Canadians accept that victims of hepatitis C should be divided
into two groups, those who were contaminated after 1986 and those
who were contaminated before 1986.
The government is putting forward an argument that it is trying
to be legally cautious. It does not want to leave itself and
other governments open to a precedent setting judgment. We have
precedents already. We have the precedent of all people who
contracted AIDS through tainted blood being compensated no matter
when they contracted HIV. Why not pay attention to that
precedent? If we are precedent conscious, why not pay attention
to that precedent? Why not pay attention to both precedent and
experience in other countries? The member for Macleod said
earlier this has been done in Ireland. Has there been this rush
of claims against the health care system? Apparently not. The
government should muster up its moral courage.
This morning we were at the prayer breakfast. Let us ask
ourselves what would Jesus do in this situation. Would he say to
all the people who were sick with hepatitis C that they will
compensate only some and not others? I doubt it.
1130
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to commend my hon. colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona and I
would like to ask him a question.
I wonder if the hon. member would venture to speculate about
which way the people of Canada would have more confidence in the
government: if the government insisted that it not pay, or if
the government said it did make a mistake, there was some
negligence and that it had the moral responsibility to expand the
package. Would that perhaps engender more confidence in the
government than insisting that it was right even when it was
wrong?
I think the hon. member knows full well the moral dilemma of
doing what is right. Everyone makes a mistake once in a while.
I wonder if the member would comment on that particular issue.
What does generate confidence? Is it insisting on a political
answer or is it insisting on doing what is right?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would
have a lot more confidence in their system of government, not
just the government, and in the political process if they felt
they were being governed by a process in which political parties,
and governments in particular, because they are often the ones
who make the decisions, did not feel compelled to defend to the
death every last decision that they make no matter how wrong that
decision may come to be seen or judged to be, even by themselves.
I agree with the point the hon. member is making. Canadians
would have more confidence, not less, in a government and in a
political process in which political parties and particularly
government were able to say that they would truly allow the
House to judge proposals on their merits. It must not be declared
as a matter of confidence or, as is sometimes the case, it is not
formally declared a matter of confidence, as it was yesterday by
the Prime Minister, but is informally communicated to the
members of the government caucus that this is something they
are expected to be obedient on.
Canadians would have a lot more confidence in a system in which
that did not take place as often as it does. I think there is a
place for confidence. I think there is a place for governments
to run on certain things and expect people who run with them to
toe the line. However, I believe that should be a limited range
of proposals and things.
The problem with the Canadian political system is that the range
is like this instead of like that. We need to broaden and expand
the range of issues on which members of parliament can express
themselves as individuals or as representatives of their
constituents, however they judge that to be possible. I believe
all political parties have a job to do in that respect, but
governments in particular because they are the ones who make
decisions that have the immediate effect.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for raising the issue of political discussions in this House.
This is of course the place to have political discussions. I
think he perhaps deterred debate a little when he talked
about procedures and the significance of procedures in the House.
However, what I think he really wanted to talk about were the
merits of compensation packages placed before victims for
consideration.
If I could be allowed a moment I would like to present this to
members of the House for consideration so they can understand
exactly what it is that 13 different governments in this country
established after taking into consideration all the health
priorities, government priorities and concern for each and every
one of their electorate.
The governments came forward with a package to establish a $1.1
billion fund to compensate victims. They also stated that
services would be provided by the provinces over and above the
normal services.
Finally, and most importantly, something we should not ignore is
that there is a third component to this which is that the courts
must accept all of the deals or go on to what is available to
everyone right now which is access to the courts for
consideration of—
1135
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for
Winnipeg—Transcona will require some time to respond and he has
15 seconds.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the member did not say
anything yet and, as was said before, he did not really respond
to the argument that I was making. Seeing that he did not
respond to what I had to say, I see no need to respond to
something that I already responded to.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, at the
outset I want to thank the member for Macleod for introducing the
motion. I want to tell all members of the House that we will
definitely be supporting the motion because I think this debate
on the floor of the House of Commons is overdue.
One thing I am amazed at, and other members have touched on it,
is the Prime Minister suggesting that this is going to be a
confidence vote. That is absolutely ridiculous. Obviously we
all know what happens in a confidence vote if the government
should lose, and I think the government would certainly be in a
position to lose this one because it does not even have the
support of its back benches. What is the Prime Minister doing?
He is using the big stick to crack the backbenchers into line,
forcing them to vote against the motion, even though in their own
hearts most of them would certainly support it. Some of them
have been brave enough to say that publicly.
Just imagine if the government did lose the vote and it decided
to take it to the people in an election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I am thinking of some of the campaign slogans of the
past, but you are probably old enough to remember this one. Do
you remember in 1972 when Prime Minister Trudeau campaigned on
the theme that the land is strong? You are nodding in agreement.
You remember that.
I do not know what the campaign slogan would be this time, but I
imagine the basis of the campaign would be: “We are running on
this. We want a mandate from the Canadian people to deny
innocent victims of hepatitis C compensation”.
Mr. Speaker, given your political past, do you believe that
would be a tenable campaign position?
Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right. I see you nodding in
agreement.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that will probably be the
only chuckle we will get out of this entire debate because that
is not a tenable position.
Effectively we have 20,000 to 40,000 Canadians left outside the
compensation package. The government does not know how many
there are. In fact, the other day when questioning the Minister
of Health he stood and admitted the government does not know how
many people have been locked outside the package. It could be
20,000, it could be 40,000, it could be more. But the victims of
hepatitis C are innocent victims. No one in their right mind
could support that type of position in a country as historically
generous as Canada.
We can imagine what will now happen is that the innocent victims
will have to go through the courts to get compensation. They
will have to go through the legal system to get compensation.
That is their only recourse.
Every legal mind in the country and I think every member in the
House will know that the government's position is pretty weak on
this one. It cannot sustain its position in the courts. It will
lose its case in the courts. When that happens the compensation
package will be much bigger than what the government imagines.
The government is going to put these people through a protracted
court process. At the end of the day some of the victims we are
trying to help today will not be here because some of them are
very, very sick. That is the sum of what we have been saying in
the House.
The minister is in a very tricky situation. In the past in the
House I have accused the Minister of Finance of being the real
health minister because what is playing out on the Liberal front
benches is obviously the jockeying for leadership. I do not
think it is any secret that the Prime Minister is not going to be
here forever. Of course, it will be his choice when he decides
to open it up to a leadership race, but the leadership race, as
we all well know, is already unofficially under way.
1140
Now who we have jockeying for position is the health minister
and the finance minister, the two we consider to be the front
runners as unbiased observers of the Liberal Party.
The minister stands in the House and says “Listen, I went to
cabinet, I fought the good fight and it is just unfortunate that
I lost that fight in cabinet”. Guess who he lost the fight to?
The finance minister is the guy who is calling the shots.
When we point across here and put questions to the health
minister we should in fact be talking to the Minister of
Finance. He is the guy who is calling the shots. Unfortunately,
the health minister is the weak link in the chain and he is
taking the brunt of this decision.
When we talk about opening this package up and doing the right
thing, the honourable thing, and re-examining this package in the
hope that all victims would be compensated—and we want a
straight yes or no answer—what does the minister do? He fudges
on that answer. He does not say yes and he does not say no.
Why? He does not dare. If he says “Yes, we'll open it up”,
zing, he is immediately gone. He is no longer in the front row.
He is gone. He is history. If he says “No, we're not going to
open it up”, he is going to have the wrath of 30 million
Canadians on him.
I think politics is being played out in the front benches of the
Liberal Party, on the government side of the House. That is
unfortunate because who are the victims in all of this? They are
the hepatitis C victims who have been left outside the package.
That is unfortunate.
Before I finish I want to remind the House and all Canadians
that the government found $500 million to bail itself out of a
botched helicopter deal. That was just the legal fees. That did
not purchase one helicopter. I will remind the people around the
country that it was just to buy itself out of a legal problem
which it created.
It did not stop there. It did the same thing with Pearson
airport. It got into difficulty there and it cost $750 million
to bail itself out of that botched deal.
It does not end there. The present Minister of Health was also
the guy who brought in the gun registration bill. That cost the
Canadian taxpayers another half a billion dollars.
The government is saying that it has a heart and it wants to do
the right thing. We have the Prime Minister sitting over there
nodding in agreement with the health minister. All the time this
is playing out on the floor of the House of Commons, the only man
who is smiling is the Minister of Finance. That is unfortunate.
Some of the hepatitis C victims and some of the leadership of
the movement were asking me the other day, when the women from
Ireland came over to press their case and to show us how it was
done, what would have to happen in terms of parliamentary
procedure. How would we proceed? What would have to happen?
I said it was very simple. In a parliamentary democracy the
Prime Minister, when he enters this House, can rise in his place
and say “Listen, we know we made a mistake. The honourable
thing is to reopen this package and compensate all victims”. It
is as easy as that.
There is one person in this House who can change it. He can
change it on a moment's notice. He does not have to put his
caucus or even some of the cabinet ministers, who I know have
reservations about this deal, through the meat grinder. He does
not have to use a big stick to beat them into submission to
support his position. All he has to do is do the honourable
thing, rise in this House, get up on his hind legs and say “We
have made a mistake. We are going to revisit this thing”.
In the eyes of the international world, this is going to be a
black eye for Canada. You know the history of this country as
well as I do and probably better, Mr. Speaker. We know you are a
student of history. This country cannot afford in the
international world to make those types of cold, irrational
decisions because we have always been a leader in terms of
humanitarian aid to the rest of the world.
All we are doing is asking that the same rules apply to us right
here in Canada. Let us set the example and do it right here in
this country.
1145
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience. I will entertain
questions from other members. Let this debate continue and on
Tuesday night when we come into the House for the vote, hopefully
the people on the other side of the aisle will do the right thing
and support us in support of this motion.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on such a serious topic as this I
hope you will interrupt me if I engage in shameful partisan
snipping. What I would like to do instead, contrary to the tone
of some of the discussion so far, is to ask the member whether he
has reviewed the facts as they stand before everyone, victims,
assistants and members.
The member probably will recall that all victims have recourse
to the courts. Very importantly, what is associated with that is
that no action by the Government of Canada is taken to deprive
people of an opportunity to seek compensation in the courts.
As I said to the previous speaker, the compensation package
offered to a group of victims is dependent upon the accord of the
courts. There has to be approval by the courts if the package is
accepted. That does not preclude any other packages that may be
sought afterward. It is an important distinction that makes
members opposite feel uncomfortable. However, this is the case
in a society where we have the rules of process determining
everything that ought to happen.
If the member opposite wants to continue to speculate on the
internal politics of all parties in this House, then that is a
good way for him to determine the priorities of the people he
would pretend to represent. From our side we have put something
on the table which gives everyone an opportunity to consider it
thoughtfully, deliberate and to make a decision. That does not
exclude anyone. The rules of procedure allow everyone to seek
satisfaction. The Government of Canada does not close the door
on any of that.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Will
the parliamentary secretary put his question? He has been going
on long enough.
The Deputy Speaker: I have indicated that I wanted the
question put or the comment ended. The hon. member for Charlotte.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your wise
intervention.
Simply it is cruel and unusual punishment for members to sit on
this side of the House and listen to the parliamentary secretary
rant on. He never addresses the motion before this House, which
is compensation for the victims.
I am going to take his minister's own words and remind him that
the minister stood in this House last fall and this spring, in
fact just hours before the compensation package was announced,
and led all of us to believe that the government was going to do
the right thing. He said he did not want these innocent victims
to have to go through a lengthy and expensive protracted court
procedure. We took the minister at his own words just hours
before the compensation package was announced and he knowing full
well that they would not be compensated.
I want to remind the Canadian people to stay tuned on Tuesday
night and watch their members of parliament as to whether or not
they will support this motion. We will support this motion
because it is the right thing to do. We want all victims of
hepatitis C compensated.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of the hon. member
for Charlotte regarding the finance minister and who actually is
running the health department.
I read in today's Quorum that David Dodge, the key architect of
the finance department, is now a member of the health department.
I would his comments and views on that appointment.
1150
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I lost part of that
question. I know the member has been very complimentary in terms
of his support. Specifically maybe one of the members could tell
me exactly what he was asking because I was lost in the
conversation.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could repeat
his question more briefly. We have very limited time.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Charlotte had mentioned that the finance minister was running the
health department. Today in the paper there is an announcement
that David Dodge, a member of the finance department, is now the
deputy minister of health. I would like his comments on that
appointment please.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I think we have all
argued in this House that the decisions being made by the
government in relation to this compensation package were made by
accountants and lawyers. The human factor has to enter in here.
I would rather see the minister bring in a psychiatrist,
psychologist or counsellor of some sort rather than bean counters
and more lawyers. The minister does need some administrative help
but I think he needs more counselling than what he is probably
getting.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this Liberal government has consistently stated how proud it is
that Canada is the number one country in the world, the best
nation in which to live.
I would like in a rhetorical fashion to ask a question of the
Minister of Health if he is watching on CPAC today. If he were
one who contracted hepatitis C in Canada and watched all the
other hepatitis C victims get fair and generous compensation, in
other jurisdictions in the world as well, would he still believe
in view of that comparison that Canada was the number one country
in the world, the best nation in which to live?
I rise today to speak of the oppression and injustice and how
these hepatitis C victims feel. They feel not like citizens of a
first rate nation, the number one country in the world, but more
like those of a third world country not having the compassion for
innocent victims, especially when those innocent victims have
been made so by the negligence of the government's regulators.
No doubt numerous letters, e-mails, correspondence and fax
messages have been received by other members of parliament, as
they have been by the Reform official opposition health critics.
I would like to read into the record a couple of letters. I will
read one in full and part of another. They simply reflect the
outpouring of grief, the lament and great sense of injustice and
oppression felt by these people who have contracted hepatitis C
and those who contracted it before 1986.
This letter was addressed to me:
I am writing to beseech you to assist me in influencing the
[health minister] to reconsider his position on the scandalous
treatment of hepatitis C victims in his patently unfair
compensation package.
I contracted hepatitis C while having a kidney removed in June of
1983. At that time, testing was indeed available for non-A,
non-B hepatitis, testing which was not, however, being used in
Canada. The date chosen, 1986, is entirely arbitrary. Germany
began testing in 1981, the United States in 1986.
I find it rather interesting there was no new information, that
nothing new entered the equation from 1981 to 1986 in terms of
information that was not available in 1981. It is rather
interesting as well that this government sometimes rants and
rails at the American health care system yet chooses in this
instance to take the lead from them. A very selective practice.
The government is allowing the American practice in this case to
dictate Canadian policy. There is no other good scientific
reason for so doing. The letter continues:
As it usually happens, I was unaware of my disease until 1995,
when my symptoms began to make themselves known and I was tested.
Since then, my symptoms have increased dramatically, in spite of
the many lifestyle changes I made in the hope of slowing down the
progression of the disease.
I am now faced with the prospect of having to leave my beloved
but challenging job as a result of my illness. I work at the
University of Victoria, where there is no long term disability
program, so I am faced with three months sick leave, then 15
weeks of medical unemployment insurance then—nothing!!
The fear of how I will pay my bills is as stressful as the
disease itself and I find myself becoming even sicker as a result
of all the added stresses accompanying my inability to continue
to work.
I will be attending the funeral on Tuesday, April 7, of Leslie
Ashcroft, a close friend who died last Sunday of liver cancer. I
know all too well what might await me as my disease progresses.
The ultimate irony of this for me is that the [health minister]
proposes to spend my tax dollars to compensate victims who were
infected in the `right' time frame whether they are sick or not.
And I face the prospect of losing everything I have spent my life
working for due to this same disease, contracted when there was
testing which was not used, as I am now too ill to continue
working and paying those taxes.
Please remember that, sick as many of us are, we can still vote
and you can be sure we will not vote to re-elect a government
that treated so many honest, hardworking Canadians in such an
unconscionable manner lacking any compassion or, in fact, logic.
Where is the compassion of a government that deems that some
victims `deserve' compensation and others do not? Why have those
of us infected before 1986 been doomed to litigation and hardship
as a result—
1155
She concludes her letter with a plea and a heartfelt appeal to
understand her situation and to do the right thing.
I also have a letter from a Canadian citizen, Vicki Anderson of
Nanaimo, B.C. who was infected with hepatitis C through tainted
blood. In her letter she asks whether the health minister would
accept this compensation package if he were infected himself. It
would be an interesting question if the minister were here on
this occasion, but he is not. But if he were here and if he were
one of those infected before 1986, would he accept being excluded
from the compensation package?
The Deputy Speaker: I hate to interrupt the hon. member
but he knows it is out of order to refer to the absence of
members. I urge him to refrain from doing so.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: In that case, it is the individual
to whom I have just referred and to whom I cannot directly
address the question. If he were infected with hepatitis C before
1986 would he accept being excluded from that compensation
package?
The Liberals drone on about the should have, could have and
would have. It is sickening. It is disgusting to hear that ring
in our ears again and again, a track record like that. The
minister's answers show that he cannot put himself in the shoes
of those people. The minister needs to acknowledge that he has
scarred the human side of what government is meant to be.
As Krever reports, the Red Cross was aware that non-A, non-B
hepatitis was getting into the blood supply as early as 1978. The
Red Cross rejected recommendations from its own people to
implement surrogate tests in 1981, the ALT test that has already
been referred to, and the 1984 anti-HBC test. A 1995 study in
The Lancet, a prestigious and well respected medical
journal, later revealed that the combined used of these two tests
would have lowered the incidence of post-transfusion hep C by as
much as 85%. From 1986 to 1990 the Red Cross was aware that the
U.S. was using surrogate testing but did not implement or
authorize its use in Canada.
The Prime Minister has admitted the government's direct
liability yet he refuses to compensate. This reflects the
continuing moral failure of this government. The health minister
is the Prime Minister's hired gun, a lawyer using cold legal
arguments to exclude victims who deserve compassion. The
government meets flood and ice storm tragedies, “acts of God”
for which it is not responsible. But this is the worst public
health tragedy in Canadian history, for which the government is
responsible, make no mistake.
The health minister says that he wants to keep the matter out of
the courts but he is ready to drag up to 40,000 sick people into
court. The heath minister is prepared to spend millions of tax
dollars to battle victims in court which will force sick people
to use their remaining strength and financial resources to fight
for what is rightfully theirs. The health minister is
hypocritical in compensating some hepatitis C victims while
compensating all AIDS tainted blood victims.
Since 1992 the feds have spent more than $3 billion to help
40,000 fishermen who were thrown out of work, as they ought to,
but the Liberals cannot bring themselves to help dying people,
not people out of jobs. That is reason enough to help them.
These are people not only out of jobs but out of their lives.
They are dying people.
When in opposition the Liberals called for compensation of all
thalidomide victims, all HIV victims through tainted blood.
Earlier the government compensated all who had urea formaldehyde
foam insulation in their houses. Mr. Klein reversed his stand
against compensating victims for sterilization programs in
Alberta. Mr. Harris changed his mind with respect to Ontario's
Dionne quintuplets. Why can the federal health minister not do
the honourable thing, save face in some manner, do some
supplementary program and compensate all victims?
1200
After four years of public pressure, finally at long last
Ireland did give generous compensation to its victims. But we
have to wait four years in Canada, the supposed number one nation
in the world, for that. It has already taken three years. How
many more years will victims have to wait? If Ireland, a nation
one-tenth the size of Canada, can afford to be generous to its
victims, why cannot Canada?
The health minister says he wants to save the government money,
but there are three class actions for $5 billion against him
already and more to come. If he really wants to help taxpayers
he will settle out of court. The health minister claims if we
compensate hepatitis C victims we would have to settle others,
like victims of faulty breast implants. But those companies have
settled with 16,000 Canadian breast implant victims for $900
million. Each company owned up, faced responsibility and settled
out of court. Why cannot the health minister do that?
Hepatitis C victims say the government's number of 40,000 is
probably deliberately inflated. The Red Cross says half of that.
What is the real number? There are number games being played to
turn the Canadian public against the hepatitis C victims. Why is
he doing that? The government should be giving compensation to
all.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to participate in this opposition motion to
see that all victims who received tainted blood receive
compensation as the Krever commission indicated was appropriate.
I am very discouraged by what I am hearing from the government
side today, in particular from the parliamentary secretary who
has been sent here to do a task, which I understand completely.
But the task has been sent to do is to say that all victims do
not and should not receive fair and adequate compensation because
of the tainted blood they received through no fault of their own.
I think this position is not a position that is held certainly on
this side of the House and certainly by a majority of Canadians.
In January an Angus Reid poll concluded that 87% of Canadians
agree that all victims of hepatitis C who received their blood
through blood transfusions through no fault of their own should
be compensated. This is not the position the Government of
Canada has taken though. It has decided to take a very legal
position, a position that could be argued is an accounting
position. It certainly has not looked at the moral obligation of
a government when it comes to compensation for these victims.
I heard the parliamentary secretary speak about the future of
the blood system. Those are all good things. All Canadians hope
that now the new system will be a better system and a good system
so that we do not have to worry about that system. I thank the
parliamentary secretary for talking about the future of a blood
system.
What I would like to talk about today is the future of people.
In particular I would like to talk about the future of a young
person in my riding who is 13 years old. His name is Chase
Makarenko. Chase is an interesting young fellow. At two and a
half years of age it was discovered that young Chase had
leukemia. He required extensive chemotherapy and many medical
procedures. In 1987 his family was advised that he would need a
blood transfusion. Note the date, 1987.
1205
That leaves young Chase out of the compensation package. I
would like the government to explain to Chase and his family why
they are not included in this compensation package. It was not
Chase's fault. It was not the family's fault. It was a system
that was regulated and controlled by the Governments of Canada
that tainted the blood he received. Now Chase has an uncertain
future.
Those are the futures we are talking about today, like young
Chase who is 13. What does it mean at age 13 to find out that you
have hepatitis C? Has anybody every considered the fact that you
cannot a mortgage anymore? You cannot get a loan. You cannot go
to the bank and go into business like other Canadians who do not
have hepatitis C. Has any body considered that? Has the
government considered that? I do not think so. If it has it has
disregarded it. It has chosen to take a very firm position on
this legal point and a date. It wants to draw a line in the
sand.
I sat in this House and heard the Minister of Health say, before
they announced the compensation package, that he did not want to
see the victims of hepatitis C, of tainted blood, to spend their
lives in court wrangling, going before judges and pleading their
case. Now we are hearing that young Chase Makarenko, a 13 year
old who received poisoned blood through not fault of his own, to
get compensation will have to spend time in court. I do not
understand that. I would like the government to explain that to
me. I have been sent here by the people of my riding to get
answers from this government and to ask questions.
I met with the hepatitis C victims of Okanagan—Coquihalla last
week. I have a lot of questions. I have a lot of heart
wrenching stories. The Minister of Health does not want to meet
with those victims. The Minister of Health does not want to meet
with young Chase Makarenko from Peachland, B.C. who finds himself
in this unenviable position. It is a sad day for Canadians.
It is a very sad day when we can say to the producers of maple
syrup that they deserve compensation because we had an ice storm.
It was a tragic event and maybe they should receive compensation.
I am not arguing that. We have seen so many things like the Red
River flood. Do those people deserve compensation? Yes. But
does 13 year old Chase Makarenko of Peachland not deserve
compensation? I would argue and debate with anyone who wants to
debate it with me that he does. So do the other victims who
received poisoned blood. It was not their fault.
I urge all members to think about Chase and the other victims
who unfortunately do not fall into the compensation package
outlined by this government.
In conclusion I would like to read the letter I received from
Mrs. Makarenko: “I ask you, would you like to step in his shoes
or try to walk for the next 13 years with him? I would rather
doubt it. You would not be able to understand or handle the
pain, the suffering, the questions, the uncertainty, the medical
procedures, the discrimination and the costs. I believe each and
every one of you would pass on this gift of life”.
Then she does the most amazing thing. She thanks the
parliamentarians and the government for the time we took to read
her letter. She says it is greatly appreciated. She ends with
thank you and a signature.
1210
I hope we can have some compassion in this House and say the
decision was wrong and unfair and Chase will be able to live as
normal a life as he can.
Therefore I urge this House, whenever the vote comes up, to
please support Chase and the other victims of hepatitis C.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I find, as usual, that a debate
on such a sensitive and emotional issue requires very careful
reflection. I am moved, as I am sure all other members are, by
the example of Chase and others. I have a very close friend in
my riding who is a cause for some serious concern.
I think the debate would be helped along by recalling a couple
of things. If I am wrong perhaps the member opposite will
correct me. First, the offer that is proffered for victims to
consider is based on the acceptance that those who were infected
at a time when governments could have done something different
and did not, that this is a case where they ought to then come
forward with a package similar to the one that we have addressed.
Second, perhaps in this specific case it might be worthwhile to
remember that 1987, if I heard the member correctly, is a date
that is included in that particular package.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. If the member has a question he should get to the
question instead of going into all this material he never got
through before. If he can preface his remarks and get to his
question, I think that is the point of the questions.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Madam Speaker, I know you will accept
that this is a time for questions and/or comments. I wanted to
reflect on the date that the member gave us in his presentation.
It was a good presentation and one that deserves consideration by
all members. I was trying to be helpful by giving an indication
that 1987 falls within those parameters. If I did not hear that
correctly or if there is an error then it might be helpful to the
people concerned to correct that. I do not mean this to be
trivial or partisan. It is an important thing to keep in mind.
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, the question again goes to
the problem that the government is having with dates. The point
here is that the date does not matter. It is arbitrary. It is a
legal argument.
I thank the parliamentary secretary, who has been sent here to
be a marionette today for the minister, for again stressing my
point that the date does not matter. Young Chase was infected in
1987. Does it matter if he was infected in 1986, 1985, 1984 or
1980? Why should it matter? Can he explain that to me?
Today we heard from a medical doctor on this side of the House
who said that he has practised for some 25 years. He said there
was testing available in 1958. Why did the government not choose
to take 1958 as the date? The fact is it is an arbitrary date.
I question the member as well on the government's inflated
figures of some 50,000 people. The member wants to ask me
questions about a date I gave him. We have questions to ask him
about the dates he has given us.
1215
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
how does the member who has just spoken feel about the fact that
the government would rather give grants of millions of dollars to
replace tobacco company sponsorship than compensate the victims
of its own negligence?
Mr. Jim Hart: Madam Speaker, I touched on this point a
little in my presentation. It seems other things that would
appear to be more politically sensitive in the lives of Canadians
have more importance to the government and the parliamentary
secretary. It is a terrible shame.
I would hope to see the government move like the Irish
government did. Now would be the time to do it because this
government's decision is wrong. It is just wrong. It is morally
wrong, but it has the power, the opportunity and the ability.
My arguments today focused on a young person who is in a
terrible situation. The government should reflect on such
people. Members of the Liberal Party should reflect on such
people.
On Tuesday night when everyone stands to vote the majority of
Canadians will be with this side of the House and not with the
Government of Canada, which will tell its elected members of
parliament to act like the parliamentary secretary has acted
today, like a marionette for the Government of Canada and the
Prime Minister.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister. I thank you for providing me
with the opportunity to participate in this very difficult
debate.
Governments created the Krever commission to examine all the
information, to hear from many witnesses and to report on
findings of fact about the blood tragedy of the 1980s. Justice
Krever's final report is a comprehensive and exhaustive
examination of the events. He recognizes the significance of the
period 1986 to 1990 as a time when the Canadian blood system
could have responded better with appropriate risk reduction
measures.
After fully examining the facts Justice Krever advised us that
rather than waiting for full scientific proof the Canadian Red
Cross could and should have acted in a way similar to what
occurred in the United States in 1986.
On the issue of the blood supply in general there can be no
doubt of the government's continuing strong commitment to
resolving the problems associated with Canada's blood system and
to restoring public confidence. We fully understand the need to
take appropriate action to rebuild public confidence in the blood
supplies.
Any solutions must be governed by three principles. First, the
safety of the blood supply must always come first. Second, a
fully integrated approach is essential. Third, accountabilities
must be clear and the system must be transparent.
The key to success lies in the proper governance of the system.
That means we need an effective system of accountabilities,
management structures and processes that control the safe supply
and use of blood and blood products.
As we move toward a new system for regulating and safeguarding
Canada's blood supply, it is important that we discuss thoroughly
the details of the new system.
Questions have been raised about the role of the regulator
during the transition of responsibilities for governance to the
Canadian blood services. Let me review some of the basics.
The regulator's role is to set the standards for safety of the
blood system and to ensure that they are met. Over the past
several years Health Canada has taken decisive action to improve
blood safety, and blood safety will continue to be a priority for
the department in the future.
Health Canada regulates the collection and manufacturing of
blood and blood products. Health Canada has a comprehensive
approach to improvement calling for co-ordinated initiatives in
many different parts of the department with the cumulative effect
of overall strengthening and improving the blood system safety.
Health Canada is involved in strengthening standard setting and
inspection of the blood system, in improving the development of
test kits used in blood safety and in facilitating public health
intelligence with an emphasis on bettering blood science.
Each of the individual improvements noted contributes in its own
way to ensuring that Canadians continue to have a supply of safe,
effective blood and blood products when they are required.
1220
The regulator must provide guidance to the operator on how to
meet these requirements. Health Canada is in the process of
developing guidelines on the regulatory requirements for blood
establishments.
Health Canada is also working with the blood transition bureau
to advise on regulatory issues during this transition and is
working closely with the bureau to communicate regulatory
requirements.
Health Canada will also continue to provide guidance to the
blood transition bureau and will evaluate any submissions
according to established standards.
These are urgent matters and Health Canada fully recognizes that
urgency. It has therefore made a strong commitment to give such
evaluations top priority. Health Canada has undertaken a major
initiative to improve the surveillance and investigative capacity
of Canada's public health system. Blood science and blood borne
infections, old and newly emerging ones, are at the forefront of
this initiative.
The department is building the capacity to answer basic medical
and scientific questions by taking an approach guided by
principles of consensus building, priority setting, expertise and
strong national and international linkages.
Health Canada has established a blood borne pathogens unit to
carry out consensus planning, development surveillance,
investigation programs, design projects and activities to address
the needs that are identified.
Health Canada is building a network of experts and information
to include federal, provincial, academic, professional, clinical
and public communities to focus the extensive research capacity
that exists in Canada on the demanding questions that remain in
the blood system.
The goal is to co-ordinate a consortium of research agencies in
Canada, including the Medical Research Council, National Defence,
Health Canada's national health research and development program,
the National Research Council, the Networks of Centres for
Excellence and the private sector so that priority applied
research agendas for blood borne pathogens can be developed.
This strategy of consensus building will help all partners move
beyond collaboration toward total commitment and achieve
consensus answers to urgent questions about blood borne diseases.
The department is forging strong international links to ensure
that Canada's public health intelligence keeps pace with
developments in other parts of the world, putting Canada's
various health protection partners in a strong position to
trigger effective scientific action.
Over the past several years Health Canada has proven by its
actions in areas which fall under its responsibility that it is
committed to keeping Canada's blood system safe and of the
highest quality.
The year 2000 problem, a central information management issue
facing many organizations, is being addressed diligently through
several contingency plans. Health Canada has also made a
commitment to expediting reviews of information related to the
implementation of the year 2000 compliant system.
The initiative of Canada's governments to take action on the
national blood system marks an important mutual commitment to
achieve a common goal, and that is ensuring the safety of the
Canadian blood system and supply.
Health Canada carefully monitors developments at all levels in
the blood system. The department will continue to regulate any
changes that fall within its jurisdiction. It will take the lead
to direct changes which in its view will further strengthen that
system.
In his interim report Justice Krever advised Canadians that
“safety is an absence of risk”. He also said “safety is an
absolute and can never be achieved”. Health Canada believes
that all of partners and participants in the national blood
system have to strive constantly to reduce health risks and
ensure the blood supply is as safe as it can be.
The department has shown leadership on blood safety and it will
continue to take an aggressive leadership role in making Canada's
national blood system second to none.
We can see from this brief review that Health Canada is taking
the necessary steps to ensure that the transition to a new blood
system is smooth and successful, and that we will have a system
in which all Canadians can have confidence.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. He was talking about
now and in the future.
What we are talking about is compensation for the victims who
were infected through a system that was supported by the federal
government of the day.
1225
I have a question for the member. Can he stand in the House
today and say that he does not believe the victims before 1986
should be duly compensated?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
As he knows, as all members of the House know, and indeed as all
Canadians know, this is a very difficult decision. This is a
very tough decision. This is a decision fraught with a great
deal of emotion. It is clear that it strikes at the heart of all
Canadians. We very much appreciate that.
The point is, though, on tough decisions like this one sometimes
tough decisions have to be taken. An issue like this one
sometimes requires that tough public policy decisions be taken in
a manner that I think is fitting with what the majority of
Canadians believe.
In answer to the hon. member's question I simply want to say a
tough issue like this one sometimes requires tough decisions but
is in the interest of the broader public policy.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the motion before us states:
That this House urges the government to act on the recommendation
of Justice Horace Krever to compensate all victims who contracted
Hepatitis C from tainted blood.
The motion raises fundamental questions and merits careful and
thoughtful analysis, but let me say at the outset that as a
physician before I became a member of parliament I share the pain
and anguish of all patients with hepatitis C. In fact I have
always shared that philosophy as a medical doctor.
The compensation package announced jointly by the federal,
provincial and territorial governments last March 27 for
Canadians infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood
system from January 1, 1986 to July 1, 1990 amounted to $1.1
billion: $300 million from the provinces and territories and $800
million from the federal government. The federal contribution
represents 73% of the total compensation package.
Let me at once say that the government has not abandoned
hepatitis C patients infected before and after this period, just
as we would not abandon other patients whose diseases are also a
result of treatment procedures, which always carry elements of
risk. Our health care system will continue to look after them as
the various levels of government across the country are committed
to deliver the health care service we are proud of.
We will continue to be imaginative and perhaps we can challenge
the Medical Research Council of Canada to conduct focus research
to accelerate the discovery of a treatment for hepatitis C, to
challenge our medical scientists and to provide them with the
resources to do the particular type of research.
I am confident that provincial and territorial governments
across the land will not sit idly by. They will be challenged
even more to hasten their positive considerations of enhancing
home care and pharmacare programs that will benefit hepatitis C
patients as well as all other patients suffering from any type of
illness.
The motion before us suggests that we should adopt the
recommendation of Justice Krever to implement a no fault scheme
for this group of patients with hepatitis C. Let me call to the
attention of the House that Mr. Justice Krever made this
recommendation for hepatitis C patients not because he did not
care or neglected other non-hepatitis patients. Mr. Krever in
fact made this recommendation for hepatitis C patients only
because, as he said in his report on page 1045:
I acknowledge the force of argument made by among others the
Pritchard Report that it is difficult to treat blood related
injury compensation differently from compensation for other
health care injuries. Given my terms of reference, however, it
is not for me, here, to consider for any injuries other than
those that are related to blood therapy.
1230
It is clear from this statement by Justice Krever that what
Justice Krever was suggesting was a no fault scheme not only to
compensate patients with hepatitis C but also non-hepatitis C
patients as long as their diseases are a consequence of tainted
blood.
Earlier this morning I heard arguments from the opposition that
it will not open the floodgates as though they were arguing that
let us not worry about the other kind of patients. Let me state
very clearly that even Justice Krever would like a no fault
scheme for all those other types of patients without
hepatitis C. Justice Krever said so in his concluding statement
also on page 1045 in chapter 39 entitled “Financial Assistance
For Blood Associated Injury” of his report:
I recommend that, without delay, the provinces and territories
devise statutory no fault schemes for compensating persons who
suffer serious adverse consequences as a result of the
administration of blood components or blood products.
Canadians will note from that quotation, and we in this House
have a duty to particularly make this observation, that Justice
Krever's challenge for such a plan is addressed to the provincial
and territorial governments. He did not include the challenge in
the challenge to the federal government as quoted in his report.
The basis for this argument is to reduce the impact of blood
related tragedy on Canadian citizens “to give some thought to
the question of appropriate relief for those affected by the
inevitable events”.
I am inclined to support such a recommendation. I am persuaded
that in our current legal system the primary mechanism for
compensating someone who has been harmed through the fault of
others is a civil action for damages and that those in breach of
duty to exercise reasonable care resulting in harm are negligent
and therefore have a duty to pay. That civil tort process is a
lengthy one.
I must underscore again that Justice Krever's recommendation is
for all types of patients, not only hepatitis C patients who
suffered injury as a result of the administration of blood
components or blood products.
This House has not made a policy decision on this fundamental
recommendation of Justice Krever. To make a no fault policy
change only for hepatitis C patients, desirable as it might be
from my perspective or from the perspective of others, is
premature and would be unthoughtful of other non-hepatitis C
patients equally injured by the blood system and perhaps injured
by treatment procedures other than through the blood system. We
have not in this House held that debate.
If members opposite would only be respectful and listen to the
debate I am quoting from Justice Krever hopefully they will gain
some pearls of wisdom. When they are worried about the rationale
of this debate they begin to distract me but they cannot distract
this member of parliament because the truth speaks for itself.
We cannot be selective for hepatitis C patients only because
this is the group of patients who have captured the public
consciousness at this time. Where were they before? Did we hear
from the opposition before on this issue?
Let me come to the testing of blood donation for alanine
aminotransferase, ALT, as noted in Justice Krever's report,
volume I. The use of ALT to reduce the incidence of
post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis, most of which would
later prove to be what we now know as hepatitis C, by 40% was
first reported by the New England Journal of Medicine in
April 1981.
1235
But in June of the same year the Krever report stated: “The
United States National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's ad hoc
committee on ALT testing recommended against the implementation
of ALT testing in favour of further study of its efficacy”.
It was only in February 1986 in the same report that: “The
United States Food and Drug Administration's blood products
advisory committee recommended that all blood donations for
transfusion be tested for both ALT and anti-HBc, an antibody to
the core of the hepatitis B virus, as surrogate, that is
substitute, tests for non-A and non-B hepatitis”.
Madam Speaker, since my colleague shared his time with me and he
only used seven minutes, perhaps you can give me the additional
three minutes beyond my time.
I should also note from Justice Krever's report that it was only
in July 1984 that the German regulatory authorities required that
all products distributed for use in Germany be manufactured from
ALT tested plasma.
Consideration of ALT testing in Canada had not been ignored. But
Justice Krever noted in his report the editorial in the December
1984 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine by Dr. Alter
and Dr. Holland who were investigators in the United States
National Institute of Health study, and I quote from his report
on page 642: “They did not, however, endorse the recommendation
that ALT testing be implemented, and they said that the true
efficacy of surrogate testing could be proved only by a
randomised trial that compared tested and untested blood. By
1986, however, no such study had been undertaken”.
I would like to get unanimous consent to continue.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my
colleague is a medical practitioner from days of old, as I am. He
has chosen to look at the specific issue of the ALT testing, when
it was and when it was not available. That is a debatable
question.
The government's main argument for not going down this road is
that a precedent would be established that would cause an
outpouring of frivolous medical claims. Since the precedents of
HIV sit in front of Canadians and since the precedents of
compensation for thalidomide sit in front of Canadians, does the
member see any evidence of an outpouring of frivolous medical
malpractice claims because of those compensation programs or can
he find any evidence in international experience of such a
precedent setting case showing an outpouring of frivolity when it
comes to medical malpractice?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, when I develop
public policy and participate in that process, a more fundamental
question is not whether because there will be no floodgate of
other cases we can do this for this group of patients. A more
fundamental medical question requiring the utmost humanity is to
consider all patients equally whether they seek damages or not.
That is why the recommendation of no fault by Justice Krever to
me is persuasive. But my submission is that the motion before us
is premature because it is only focused on a group of patients,
not on all other patients equally harmed by blood treatment.
Medical situations are complex and require a rational basis at
all times. It is always a tenuous balance between risk and
benefit. So I must say that the scientists of the day face a
serious dilemma. But let me say in reply to the question that
the compensation package announced by the territorial, provincial
and federal governments is a response based on careful, sensitive
and thoughtful considerations of all the facts and information at
hand.
I know that no value of compensation can extinguish the pain and
agony of all patients, whether they are included in the
compensation package or not. I share their pain and their
anguish, as my medical colleagues and other members of Parliament
do. But I remain confident that they will understand this
announcement was based on a public policy that is thoughtful and
careful and fair.
1240
I repeat, the motion before us pre-empts a thorough and careful
debate on the whole issue of a statutory no fault scheme for
compensating persons who suffer other serious consequences as a
result of the administration of blood components or blood
products as recommended by Justice Krever or, for that matter, as
a result of other treatment, not necessarily blood components or
blood products.
That is why in specific response to the question of my medical
colleague, now a colleague in parliament, it is not so much the
worry about the floodgate of cases, important as it may be. We
should consider all patients, even those without hepatitis C.
For the opposition to now say we must compensate patients with
hepatitis C because they suffered blood related injury, but not
those other patients—
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member from Reform asked him a pointed question.
In the interest of time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Prime Minister should give a pointed response so that other
colleagues can ask questions as well.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, if the member was
listening he would have understood that I was answering the
question pointedly. The question can be answered pointedly in
the context of the greater whole. We cannot be simplistic in
medicine. I understand his difficulty, but unfortunately the
member was trying to be simplistic in his approach. Life is not
a simple entity.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I wish at the outset I could say it is a pleasure to
rise today to address this issue. I am afraid I cannot. In
fact, it is a bloody disgrace what has happened in this country.
This government has made what it deems a firm decision and is
sticking to that position. I certainly agree with my hon.
colleague from the NDP who raised the point of order that the
hon. parliamentary secretary has decided to finish his speech
instead of addressing the question so aptly put to him by my
colleague from Macleod.
I too had intended to ask the parliamentary secretary a
question. The hypocrisy of the hon. member is incredible. Back
in 1993—
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. On a very sensitive issue like this, I was told in high
school that in the rules of debate when you become personal you
have lost the argument.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a point of
order. I think it is a matter of debate.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, what I was about to point out
when the parliamentary secretary intervened with his bogus point
of order was that when he sat as vice chair on a special
subcommittee he was quite effusive on the fact that all victims
of HIV, regardless of when they contracted the disease, should be
compensated. Now he stands in his place today with a completely
different story because the victims happen to have hepatitis C.
If that is not hypocrisy I do not know what is.
Sitting in this Chamber and listening to the debate today, I
have heard about all the legal and bureaucratic answers that I
care to. It is at times like this that I am convinced there are
far too many lawyers sitting on the other side, too many lawyers
concerned about the many legalities, concerned about setting a
dangerous precedent, concerned about the dollars and cents. They
are worried about the bottom line rather than being willing to do
what is right, because this is the right thing to do.
This government damn well knows it.
1245
Because I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from
Saanich—Gulf Islands, I do not have a lot of time left for my
presentation today. However, in the time I have left I would
like to read into the record just one of the many letters that I
have received as the member of parliament for Prince
George—Peace River. I believe that this particular letter
speaks for the tens of thousands of innocent hepatitis C victims
whose only fault was that of trust. They trusted that the blood
system in Canada was safe.
This letter was written on April 21 of this year. It reads:
I am writing to express my appreciate for the article you wrote
for the Alaska Highway News on April 20, 1998 titled
“Grits' health care policies a bloody disgrace”.
On February 26, 1997, I found out that I was infected with
Hepatitis C from blood received after the birth of my son on
September 27, 1982.
My life has not been the same since. Each day is a challenge,
dealing with extreme pain, exhaustive fatigue, constant
medications and the frustration of being forced to change my life
because I can no longer live the active lifestyle I enjoyed.
Besides the physical manifestations of Hepatitis C, many people
are unaware of the emotional havoc such an illness wreaks. It
has been a constant strain on relationships with my family and
friends. I daily face my partner's pain and frustration at
watching my physical health deteriorate and my emotional battle
with the frustration of feeling so angry and helpless over my
lack of control of how this disease is affecting my life.
Last October, I had to send my 15 year old son to live with his
father in Vancouver because I am concerned about him having time
to adjust to his new living situation while I am still alive.
I have talked to him about the pride and joy I felt at his birth
but it breaks my heart to still see him feeling guilty, like his
birth is causing my death. My 18 year old daughter has moved
back in with me to help provide physical and emotional support.
My mother, who lives in Manitoba, can't speak to me on the
telephone without crying. Her faith and prayers have been an
inspiration to me. My brother died of cancer on October 26,
1997. I held his hand as he died, him promising to be there to
meet me on the other side soon. I miss the close relationships I
had with my sisters. They have stopped confiding in me because
they feel I can't handle any more “on my plate”.
I have learned that learning you have Hepatitis C is difficult
for many others to handle. I am blessed with supportive close
friends but other friends and acquaintances don't call any more.
I am sure you are quite aware of how fast “word of mouth”
travels in a community the size of ours. I also realize that
many people are ignorant and afraid of Hepatitis C and its
transmission. But that isn't much consolation for the pain of
feeling like a “leper”, when others in the community cross the
street to avoid being close to you or put themselves between you
and their children.
All that is enough, without the feelings of being a burden to
family, worrying about how I can financially manage yet another
trip to Vancouver for health care, how my children will manage
their further education without my support and the constant sense
of frustration at no longer being able to work, for the financial
and self-esteem benefits of feeling like a contributing member of
society.
In the Peace River area, we also have to contend with the
expenses of travelling to major centres for medical care. I am
trying to see the bright side of that, by knowing I can see my
son when I have to travel to Vancouver for medical care. My
limited income because of my inability to work and the expenses
of my travel have prevented me from being able to pay for his
travel to visit Fort St. John during his Christmas holidays and
Spring Break.
I had no choice in this situation. I have joined a class action
lawsuit because I have been forced into a situation of having to
fight for compensation.
I want to also express my sincere appreciation of your speaking
up for my compensation rights when I feel my weakest.
If you wish to truly represent me in Ottawa, please continue to
push for compensation for ALL Hepatitis C victims.
And if you have a chance to speak to [the Health Minister],
please ask him to explain to my children how come their mother's
life is not considered as valuable as another's.
1250
I talked to this young mother last night on the telephone from
my home here in Ottawa and, while she agreed to let me read this
letter because I felt so strongly about it, as it did express the
views of so many, tens of thousands of victims, she did ask that
her name be kept confidential out of respect for the privacy of
her children.
I know my two constituency assistants in Fort St. John are
watching this debate today. Every day it seems they hear from
people like the author of this letter, innocent victims who
phone, fax, e-mail and drop by my constituency office. There is
nothing that they nor I can do to really help these victims.
They certainly lend a sympathetic ear and I try to be the voice
of those victims in Ottawa. Other than that there is precious
little we can do to ease the suffering.
The reality is that it is up to the people on the other side of
this House to do something to ease that suffering. It is up to
the health minister and the Prime Minister. When the vote comes
down on this motion to compensate all the victims that have
received this terrible disease through tainted blood, it is up to
the backbench Liberals to break ranks and vote with their
conscience and with their heart. For God's sake vote for these
victims.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to commend the member for Prince George—Peace River on a great
speech. He is absolutely right, in terms of the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Prime Minister who is in the Chamber.
The point I want to make is simply this. It brings out the
worst in members of parliament when they are not allowed to vote
freely on an issue which rests solely on the conscience of the
member. I want to remind the Canadian people, and I know the
member for Prince George—Peace River knows this, that the
parliamentary secretary when he was a member of the health
committee in 1993 wrote a dissenting report recommending that an
inquiry into the tainted blood scandal be launched. That was
done. Justice Krever has reported and now the parliamentary
secretary is denying the very thing he supported.
I guess in the real world we would call that swallowing yourself
whole. The parliamentary secretary swallowed himself whole on
this one. Unfortunately that is because the Prime Minister is
holding the big stick over him because he happens to be the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada. Sadly,
there are only about two of them who showed up today to debate
this: the parliamentary secretary to the health minister, who is
waving the big stick over him, and the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Prime Minister.
I would like the member for Prince George—Peace River to
comment on the presence of these two and the outrageous defence
of the indefensible. Perhaps the member could comment on that.
1255
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Would you not find it more in order that the person alluded to in
the question is the person to respond?
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that in
questions or comments the questions or comments are supposed to
be on the speech of the member who has just spoken. I think, in
this case, the hon. member for Charlotte, with great respect, did
refer to the speech of the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley.
Of course, the parliamentary secretary, unfortunately for him,
was the subject of discussion in both speeches.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member
is quite correct. Issues such as this and debates such as this
bring out the worst in some members. I guess, to offset that, it
brings out the best in some members.
We can clearly see today by the comments which have been made
and by the speeches, some great speeches, where people's hearts
are on this issue.
The government can continue to display the hypocrisy it
displayed in the past. It can continue to hold firm to this
position of two tiered victims of tainted blood, or it can do
what is right. It has the opportunity to do what is right.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in his speech
suggested that to compensate all hepatitis C victims who got
their disease from tainted blood is premature. That is what he
said, not once but two or three times during his presentation. I
would like him to face some of these victims, look them in the
eye and tell them that it is premature.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his wonderful speech.
The question I have is that the new deputy minister for health
apparently will be Mr. David Dodge. I am quoting directly:
“There are more important things here than money”. Will he not
agree that obviously this government has boiled this entire
compensation package down to resources and finances only?
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind comments
of both colleagues who commended me for my speech, but I would
like to note for the record that almost my entire speech
consisted of a letter from a young mother in my riding. It is
she who should get the credit, not myself.
The member is quite right. In the column that I wrote in the
local papers in my riding I alluded to the fact that this
government can find millions of dollars to cover up its
ineptitude.
It can find, for example, $500 million for the cancellation of
the EH-101 helicopters; $60 million in an outright lawsuit
decision for the Pearson airport cancellation; $2 million because
it decided to go on a witch hunt against a former prime minister
and it had to pay his legal bills.
There is example after example that the opposition and the
general public can find where the government seems to be able to
find hundreds of millions of dollars, but it cannot compensate
all the victims. It is worried about a precedent? Do what is
right.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to seek unanimous consent in the interests of fairness
and justice. Since they alluded to my name, Mr. Speaker, can
they provide me with a two-minute response to their questions?
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, there is no consent.
That disposes of the point of order.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to express that you as the Speaker begin to rule on
these bogus points of order, including my own.
The Deputy Speaker: I have always been mindful to get up
and make a ruling after hearing a point of order, bogus or
otherwise. The hon. parliamentary secretary is seeking to do
what the hon. member just did, that is, to make some interjection
in the debate under the guise of a point of order.
1300
In fairness to members, the Chair likes to give members an
opportunity to express their views and we hear before ruling
whether or not there is a point. Clearly, there was not in
either case. But the member did ask for consent, which was
denied, and that is fair.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf
Islands to speak on this very important issue brought forward by
my colleague the member for Macleod.
I have been following the debate in my office. We have heard a
lot of heart wrenching testimonies. It is very important that we
listen to them but that we also listen to our moral conscience,
listen to our constituents, and do what is right.
I have letters which I am going to bring into the debate, but I
am going to start off with what needs to be done as right. I am
really frustrated at what this government is doing.
Let me read from an article in the April 23 issue of the
Toronto Star. These are the tactics the Prime Minister has
brought himself down to in this debate, and I say has brought
himself down to: “the Prime Minister declared a vote on a Reform
Party motion expected early next week to be a vote of confidence
in his government”. What he is really doing here is bringing
out a big hammer. He is telling all of his backbenchers that
they will do as they are told.
This vote has been declared a whipped vote by the government. I
got that from one of the Liberal members. A whipped vote means
the government will pull every single stop to make sure that
every single member votes with the government. I do not believe
we will see any members on that side vote against. There will be
a few who will have the courage to stay out of the House.
When members are forced to vote against the wishes of their
constituents and against their own moral conscience, when they
are ordered, not told but ordered how to vote, that is called a
dictatorship. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing
in this situation. He is ordering his members what to do.
It is really ironic and this is just a coincidence, but where is
the Prime Minister going to be when we vote? Where is the Prime
Minister going to be next Tuesday? He is going to be in Cuba.
How ironic. The Prime Minister is going to be in Cuba and he is
dictating to his members on how to vote.
I know the Prime Minister believes in democracy. He has
expressed that to us and I believe that he does. But I think his
tunnel vision on this issue is so narrow that he does not even
realize he is dictating to the worst extremes.
We have heard from some of the Liberal backbenchers how
frustrated they are with the government. For the government now
to pull all the stops out and force this issue is absolutely
wrong. It goes against all the principles of democracy, people's
own moral conscience and the wishes of members' constituents to
be ordered for political reasons by the Prime Minister. To do
this is absolutely dead wrong. They will have to look at
themselves in the mirror, as will the Prime Minister.
Let us get on to the issue of the hepatitis C victims. I want
to quote from Justice Krever's recommendations:
Until now, our treatment of the blood-injured has been
unequal—. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others
cannot, in my opinion, be justified.
I do not know how much clearer we can get than that.
I know an arbitrary date has been drawn in the sand. From
everything that I have read, there was a test available. I have
heard members on the other side argue that the United States did
not start their testing until 1986. My question is since when
especially in our health care system, do we have to follow the
lead of the United States? We make decisions on our own. That
is absolutely the worst kind of argument and it shows the
government is grasping at straws.
1305
I will read parts of a letter. I will not read the entire
letter because I do not have time. A constituent, Mrs. Betty
Back of Victoria, wrote this letter to me. In 1997 the Red Cross
told her that she had hepatitis C. She writes: “This came as
quite a shock because I did not know I had been given a
transfusion”. Because of the complications from a hip
operation, Mrs. Back had to undergo numerous operations between
1983 and 1997. She raised the point that she has no idea when
she was infected. She has no idea when she was injected with
poisonous blood, none whatsoever.
Again I quote: “I don't know what our government proposes to
do. There should be no guidelines as to if a person was infected
in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s. I have hepatitis C and I got
infected from a blood transfusion. There is no cure.
Transfusions were meant to save lives, not kill them, and kill it
does. No one but no one should be discriminated against”. That
is exactly what this government is doing. It is cutting her off.
There will be no evidence to indicate when she got hepatitis C.
Her point is exactly what we are debating. We cannot just draw
a line in the sand. We know these tests were available. The
evidence is out there. In my research I have seen different
dates. All kinds of dates are thrown in here. My conclusion is
that in the early eighties, at least 1980 or 1981, without
question there were tests available and other tests were
available before that.
I understand that all four opposition parties have left the
partisan politics out of the issue. They are doing what is right,
members from one corner of this country to the other. I know
there are members from the other side who would wish to join in
that as well, but of course they have been dictated to by the
Prime Minister. They have been ordered. I see the smiles. To
me that is more serious in itself than the issue we are dealing
with. Today I spoke to one of the members who explained the level
of orders they are receiving on this. The Prime Minister is
concerned. He is treating this as a confidence vote.
Let us talk about confidence votes. I agree with the Prime
Minister that this is a confidence vote but not in the same way
he means it. I am not suggesting this will bring down the
government at all. This is a vote about the confidence of the
people of Canada. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to do
the right thing. It is never ever too late to right a wrong. He
could come into the House today and say “We have made a wrong
decision here and we are going to correct it”. I hope he does.
I hope the Prime Minister is following this debate and listening
to the arguments. If he is, I am sure he will have to do that. I
do not see how anybody could not follow this debate and not come
in and correct that wrong. That is the only way he will gain the
confidence of the people of Canada. This is about confidence.
This government is losing that confidence. It is related not
only to the hepatitis C issue and the government's failure to
compensate some victims, which would be the right thing to do,
but also to the issue of democracy. If the Prime Minister
continues to run a government that dictates instead of allows the
people on that side of the House to represent their constituents,
they will be receiving calls all weekend on this.
I ask the government to reconsider. I ask the Prime Minister to
make the right decision so we can support him on this issue.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment. Forgive
me if I again try to shed a little elucidation on the issue at
hand today. I am sure members of the general public watching
this debate are not finding the focus on the internecine party
and partisan issues very helpful or productive to the discussion
at hand.
One could wonder whether parties that vote en bloc are being
disciplined to a vote but others are being coerced into a vote.
I do not think that is very helpful to the debate.
1310
What might be worthy of understanding is that all victims are
still capable of accessing the social safety net that is there
and is enhanced for everyone. I refer specifically to additional
health care services that will be provided for all those who are
victims. Second, there is the Canada pension plan disability
component that addresses urgent and immediate needs. Third,
there is always the procedure which I mentioned earlier on that
have not been abrogated, that have not been limited, that have
not been dismissed which is the opportunity of every victim and
his or her family to proceed either individually or in class
before the courts for compensation.
None of those avenues have been restricted or diminished. It is
important to keep those things in mind to frame the debate.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
again rambles on and babbles on instead of asking a direct or
pointed question.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I know the hon. member means
well by his point of order, but the fact is that this is a period
for questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary is
making a comment and he does not have to ask a question in
questions and comments. While I appreciate the hon. member's
point I think in fairness the hon. member is entitled to complete
his comments.
I am quite prepared to divide the time on the five minutes that
is allowed for questions and comments but at the beginning of the
period only one member rose and that was the parliamentary
secretary. So I am giving him the floor and I will ask him to
conclude his remarks in due course.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is
important for all members who want to be productive and
instructive for all who are watching this debate to give a sense
of direction and focus as to which aspects of what I have just
described as the avenues available for all victims they object
to.
I have pointed out that the legal route is always there. Nobody
wants to curb those rights. There have been none diminished.
Second, the social safety net which we have worked hard to
reinforce, restructure and solidify is there for each and
everyone and will be enhanced in these cases. Third, one very
specific component is the disability function of the CPP which
will address a most urgent and immediate need for those who
precede that first option.
The offer we have on the table I might remind all members that
came after much discussion and debate with all partners is one
that must in the end be supported by an independent arbitrator,
i.e. the courts.
If members on the other side of the House are objecting to
people coming forward and in the spirit of co-operation trying to
resolve the most urgent problem that is directed to the period in
time when governments could have acted differently and did not,
then I think they should identify those and say so. They should
do that rather than engage in what has become the prattle of what
will happen on procedural motions in this House.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the points
brought forth by my friend on the other side.
First of all, he said we are being coerced over here. If you
believe that, then go back and speak to your Prime Minister and
we will have—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I urge the hon. member to
address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that.
That is the first point I make. In another one he has suggested
that there is money in the system. What he is really suggesting
is that we should download this on to the provinces. Again, this
government does not want to face up to the responsibility.
The most appalling thing I find in his remarks is the suggestion
that these innocent victims who were given poisonous blood
because of the negligence of this government go through the
courts to find resolution. The government is willing to spend
millions and millions of dollars to defend its position, which I
find incredible that it is even doing so now, in the courts. Why
not compensate them?
1315
It has already been admitted that they were wrong. The Prime
Minister has said, yes, they accept that there was wrongdoing.
They have admitted that, but they want to go to the courts. He
is suggesting that the courts are the proper avenue for these
people, that the courts should decide what is fair. They are the
ones that should be advocating this.
I cannot believe that a parliamentary secretary would suggest
such a solution. It is absolutely unbelievable to suggest that
these people should go to court. It is absolutely shameful.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with your permission I will be splitting my time with
the member for Brossard—La Prairie.
The federal Minister of Health and the ministers responsible for
health in every province and territory have been handed one of
the most difficult decisions anyone in government has ever had to
make. It is a task that members of the official opposition
should be grateful they will never have to make. The ministers
had to look into the eyes of people who contracted hepatitis C
from the blood system before 1986 and say to them “You will not
be receiving compensation for your suffering and the suffering of
your families”.
The decision addresses a time when Canada's blood system could
have reacted differently. But governments could not have
protected the people who received blood tainted by hepatitis
before 1986 any more than they could have protected the very
small number of people, for example, who are unaware that they
are allergic to anaesthetic and die on the operating room table.
The Reform Party has argued that the Minister of Health made
this decision because he does not care about human suffering.
The Reform Party has tried to suggest that the Minister of Health
lacks sympathy for all the people who suffer from hepatitis C.
This is the same Reform Party that has championed two tier
medicine. This is the same party that wants one health care
system for the wealthy and another health care system for low and
middle-income Canadians.
Let us also not forget that this is the same Reform Party whose
leader has labelled groups representing battered women as
“special interest groups” and refused to even meet with them.
These are the people who are questioning the integrity and the
compassion of one of the most decent human beings sitting in this
House of Commons, the Minister of Health. It is one more cruel
irony in this tragic course of events.
I apologize for the partisan tone of these remarks, but one of
the things that makes me most uncomfortable about this whole
debate is the political opportunism of some members of the Reform
Party on this issue. While we feel deep sympathy for those who
were infected before 1986 we must recognize that governments
cannot compensate for every harm suffered by all individuals.
Like other Canadians, I have confidence in Canada's health care
system. I trust that doctors, nurses and other practitioners are
well trained and will do the very best they can with the
technology of the day. But when I go into the hospital I go in
with the knowledge that nothing is 100% guaranteed.
In 1977 I had a Caesarean section and a beautiful baby was
delivered. I went into shock, lost a lot of blood and was given
a choice between taking blood or taking an iron infusion. I was
articulate and coherent enough to take an iron infusion, but had
I been unconscious the doctors would have given me a blood
transfusion. I have lived until today to watch that daughter
grow up. Medical technology at the time could not possibly tell
me whether blood was dangerous or not, but I would have been more
than pleased to take the extra 21 years. That is the risk we all
take when we undergo severe and traumatic occurrences in the
hospital.
The whole issue of compensation for harm caused through the
health care system is complex. It requires a thorough and
thoughtful debate. The decisions we make today regarding
hepatitis C will have serious implications for the future of
public health care in Canada. When is the government responsible
when Canadians become sick? There should be a clear connection
between the harm suffered and the inaction of governments.
Testing for hepatitis C was not done in Canada until seven years
after a reliable test was available and used in the United
States. The compensation package is an acknowledgement of
responsibility for the government's inaction at that time.
1320
Governments cannot protect Canadians from infections they are
unable to detect. Therefore, governments cannot accept financial
responsibility when people become sick from these unknown,
insidious diseases.
What can government do for innocent victims? Government can
provide the best possible health care to Canadians. It can put
more money into medical research in order to help victims but
also to prevent a tragedy like this one from occurring again.
That is why I applauded the finance minister when he increased
funding for the Medical Research Council.
I want to take this opportunity to encourage the federal and
provincial health ministers to move forward on pharmacare
initiatives so that those who suffer from hepatitis C and other
diseases will not have to worry about the cost of drugs that will
help them manage their illnesses.
As I said earlier in my remarks, I hope that the Reform Party,
which is sponsoring this motion, will follow through on what it
has started. I hope it will now recognize that Canadians
sometimes become ill through no fault of their own. When that
happens they require the best possible health care regardless of
their ability to pay. I hope the Reform Party will join me in
encouraging the government to ensure all Canadians have access to
affordable prescription drugs.
In closing, many members of the official opposition have
referred to their experiences in talking directly with Canadians
infected with hepatitis C and with their families. I have also
spoken with the victims of this tragedy. Some of the people I
have spoken with will not be compensated because they were
infected before 1986 and after 1990. I feel deep sympathy for
them as individuals. When I talk with the parents of those
children who are sick I cannot help but think of my own children.
However, as a legislator and as a government member I know that
we have to make a decision that is fair and that is in the best
interest of all Canadians. The decision that was taken by health
ministers of all governments, representing four different
political parties, is right and it is appropriate. It
acknowledges a time when something could have been done to reduce
the number of infections and was not.
For those who will not be compensated, we owe to them what we
owe to all Canadians: universal and accessible health care and a
commitment to continually strive for more new and better ways to
deliver health care more effectively and more efficiently.
Whether this be a free vote, a whipped vote or whatever it is,
my conscience is clear. I look forward to the vote on Tuesday.
I will have no difficulty supporting this health minister's
decision and the decisions of the health ministers across the
country.
This health minister has more integrity and soul in him than all
the members of the opposition. I have no difficulty supporting
his decision.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member
has said that the impetus for our motion is a partisan one. It
is not very often in this House of Commons that we get unanimity
from the opposition benches. Therefore, I would like to pose a
question to her. Since she says that my motives are partisan,
what does she have to say about the other opposition members on
this side of the House who unanimously have asked for a free vote
on this issue; not a confidence vote, but a vote from the heart
instead of a vote from partisanship? What does she have to say
to that?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
answer that question. All through history we have seen parties
when they are in opposition and when they are in government. When
in government the party has to make tough decisions based on the
best interests of the Canadian public.
When the party is in opposition it is very easy to criticize.
It is very easy to wave a flag and support supposedly downtrodden
people. However, when in government the party has a sincere
responsibility to make the right decisions based on all the
information, based on what can be delivered and based on what is
right for the Canadian public.
To be in opposition is, in fact, a joyous location when a
controversial subject comes up because that party does not have
to make all those hard decisions. It can just sit there and
react.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary stated earlier that
those people who do not get compensated can always go the CPP
disability route.
Obviously he does not have many people in his riding fighting for
CPP claims.
1325
However, my question is for his colleague, who I congratulate on
the wonderful birth of her child last year.
If the government of the day is not willing to compensate those
40,000 who will not be receiving compensation for hepatitis C, is
she also recommending that they also try the CPP route? Is that
what she is recommending along with the parliamentary secretary?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get
too personal here, but I am 51 years old. If I had a baby last
year that would truly be a medical feat. Just to clarify, I am
not super woman. I had that baby 21 years ago and she is a
delightful child.
My belief in the medical system in this country and the system
of proper medical care would indicate that we have a first-class
medicare system in Canada. For those who have not been
compensated, my sincere hope would be that all provincial
governments and the federal government would put as much money as
possible into research on treatments, as was demonstrated in the
last budget. We must continue to make the medicare system
accessible to all, despite their economic status. We must also
be extra sensitive to those who are suffering from hepatitis C to
make sure that the best drugs are available to them. We should
be in constant contact with the pharmaceutical companies and
encourage them to do the best they can.
I believe that the system in this country is there. With a
little bit of extra prodding we can make sure there is no one out
there suffering because of lack of funds or lack of access to
medical care.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I just
want to remind the member that responsibility for the safety of
the Canadian blood supply system rests totally and absolutely at
the door of our national Minister of Health.
Given that, on questions and answers in this House over the last
few months the minister has repeatedly stated that he did not
want to see a lengthy, expensive, protracted legal case for these
innocent victims. He said that he wanted to see a package that
was compassionate and fair.
How does the member square that with what the party wants to do?
On Tuesday the Prime Minister was cracking the whip, holding the
big stick over them, forcing them to support something which they
know in their hearts they cannot. Have the Liberals not
swallowed themselves whole on this issue of compensation?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, that is a very
interesting juxtaposition of ideas. I have to straighten out in
my mind what he wants me to respond to. I think what he wants me
to respond to is the concept of the whipped vote.
This Minister of Health has come up with government policy. It
is not an unusual step for the government to vote on government
policy in a whipped fashion. There is great exaggeration out
there in the minds of Reform Party members about the disaffected
Liberals in the backbenches.
I represent the Ontario caucus, which has 101 members. We all
pretty well have faith in the decision. I am sure we will all
come in on Tuesday and vote with the government because it is the
right thing to do, not because we are whipped.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
the federal, provincial and territorial health ministers
announced the formula they had decided upon to provide
assistance to hepatitis C victims, they did not do so lightly.
Much thought had been put into it. They looked at the moral,
systemic and human implications, but only after careful
consideration did they reach a decision. There were indeed many
aspects to take into consideration.
We must recognize that, unfortunately, today still too little is
known about hepatitis C.
Even if the scientific community is doing its best to keep
expanding the knowledge base, we are still at a stage where we
cannot even predict with any certainty how an infected person
may react.
1330
We know that hepatitis C is very different from HIV, although
both can be transmitted through the blood. People with hepatitis
C are not sentenced to die, and many continue to lead a
completely normal, functional life without feeling any
debilitating effect.
So, we are now able to identify the virus much better than
before and the accuracy of screening tests is improving by the
day, which makes the blood supply system increasingly safe. But
we are always seeking to know more.
We have looked to other countries to see if we could learn
anything from them.
We have looked at what they have done to resolve hepatitis C
problems caused by their own blood supply system. We did not
learn much in the end.
We have found that, while most countries had made similar
decisions under similar circumstances with the tragic results
that we know, most did not take the same approach we took. We in
Canada have taken action to prevent any harm to our fellow
citizens that we could prevent, and we did so cautiously in
consideration of all that was involved.
Canada was recently compared to other countries for its approach
to resolving the hepatitis C crisis. I can think of Ireland in
particular. In recent years, Ireland introduced its own
assistance plan for hepatitis C victims.
Health Canada officials travelled to Ireland to see how the
Irish proceeded, and to understand why and how that formula was
adopted. They found that the Irish formula was tailored to
Ireland's very specific circumstances, and that it would not
suit Canada's circumstances.
The hepatitis C tribunal was set up in Ireland after some 1,500
young mothers contracted the disease, in the seventies, when
they were given a blood product called anti-D, which had been
exposed to hepatitis C, although at the time hepatitis C was
still unnamed and was called non-A and non-B hepatitis.
The anti-D product was used as a preventive treatment for new
mothers and thus caused harm, even though it had been used
without serious problems for quite a while. Most of the cases
can be traced back to a unique plasma donor, making it clear
that the blood in question should never have been used.
Many people infected with the anti-D product continued to give
blood, since they had no reason to change their habits. This led
to even more people being exposed through the blood supply
system.
So, another blood supply system from another country also
experienced problems of its own. The formula used by Ireland
regarding its blood supply problems is quite specific, so much
so in fact that no other country has used it.
Looking back at what we did based on what we now knowwe reviewed
the blood system that Canada had in the eighties. We concluded
that various measures could have been taken to avoid hepatitis C
cases. We looked at what was done in the United States, even
though most of the other countries were in a situation similar
to ours.
If we could turn back the clock, I do not think anyone would
adopt the risk management method Ireland did in connection with
its blood system.
Ireland was far slower to adopt international scientific risk
management methods in connection with its blood system.
Moreover, many western countries, including Canada, adopted that
system.
Although Ireland never inaugurated the indirect screening test,
that country's blood inquiry tribunal never faulted it for not
doing so. Had Canada followed the Irish risk management method,
it would have inaugurated the specific Hepatitis B screening
test a year and a half later than it did. There would have been
even more cases of infection. This is precisely what happened
in Ireland.
Care must, therefore, be taken when seeking examples to follow.
The two types of government activity, the concern for health and
safety as opposed to the compensation of people let down by the
health system call for two very different types of comparison.
The scientific community constantly distributes information on
the international level.
1335
We could have followed the US example in 1986, but we did not,
nor did most other countries. Normally, issues such as public
health, and more specifically the monitoring of diseases and
safety, are addressed from a totally different perspective, for
instance, than health care, which is generally based on a
national vision.
It is therefore far more common for a national government to
follow international scientific models than any other type of
policy or initiative from some specific society, which reflects
that society's specific history and way of looking at things.
We quickly understood that the situation had to be addressed
within the Canadian context and that we could not simply apply
policies from elsewhere and expect them to work here.
Should we copy the policies and methods of another country,
especially when we have no guarantee they would be really
effective here?
It is often said that social programs are not easily exported.
Canadians continue to say they do not want a health care system
like that of the United States, and President Clinton learned a
few years ago himself that Congress had reservations about a
single-payer universal health care system.
I say that because there are limits to the types of comparisons
that can be made between Ireland and Canada, their system of
health care and their way of dealing with the damages caused by
the blood system.
Sometimes it is useful to make international comparisons, but
more often than not, it is not appropriate.
When the Canadian ministers of health announced that they wanted
to settle claims for compensation by victims of hepatitis C, I
pointed out that it would be a reasoned approach. This approach
led us to concentrate on the period between 1986 and 1990.
Given that, in all fairness, we must not make a distinction
between the harm done by the blood system and other types of
harm caused by the Canadian health care system as a whole, a
problem of this magnitude warrants thorough debate and, to be
quite honest, I do not think such a debate has been held yet.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just to the
member for Brossard—La Prairie. I cannot believe my ears. I
hope he did not say what I think he did.
He just told me that a person who has contracted hepatitis C can
live a normal life. The riding of Brossard-La Prairie is not far
from my riding on the south shore. A former manager in my
riding, a man who is 6'1” and weighs 200 pounds, now spends his
days in bed because of hepatitis C.
I would like to know if the member is interested in coming to my
riding next week and meeting this man, so that he might learn
something and not give us this sort of nonsense.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate in this kind
of debate is when it slips into sensationalism that has nothing
to do with the fundamental issues.
I did not say that nobody suffered with hepatitis C, or that
there were no after-effects. What I said just now was that a
substantial number of those with hepatitis C did not suffer from
after-effects that would prevent them from living a normal life.
I would like my remarks to be interpreted accurately, instead of
being used so obviously to make political hay.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been a bad day. It is beautiful outside but not
so great inside. I do not want to get down to anything but cold,
hard facts. Let us look at reality.
The case is prevalent all across Canada. It does not miss
anybody's constituency. I wonder how the hon. member would
respond to a cold, hard situation. Here we have two people in
the same town both given blood transfusions in the same year. One
person contracted hepatitis C and the other has HIV. One will be
compensated and the other will not. All through the same blood.
All through the same causes.
How can members opposite possibly say to the people of Canada
that this one is this way and that one is that way? This is a
problem for the people over there. They are not dealing with
realities.
They come in here with a canned speech and read it off. They
stay to the party line. They are not thinking with their hearts.
Their hearts do not tell them to snub this person living on this
side of the street and that another person will get compensation.
They do not have an answer to that question. I have been
listening to them for four days on this issue and they have not
answered that question.
1340
Could the hon. member deal with absolute reality and tell me how
he would deal with a situation like this one?
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I think there are two
issues to consider here. One has to do with the responsibility
of the government—
Mr. Roy Bailey: They both have.
Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to have a chance to
answer. One has to do with the responsibility of the government
with regard to what could have been done and was not done. One
has to do with a much broader issue, the no fault issue.
On the first part, time and again not only the Minister of
Health but many of my colleagues have explained the reasons the
ministers of health throughout the country agreed to limit the
period from 1986 to 1990. However, in terms of no fault, I refer
my colleague to the Krever report on page 1044.
I will read it because I think it is being interpreted in a very
dubious way. The Krever report is simply saying, as it states on
page 1044:
Then a bit further on it states:
The provinces and territories of Canada (not the federal
government) should devise statutory no-fault schemes that
compensate all blood-injured persons promptly and adequately—
The debate we are having here concerns a no fault philosophy
that ought to be debated first and foremost, if we follow Krever,
at the provincial and territorial levels.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a sad day that we have this debate in the House today
because of the decision of the Minister of Health and the fact
that he has created two tiers of victims in the country.
I would like the hon. member to perhaps turn the page to 1045 in
the Krever report and read this statement:
Until now, our treatment of the blood-injured has been
unequal—. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others
cannot, in my opinion, be justified.
I wonder how the members of the government can stand in their
places today and argue the fact that there should be two tiers of
victims: those who are compensated and those who are not. It is
shameful. I know there are several hepatitis C victims watching
this debate today.
Let us just do a quick summary of what we have heard so far
today. We have heard from members on the government side canned
speeches from the minister's department and misdirection. They
will not deal with the fundamental issue or question of the
motion being put that there should be compensation for all
victims of hepatitis C.
This is a non-partisan issue. All members of the opposition
parties—colleagues in the Conservative Party, the Bloc Party,
the NDP and the Reform Party—are in unison when they say to the
government that it is wrong. Canadians know. The government
knows it is wrong on this issue. In fact there is nothing wrong
with being wrong if one does something about it.
If a person admits a mistake and moves on people have honour and
respect for that. If a person stonewalls and says there is no
problem, deflects and will not stand in league, the people of
this country have no respect for that.
1345
I would like to focus on the human tragedy that this has become
and I would like to focus on some of my constituents who have
taken the time to write letters. There are heart rending stories
of individuals who have been affected by this tragedy and they
have asked me to share their comments here in the House, that the
government would listen to their stories, that the government
would have compassion and hear what has happened to them by no
fault of their own.
One of my constituents, Mrs. Laura Stoll from Maple Ridge, B.C.,
writes:
I am pleased to hear that [the health minister] supports
compensation for victims of hepatitis C. The Krever commission
calls for compensation, in which I fully agree. I would like to
inform you how HCV has affected me.
In 1983 due to a motor vehicle accident I received a blood
transfusion and in January 1996 was diagnosed with HCV. Needless
to say, it was a dreadful shock.
I now have much bruising on legs and arms, blood vessels
rupturing and leaving black marks and permanent brown marks on my
legs. Then also swelling and pain in my legs, other effects are:
nausea, dizziness, tinnitis and fatigue.
It is hard to have to read this letter and to share the pain
this individual in my riding has had to suffer. She concludes by
saying please bring about just compensation. She was initially
thankful to the Minister of Health because compensation was
coming forward and she thought there would be compensation for
all victims.
She wrote me again on April 15 when she found out the truth of the
matter:
I was greatly disturbed by the decision made by the health
ministers to only compensate the HCV victims who received blood
products from 1986 to 1990. These dates mean nothing, they were
chosen by lawyers to define a case they would most easily win.
My family and I are counting on you to do the right thing and
support compensation for all victims.
That is what I am compelled to do. I must stand in my place and
make a compelling case for the victims of hepatitis C from my
riding and across this country that this is morally wrong. My
colleagues from all parties and I will stand in our places to
point out to the government the wrong decision it has made in
this case. It is so clear.
Mrs. Joyce Smith from my own home town of Mission B.C. writes:
I am writing on behalf of myself and all the other people in this
province and in Canada who are suffering from the effects of
tainted blood. I have been working on this letter for many, many
days and I realize you may look at the length of this letter and
wonder why it is so long. I have tried to downsize it, but
because every bit of information I am sharing with you is of the
utmost importance, I pray that somehow, in some way, it will help
give you insight as to how my life has been dramatically changed.
I also hope that it will show you some of the adversities we are
dealing with in our everyday lives. There must be changes made
to help compensate our ongoing burden of this illness. We are
innocent victims of a crime that no one wishes to take
responsibility of.
As time went on I did not get any better and the financial
pressure was increased as my income had decreased. We started
getting behind in our mortgage payments and other financial
commitments. We could not pay our mortgage insurance, so now
when I die my husband will be left with a mortgage to pay. I was
running scared and the stress was unbelievable.
1350
She goes on in detail about the effects of hepatitis C and how
it has impacted her life and the life of her family members. She
concludes quite bravely:
You may be interested in knowing that through all of this turmoil
and with what little energy I have I have set myself some goals.
I will: do my part to help as many hep C people as is possible;
tell anyone that will listen that I think it is absolutely
deplorable the way decisions concerning our lives are kept in
secret; stand and shout out loud how inhuman it is for the
establishments, the Red Cross, the federal government and the
provincial government to not accept their part of the
responsibility for what has happened to us; make the most out of
every moment of the day; hold my grandchildren just a little bit
longer; watch for rainbows; pray and seek forgiveness for those I
do not understand.
In closing, I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for
your valuable time and understanding in this matter. I would
appreciate hearing from you in the very near future. Please keep
in mind that my future may not be as long as yours.
I have written to Mrs. Smith. I communicated with her my deep
concern for her plight and the lack of action from the government
side on this issue. It is quite clear that action can still be
taken in this matter, that the government can change its mind and
compensate all victims of hepatitis C.
I received another letter that was very disturbing to me. I
know the individual who wrote to me. He was a community leader
in the area in which I grew up. It was quite shocking to learn
that he too had become a victim of hepatitis C. He has not even
been able to tell his own family of his plight because of the
impact it will have on their lives.
This is a wrong decision. All we are hearing is weak arguments
from this government and it is time for the people of Canada to
rise up, to call their members of parliament and to say no, we do
not support you on this, change your mind and support all victims
of hepatitis C.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, you are probably getting tired of my standing up all the
time but I wish to commend my hon. colleague from
Dewdney—Alouette, all of his constituents and all parties in the
House that have received letters like the letter he just read.
I wish him to comment on one statement made by the member for
Brossard—La Prairie, that some people with hep C can lead normal
lives. Could he comment on that ridiculous, outrageous and cruel
statement made by one of the Liberal backbenchers in the House
today?
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for the question because it is an outrageous statement made by
the member opposite, that some people suffering from hepatitis C
can go on to live normal lives. Perhaps that is the case but the
constituents who have written to me have detailed the anguish,
the pain and the common tasks in their lives they used to do
without any problem which are now difficult tasks for them,
things such as going to the park.
One of my constituents writes that it is difficult to go any
distance from home. By the time they get to where they are going
for an outing she is too tired. She has to go home and rest. It
is unbelievable that members opposite would be so callous, so
uncaring, so insensitive to the fact that Canadians are suffering
from hepatitis C. They do not have the decency to compensate
these victims. They think their lives are fine.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, as a former Liberal I am terribly and deeply
disappointed at the position the government is taking. I was a
member of that party for a good number of years. It seems to me
that one of the hallmarks of Liberalism, one of the things that
has permitted the Liberal Party to remain in office for so long
over such an extended period of time is that for so many years it
was a party that cared for the disadvantaged in Canada.
It was a party that went to bat for innocent victims. It was a
party that believed in fairness, equity and compassion.
1355
Now we have a Liberal government. I can tell the Prime Minister
and Liberal members opposite that rank and file Liberal members
right across the country are phoning and telling me that they are
ashamed of being Liberals given the position of the government
with respect to this matter.
The mere fact that this government would force innocent victims,
some of whom will be gravely ill and others dying, into court in
order to receive compensation and some compassion is shameful. I
hope the Prime Minister will look into his heart and ask himself
how he would react if a member of his family were an innocent
victim of the tainted blood system in this country.
The Ireland government has shown the way to compensate innocent
victims. It has provided generous compensation for all victims
of hepatitis C. How could a small country like Ireland have such
a huge heart when a prosperous and large country like Canada can
be so heartless when it comes to compensating innocent victims?
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his comments and his question.
The people of Ireland obviously have heart, compassion and
concern for all the victims of this tragedy in their country. It
would be my hope, as I know it is the member's, that Canadians
would be proud of this government in reversing its decision and
showing compassion and heart and showing that it cares for all
the victims of this tragedy.
I sincerely hope the government is able to do that.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
RACISM
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am deeply concerned that British Columbia may be
transforming into a racial tinderbox following reports that five
members of a group known as White Power have been charged with
the killing of Nirmal Singh Gill last January.
It must be noted that this violent slaying remains an isolated
incident and in no way reflects mainstream Canadian attitudes
toward minorities. The vast majority of Canadians are peaceful
and tolerant and are just as shocked and outraged as I am by this
terrible killing.
Still I do fear this particular hate crime may only be the thin
edge of the wedge.
Therefore I call on my colleagues in the House to support
efforts aimed at establishing a monitoring agency in Canada to
track hate related incidents.
* * *
BILL C-4
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a Senate committee has travelled to the western
provinces to hear the concerns of farmers on Bill C-4.
One farmer stated: “If this bill demonstrates democracy in this
country, then we are in deep trouble. At Confederation, would we
as Canadians have accepted two-thirds of a say in our destiny?”
Another farmer says that they are scrambling to make ends meet,
taking off-farm jobs and juggling crops. They are frustrated
that they do not see the wheat board scrambling to do anything
other than damage control.
The right to own, use and dispose of private property is one of
the key foundations of any democratic society. The wheat board
act, as presently constituted, violates this fundamental
principle.
Ontario farmers will have an opportunity to export wheat
directly into the United States. Denying western farmers the
same economic freedoms will only serve to foster a feeling of
resentment and division.
* * *
CANADA BOOK DAY
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to mark the third annual Canada book
day. The brainchild of a well known Canadian author, Lawrence
Martin, Canada book day coincides with the UNESCO declared
international book day.
1400
Sponsored jointly by the Writers' Development Trust, a national
charitable organization dedicated to the advancement and
nurturing of Canadian writers and writing, the Department of
Canadian Heritage and the private sector, the motto for this
year's event is “give one, get one, read one”.
We will be marking Canada Book Day in my riding in a special
way. Councils in both Ajax and Whitby have officially declared
today as Canada Book Day. I will be presenting a book by a
Canadian children's author to every child born in my riding
today. As of 1 p.m. I am pleased to report that I have four new
constituents and five on the way momentarily.
I encourage all Canadians to visit the official Canada Book Day
website to find out about events in their communities. I urge
all Canadians to get one, give one, read one.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
week five white supremacists were arrested for the brutal beating
death of Mr. Nirmal Singh, the janitor for a Sikh temple in
Surrey.
If the five individuals who were arrested are found guilty, then
their punishment should reflect the revulsion Canadians feel
about this senseless act.
1998 is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. While Canada has made tremendous progress during
this 50 years, this incident shows that we still have a long way
to go in respecting the humanity of our fellow citizens.
I know that the entire House joins with the official opposition
in telling the racist groups that their time is over. We will no
longer put up with their hatred. We will no longer put up with
their violence.
* * *
ARMENIAN MONUMENT
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two
years ago this House passed a motion which was presented by the
member for Brampton Centre designating the week of April 20 to 27
as the week of remembrance of the inhumanity of people toward one
another.
Today I wish to pay tribute to my constituents who are Canadians
of Armenian origin and all members of the Montreal Armenian
community. I commend them for their uncompromising efforts and
tireless work on the erection of a monument which will be
inscribed with the following words:
[Translation]
<“We dedicate this monument to all victims of genocide and we
urge all citizens to promote tolerance and social harmony. This
recognition reflects the spirit of the Declaration of Human
Rights”.
I am very proud that the monument will be located in
Marcellin-Wilson park, in my riding of Ahuntsic.
[English]
Congratulations to my constituents for reminding us all that
history should never be repeated. We must never forget this
horrific crime against humanity.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD BOOK DAY
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
world book day. It is an opportunity to remember that all
governments must unite their efforts to encourage the spread of
knowledge.
On this day, all our governments must reflect on the importance
of allocating the necessary resources to help and support those
that are directly and indirectly associated with the world of
reading.
From large library networks to the neighbourhood library, not to
mention school boards and the publishing industry, all are
working at promoting access to reading and at developing a love
of books among our young people.
April 23 is also an opportunity to stress the importance of
copyright, and to think of those who try to make a living from
their writings but who, unfortunately, do not reap the benefits
of their efforts.
I wish you all a good reading.
* * *
[English]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the 70th anniversary of the beginning of one of the most
revolutionary legal battles ever to be undertaken. On this day in
1928 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women were not
persons under the British North America Act. As you can imagine
women across the empire were disturbed by this decision and as
such they took their fight to the British Privy Council. Today we
proudly celebrate the final decision made by that body.
Because of the efforts of individuals such as Senator Emily
Murphy, women across the commonwealth were granted the status of
persons. As a result, in Canada today men and women enjoy equal
societal privileges, protection and status under the law. Despite
that, there are still many places in the world that women are
treated as second class citizens.
As Canadians we must continue to work to secure positive, civil
and legal development in nations that have not yet been liberated
by the effects of enhanced personal freedom and true gender
equality. Indeed it is our duty to lead by example. Canada is
and has always been a world leader in these areas. I am proud to
support—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton—Gloucester.
* * *
[Translation]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
April 23 marks the 70th anniversary of one of the most important
decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada, namely the
recognition of women as legal persons.
1405
Prior to that decision, women had practically no rights. They
could not acquire property without the signature of a legal
entity. We could list many rights that women did not have.
Today, women can give their full measure in every sphere of
activity. Let us hope that they will continue to take their
place in our society, particularly in third world countries.
* * *
[English]
YOM HASHOAH
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is Yom Hashoah, the day that Jews and Gentiles pause to
remember the horror of the Holocaust.
From 1933 to 1945 six million Jews and millions of other
innocent victims were burned in the ovens of Auschwitz and other
concentration camps. This unparalleled crime against humanity
must never happen again.
There is a Hebrew word that I would ask all members of this
House to learn. It is “zachor” and it means to remember. We
owe it to the dead to never forget their tragedy and we owe it to
the living never to allow the Holocaust to happen again.
On behalf of the official opposition I would like to express my
personal commitment to ensure that the world learns from the
Holocaust. On this the eve of the 50th anniversary of the modern
State of Israel, I promise to zachor.
* * *
MINING HALL OF FAME
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like today to congratulate the newest inductees
into the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame located in Elliot Lake in
my northern Ontario riding.
This year's inductees are very special as they not only
highlight mining's very significant contribution to our economy
but its importance to research and development in Canada and the
mining industry's success around the globe.
This year's inductees are: Anthony Barringer, whose company was
a major centre for mining research and development in Canada;
Benjamin Taylor Bell, the founder of the Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum; Gerald Hatch, for his enormous
contribution to the advancement of metallurgy and leadership in
multidisciplinary consulting services; Stephen Ogryzlo, for his
mining successes around the world; Murray Pezim, for his
discovery of northern Ontario's Hemlo gold camp; and Franklin
Pickard, for his leadership and vision in guiding Falconbridge to
international prominence.
I call on all members of the House to assist me in
congratulating these builders of Canada's world class mining
industry. I encourage everyone to come and visit the Mining Hall
of Fame in Elliot Lake.
* * *
CANCER
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every year
60,000 Canadians die of cancer. This month the Canadian Cancer
Society hopes to raise $21 million in its fight against the
disease.
We can support the society's efforts through donations of time
and money but the government can go one step further. It can
adopt the Canadian Cancer Society's recommendations to prevent
future cases of lung cancer by abandoning its plan to water down
the sponsorship provisions of the Tobacco Act, investing in
medical research to levels comparable with other industrialized
countries and restore its $3.5 billion cut to the health care
system.
The government must also investigate environmental links to
cancer. The CAW for example has made cancer the number one
concern of the workplace environment, a model for the future.
The New Democratic Party congratulates the Canadian Cancer
Society for its important work. We will continue our commitment
to fight for medical research, quality care and prevention
strategies for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
BOOK AND READING SUMMIT
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today is World Book and Copyright Day, a day honouring books and
authors and set aside to encourage people to discover the
pleasure of reading and recognize the contribution writers make
to cultural and social advancement.
The book and reading summit, presided over by the premier of
Quebec, began yesterday and will conclude at the end of the day
today. Following a series of consultations, this summit brings
together stakeholders, who are assessing the situation and
looking at ways to develop a policy on reading appropriate to
Quebec society.
With the sacrosanct civilization of the image standardizing
thinking, Quebeckers must redevelop their taste for reading.
Reading is the route to knowledge, communication, thought and
pleasure. It is a source of great delight.
In closing, I would like to congratulate Bruno Hébert, who was
awarded the Association des libraires prize yesterday for his
novel C'est pas moi je le jure!
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the past
few days now, the members of the Bloc Quebecois have been
carrying cheques around Quebec signed by Louise Beaudoin, a
minister in Lucien Bouchard's government.
We have learned that the member for Louis-Hébert presented a fine
cheque for $5,000 on behalf of the Government of Quebec to the
management of the Salle Diane-Bélanger in Sillery, a Liberal
riding provincially.
1410
The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is also carrying around
cheques from the Government of Quebec. He apparently gave a
helping hand to two municipalities in his riding with funds from
Ms. Beaudoin's budget.
The Bloc Quebecois is behaving with an indecency rarely seen in
this House, so much so that Ms. Beaudoin was obliged to make a
public apology for this behaviour. We are still awaiting
denunciation by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
GRANBY ZOO
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, with each
spring comes the urge to clean up, but this chore can actually
be fun when it takes place in the Granby zoo, in my riding.
On this occasion, the community is invited to lend a hand to the
staff to clean up and prepare the zoo to welcome the thousands
of visitors who will come through its gates this summer. The
Granby zoo is not only a local pride and joy, but a tourist
attraction renowned across North America.
Thanks to the involvement of the management and staff of the zoo
as well as the whole community, this year will be the 10th year
we hold, with great pride, this community spring cleaning event
at the Granby zoo.
* * *
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
occasion of national volunteer week, whose theme this year is “I
feel like taking action, I volunteer”, I salute the tireless
work and sustained involvement of more than 1,000 community
organizations in my riding alone and several thousands in
society at large.
At the community, cultural and recreation levels, these
organizations do a great deal to improve our quality of life.
I would like to pay tribute to the work and dedication of these
men and women who devote their energy and dynamism to serving
their community. They make an invaluable contribution to our
society. Our thanks to them.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to express concern about the impact a potential bank merger
could have on ever increasing bank charges.
When I toured the 42 municipalities in my riding of
Brome—Missisquoi, my fellow citizens told me they were outraged
by bank charges. Today, I am proud to have the written support
of 163 colleagues, a majority of members, on all sides of this
House, for the bank charges bill I introduced on February 4.
Together, we represent more than 16 million Canadians and
numerous small and medium size businesses. Next Monday, our
Liberal caucus committee will be meeting in Montreal to hear
witnesses on the banking situation. I will report back.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
surprise, surprise. The bleeding heart liberals have no heart to
get tough on crime.
In typical Liberal fashion the minister is sitting on the fence
with her changes to the Young Offenders Act waiting to see which
way the political winds blow. Meanwhile violent teens continue on
their merry, destructive way with full knowledge that if the law
ever catches up with them, they will be treated with kid gloves.
“Kids” do not murder or commit violent assaults, but the
Liberals treat these criminals as harmless children. We need
immediate amendments to the Young Offenders Act that hold violent
youth responsible for their actions and which act as a strong
deterrent.
Reform MPs have organized a public meeting on the Young
Offenders Act to be held on May 5 in Saskatoon.
Residents in my home province have lost complete faith in the
youth justice system. Canadians have lost faith in this justice
minister who has no stomach to do what is right.
* * *
LANTZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
trickle down effect of the finance minister's financial agenda is
being felt by students and parents in Hants county in my riding.
After making education and the millennium scholarship fund the
central issue of this year's budget, the finance minister has cut
transfers to Nova Scotia by $25 million.
The students of the Lantz Elementary School in Hants county are
feeling the effects of these past cutbacks. Over 220 students
are sitting at home today because the carbon monoxide level in
their school is seven times higher than the recommended level.
It is all too easy for federal politicians to dismiss such cases
as a provincial problem because it is education. It is easy to
cut in Ottawa where there is no tangible evidence of the impact
of these cuts, but the impact is in Hants county today when those
students sit at home because of the callousness of this federal
Liberal government and the callousness of the Minister of
Finance.
The health of these students today should take precedence over
the promise of a scholarship in three years.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
some issues are just too big for partisan politics. Moral
questions are bigger than any party. They are bigger than any
prime minister. Questions like abortion, capital punishment or
euthanasia. The question of abandoning hepatitis C victims falls
into this exact same category.
I want to ask a question of the government, not as one MP to
another but as one human being to another. Let me ask the
Minister of Health why the government will not let its MPs vote
according to their conscience on this motion of compensation.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very simple. The Reform Party is asking members
of the House to vote non-confidence in the policies of the
government and non-confidence in the policies of the 10
provincial governments.
The federal government and the 10 provinces have joined together
in a decision on policy and the Reform Party is asking the people
of the House of Commons to vote against that decision.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is simply nonsense.
The Liberal member for Cambridge has said that he would vote
with the victims on this matter, not against the government, and
he is absolutely right.
I give the Prime Minister and all of his MPs my personal pledge
that the official opposition will not treat this as a confidence
motion. In fact the opposite is true. We will congratulate the
government and say that it is doing what is right, that is the
issue of compensating victims. That is what we care about.
I ask if the official opposition is not treating this as a
confidence motion why should the government.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is it that in almost every vote in the House on
government measures, and with one or two exceptions on private
members' measures, the Reform Party has voted as a single group?
Let us have some explanations on that.
It is not simply a matter of what the hon. lady says at this
time. It is a matter of what a vote amounts to in a fundamental
way. She is asking and her party is asking members of the House
to vote against not only the federal government but all the
provincial governments.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is not our view on this. The government House Leader, in the
1993 red book, included these words: “Parties in this House must
have ample opportunity to place before parliament their
alternatives for free and open debate and decision without
artificial applications of non-confidence doctrine”. He went on
to say that opposition motions should not be treated as
confidence motions unless they were explicitly advised of such.
Again I want to ask the government to do the right thing and
answer this question. If the official opposition is not treating
this as a confidence motion why should the government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, can we turn things around and if members of the
opposition say a measure is a confidence measure we could totally
ignore the way they are speaking?
What they are saying does not make sense. In so far as putting
measures before the House for free and open debate, that is
exactly what is happening today. That is what is happening on
every measure. Let us have the debate. Let us have the vote.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, which
Liberal said this: “When there are resolutions, as there are
today involving victims rights, members of this party vote as
they see fit?” That was the current health minister in 1996.
He was talking about exactly the same type of motion in the
House, an opposition motion. Just what caused him to change his
tune?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows that debate was about something completely
different. It was about the criminal justice system and the
rights of victims before the courts.
In all that these hon. members have said today and in the past
about this issue there is one question with which they refuse to
come to grips because it is the most difficult question of all,
namely, can we sustain public health care in the country if we
make cash payments to all of those who are harmed, regardless of
fault, through risks inherent in the health system.
1420
They will not come to grips with that question but Canada's 12
ministers of health faced it and decided that what was right.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister, the House leader and the health minister all know
that this is not a confidence vote.
This is a vote about whether or not every victim of hepatitis C
from tainted blood should receive fair and just compensation. I
can hardly believe that they will hang their whole process on a
vote of confidence.
Nobody, not a single party in the House, will treat this as a
confidence motion. I have given the government my personal
guarantee of that.
Why then shall the government cause this to be a confidence
motion?
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. minister has just made a real revelation. The uniting of
all the parties, not just of the right but of the NDP, has
suddenly taken place. This is something the press should grasp.
It is a big revelation.
At the end of the day we are being asked to vote against the
position of the government, a considered position taken as a
matter of discussion and agreement with all 10 provincial
governments. The hon. member is asking us to vote against
Premier Klein of Alberta, against Premier Harris of Ontario,
against Premier Filmon of Manitoba and against all other
provincial premiers.
The Speaker: When members ask questions courtesy would
dictate that we listen to the questions and answers. I encourage
you to do so.
* * *
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
heritage subcommittee is currently looking at sports funding in
Canada.
This morning, we learned that the government would be favourable
to a tax deal for subsidizing professional sports teams.
Does the heritage minister find it normal, when millions of
dollars are being cut from health and the federal government is
refusing to compensate hepatitis C victims, that thought is
being given to a tax deal with sports millionaires?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has never taken such a position. I do,
however, have some respect for a House subcommittee on which all
parties are represented, including the Bloc Quebecois, that has
one member.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
too have great respect for the committee, but certain statements
have been made by certain people on the government side.
Yesterday, we welcomed olympic athletes here who managed to win
medals, in spite of meager government funding.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage justify her
government's thinking of subsidizing professional athletes, who
earn millions yearly, when it provides amateur athletes who
bring back medals a mere $5,700 annually, on average?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, we can see just how bankrupt the Bloc
Quebecois has become.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Sheila Copps: We know that a committee is looking at a
rather important issue. We know the entire community in Quebec
City was upset to lose the Nordiques.
What is happening now is
that a House committee, comprised of government and opposition
MPs, including one from the Bloc Quebecois, is trying to look at
how we can keep hockey here in Canada. I trust that they are
going to be join in and make some good recommendations and that
they are going—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The U.S. ambassador to Canada recently said that, if we wanted
to keep professional sports teams from leaving the country, all
we had to do was follow their example and provide teams with all
sorts of funding to keep them home.
Will the minister admit that the real problem is that this
American funding of professional sports constitutes unfair
competition and that the real solution would be to lodge a
complaint under NAFTA against such competition?
1425
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that a committee is looking at a number of
issues. One thing I know is that the member herself has had an
opportunity to speak with the former president of the Nordiques
about possible solutions a little while ago.
I hope that everyone will work together to find an answer to
this problem, which is of concern to the Montreal Canadiens, as
well as all Canadians.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
the minister does not understand is that there is in fact a
subcommittee, but members are announcing solutions on
television, before we have finished our work.
How can one justify spending public money on teams that pay
their players millions of dollars and that, to top it all,
refuse to open their books?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not always in agreement with the hon. member, but
today is an exception.
I think that we must now give the committee a chance to do its
work. We are awaiting the report, which will come out in
October, and when we have a good report, we will look at the
results in order to decide to what extent we can work together
to save hockey teams, because hockey is a sport that was created
in Canada for Canada. Why not?
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have come to see the health minister as Dr. No: no to
more money for health care, no to fair compensation for hep C
victims. The government can yet say yes: yes to human needs, yes
to all victims of hepatitis C.
The upcoming vote is a watershed moment in this parliament, not
a test of confidence but a critical test of liberal compassion.
Will the Prime Minister say yes to compensation for all victims
of hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member, like others in the House, refuses to come to
grips with the real question here, the tough question: When
should the governments of Canada pay cash compensation to people
who are harmed inadvertently, without fault, through risk
inherent in the medical system?
Her party colleagues in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan did
come to grips with that question. Those ministers of health were
at the table with me, with all ministers across the country. We
considered that question. We concluded that we should pay to
compensate those who were harmed when it was avoidable, and that
is what we are doing. 22,000 Canadians were harmed. It was
avoidable. They would—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, imagine
what threats were levied against government members who were
ready to compensate all hep C victims. The democracy policy
should not be driven by threats. It takes leadership and
compassion but sadly that leadership and compassion are not
evident on the government front benches these days.
Why will the Prime Minister not remove the muzzle on his own
members? Why will the government not let those prepared to
provide leadership and compassion do so and let them vote
compensation to all hepatitis C victims?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have put $800 million on the table. Certainly that
is a tangible sign of concern and compassion. I ask the hon.
member why she does not direct her question to Premier Clark, the
NDP premier of British Columbia? Why does she not direct her
question to the other NDP premier in the country?
This is a matter arising out of an agreement with these
premiers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Herb Gray: Opposition party members shout. It shows
the weakness of their arguments because they cannot admit that
everybody else in the country at the level of the provincial
governments agrees with this approach. They are not willing to
turn around and attack—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Conservative Party.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
health minister said yesterday that this was the age of class
action. It would appear he cares more about the courts than
compassion.
The minister also said that his hepatitis C deal was the right
thing to do tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. A lot
of his caucus does not feel that way.
Saying no to people who have been harmed with hepatitis C through
no fault of their own is never the right thing to do.
1430
When will the minister admit that he is more concerned about
money than the moral courage to do what is right for all—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can tell the hon. member that what takes courage is to make the
right decision in the long run for the public health system in
Canada. That is what takes courage.
It would be easy to write a cheque to everybody who has a claim
because we all feel personal compassion for people harmed through
no fault of their own, but that is not the issue. The issue of
running a government, the issue of trying to save medicare in
this country is how many receive cash payments because they were
harmed without fault by government. That is the tough question.
We had the courage to answer that question in favour of the
public health system.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, one
thing we can see in the House is that the Minister of Health has
lost the fight with the Minister of Finance. He is resting on
his laurels, letting innocent victims of hepatitis C take to the
street to air their grievances.
Yesterday, the minister said “None of us likes to say no to
people who have been innocently harmed and who are asking for
something which we cannot give”.
On what is his refusal based? Is it a question of dates, of
policy, or of money, because of the Minister of Finance?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
decision was based on the criterion of the government's
responsibility. All of Canada's health ministers agreed that
our approach was an appropriate one.
The entire health care system always entails risks for every
member of the public. Is the hon. member suggesting that all
governments should compensate all victims all the time? That is
not possible. So we made a choice, and we decided on an
appropriate guideline.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Regina and Saskatoon have some of the highest rates of car theft
and burglary in the country. Authorities believe that almost 90%
of these crimes are committed by about 100 youths. We obviously
have at least 100 Saskatchewan youths who are not getting the
message.
Almost daily the minister tells us that she is dealing with
deficiencies in the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion. Why
does she not introduce legislation to increase the maximum
penalty from three years, especially for these habitual and
repeat offenders?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this
House before, this government has every intention to respond to
the standing committee report in relation to the renewal of youth
justice system.
Let me remind hon. members on the other side that this
government also believes profoundly that there are no simplistic
solutions to the question of the renewal of the youth justice
system. Consequently we are in the process of developing a
response that reflects the three values identified by Canadians,
protection of society, crime prevention and rehabilitation.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday four adults and one young offender were charged in the
murder of Nirmal Singh Gill in my city of Surrey. The four adults
ranging in age from 20 to 26 have all been named. The Young
Offenders Act protects the identity of the 17 year old.
Time has run out for this justice minister. Does she feel the
protection of identity is reasonable in cases of this nature?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
serious situation of alleged hate, crime motivated by hate. I
would like hon. members on the other side to explain why for
example they did not support this government and others in this
House in relation to Bill C-41 where we made the motivation of
hate an aggravating factor in sentencing.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A number of victims of hepatitis C have been ignored by the
federal government, which continues to refuse to compensate
them, despite the terrible injustice done to them and despite
the recommendations of Mr. Justice Krever.
As the government continues to consider investing millions of
dollars in professional sport, how can it remain so inflexible,
categorically denying compensation to victims of hepatitis C who
have been left out in the cold?
1435
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
wondering whether the hon. member considers that the Quebec
minister of health has abandoned victims of hepatitis C, because
he agrees with us. He took the same approach, which was to
compensate those who contracted the virus between 1986 and 1990,
the period in which those responsible could have acted to
prevent infection.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, they have the
money, they should pay. We know that the Minister of Finance is
currently ahead of his budget projections by some $21 billion.
With the federal government swimming in money, could it not find
the few million dollars needed to repair the injustice done to
the victims of hepatitis C who are not being compensated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is wrong.
I personally was involved with Mr. Rochon in the discussions on
this question. We did not determine our position according to
the amount of money available. We did so based on the principle
of government responsibility. And together, Mr. Rochon and I,
the Parti Quebecois and I, decided that the principle of
responsibility would determine which of the victims would be
compensated.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
millions of Canadians are filling out their tax returns this week
I have one simple question for the finance minister. Why are
Canadians still paying the highest personal income taxes in the
G-7?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that we inherited a very difficult
financial condition when we took office.
However, certainly as a result of the elimination of the deficit
I am pleased to announce, in case the member has not noticed,
that since last November we reduced unemployment insurance
premiums from $2.90 to $2.70. In the budget 400,000 Canadians no
longer have to pay tax of any kind and 83% of Canadians saw the
3% surtax eliminated.
I thank the member for his question.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is nonsense and the minister knows it. According to CIBC
Wood Gundy economist Jeff Rubin says: “Canadians' tax bills will
be some $6 billion higher as a result of the cumulative impact of
the last five Liberal budgets”. He said that in the wake of the
last budget.
The minister knows taxes are up. We know taxes are up. Jeff
Rubin knows it and Canadians know it. When is the minister going
to acknowledge that Canadians have the highest tax burden in the
G-7 and he has done zip about it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is in the last budget we brought in probably
the most substantial tax reduction in the course of the last
decade.
However, the hon. member is right about one thing, government
revenues are up. Our revenues are up because over the course of
the last four years one million Canadians have gone back to work.
Not only that, but in the last year 453,000 Canadians went back
to work.
If the truth be told, Canada is now creating more jobs on a
percentage basis than any other G-7 country, including the United
States.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, only 36% of the unemployed in Canada now
qualify for benefits. Things have been going from bad to worse
since the Liberals took office.
Does the Minister of Finance, who always makes fine-sounding
speeches in response to our questions, not realize that the
thousands of jobless people who no longer qualify for benefits
cannot feed their children with the minister's rhetoric or
statistics?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
make it very clear to the member that the benefit to the
unemployed ratio has gone up in this last month. The reason why
it is going up is that more people are qualifying for benefits.
Yes, there are fewer people on benefits for a number of reasons.
1440
As the Minister of Finance has said, we have created over a
million new jobs since the government came into office.
Unemployment is going down substantially since we came into power
in 1993. As sure as I stand here, the unemployment will continue
to go down with the kind of policies we are implementing.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in regions like the Gaspé Peninsula and the
Magdalen Islands, more than 40% of young people are unemployed
and the vast majority of them do not receive any benefits.
Could the Minister of Finance, who is good at pocketing money
but not so good at answering questions, come down from his ivory
tower and explain to the thousands of penniless young people
that, this year, he will pocket over $6 billion in surplus from
the employment insurance fund?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only
say to my hon. colleagues that obviously the BU ratio is
bothering the government, bothering people of all persuasions,
this side and that side.
When we implemented the EI act, that is the reason we brought in
a process of monitoring reports every year to look at the changes
under the new EI system.
There has been one monitoring report so far. There are another
five to go. When those monitoring reports come forward we will
be able to tell the government and the people of Canada just why
it is that certain changes are working or not working.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Income Tax Act is bigger than the average
phone book. It is so complicated that every year more Canadians
just throw their hands in the air and hire professional help to
file their taxes.
Under the Liberals the tax act probably needs only two lines.
Line one, how much do you make? Line two, send it in.
Canadians pay the highest income taxes in the G-7. Is that why
the finance minister is smiling?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were following what is
happening at Revenue Canada he would understand that we are
streamlining. We are simplifying the administration. Up to eight
million Canadians can file their tax returns right over the
phone. We are trying to improve. We are trying to simplify and
make it easier for people to file their tax returns.
I know it is very difficult for a lot of Reformers to follow the
tax form. I am sure we have volunteers who can help them do that
this year.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I guess streamlining means that the size of the phone
book goes from the size of the Toronto area to the size of the
Edmonton area.
When tough questions come up the Liberals will try anything to
avoid answering them. It would be great if Canadian business
owners could register their companies in the Bahamas to avoid
high taxes. But for most Canadians that is not an option.
Again, why do we pay the highest personal income taxes of the
G-7?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we look at the total burden that any taxpayer in
any country has to pay we have to look at all. As an example, our
payroll taxes are substantially lower than the G-7 average. In
fact, they are lower than in the United States.
It is true that we want to bring personal income taxes down and
we did so in the last budget; 83% of Canadians saw the 3% surtax
eliminated and 400,000 Canadians are no longer paying taxes. We
have made it very clear that as a result of the increasing fiscal
dividend we will return that money back into the pockets—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau.
* * *
[Translation]
BOOK INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
the government was caught in an undeniable inconsistency.
While the Minister of Canadian Heritage is subsidizing the
Canadian book industry to the tune of $30 million, the Minister
of Finance is pocketing over $120 million by charging GST on
books.
On this World Book Day, can the Minister of Finance tell us when
he will finally get around to abolishing the GST on books?
1445
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the past two years, we have put subsidies in place to support
literacy in Canada and help Canadians learn to read.
If provinces, for instance the Atlantic provinces, want to
reduce the tax on books, they have a right to do so.
The tax on books was imposed by the previous government, but
that money is being used to help Canadians learn to read.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
United States has continuously relied on Canada as an ally in
international disputes. Yet as quick as the Americans are to
call on us for assistance, they long delay in giving Canada an
exemption to the United States' invasive new entry laws.
Will the minister advise if the U.S. government has offered any
explanation for its delay in acting on this matter which is of
great importance to my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and all
Canadians?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the concern of the hon.
member and his constituents. It is important to point out that
it is a concern expressed by many Americans on the other side of
the border. This is a matter of mutual concern.
Through our efforts at our embassy in Washington we have been
able to organize a very broad based collaboration. One of the
results of that is that right now there is an amendment to
Section 110 of the U.S. immigration Act
before the judiciary committee of the Senate. We hope to
see its eventual passage.
We had very intensive discussions with Secretary of State
Albright when she was here. We intend to follow up very shortly.
I can assure the hon. member that we will exercise every possible
effort to ensure that we keep an open border.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
all members of this House certainly support the use of vaccines
and other protective measures against chemical and biological
threats to our military personnel. However, we also want to
ensure the safety of these vaccines. Since the American
manufacturer of the anthrax vaccine was cited for violations by
the food and drug administration over a year ago, did the
Department of National Defence conduct an independent inspection
of the vaccine before it was issued to Canadian troops?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the
vaccine is safe. It has been re-tested. It was re-tested before
I took it myself. I did take it myself and our troops did as
well. It was provided for them for their own safety and it is
keeping them safe.
An hon. member: That explains his memory loss.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it would be a matter of opinion as to whether the minister
suffers any ill effects from the vaccine. I think the minister
should get a second opinion.
Health Canada granted the department permission to use the
anthrax vaccine. Before it was granted that permission, was
Health Canada aware that the food and drug administration in the
United States forced the production plant to shut down because of
these safety concerns?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to offer the hon. member a
vaccine that may do him some good.
There has been re-testing. This matter has been properly looked
into. The vaccine is safe and has been administered to our
personnel to safeguard them.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with this
government's changes to EI, plant workers and fishers in New
Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces no longer qualify for
benefits.
This is crab fishing season and the government is taking its
time coming up with a plan for the fishery. These plant workers
and fishers have no income and are waiting for the government to
wake up.
Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans ready to unveil his
fishery plan today, with the same agreement that was in place
last year for plant workers and fishers, i.e. the solidarity
fund?
1450
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the plan for gulf crabbers will soon be in place.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
plant workers and fishers, I thank the minister.
This government always waits until it is too late before taking
action. Thanks to the Liberals' reform, 64% of the unemployed
people in the country did not receive benefits in 1997. What
has the government done? It has done the same thing it did in
the case of the fishery, which is to say it has dragged its
feet. Is it waiting for another fishery crisis?
My question is for the Prime Minister. With a surplus of close
to $20 billion, is the government going to put an end to the
social catastrophe it has created and review EI eligibility
criteria?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1997, we had a co-management agreement with south
gulf crabbers. This agreement provides for a percentage split
with non-crabbers in order to help the traditional fleet achieve
a break-even point. Each year, the size of their share depends
on the price and the size of the TAC.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
you to listen carefully to this one. If you were infected with
hepatitis C on December 31, 1985, you would not be eligible for
compensation. However, as crazy as it seems, but it is
unfortunately the truth, if you were infected one day later, on
January 1, 1986, you would be eligible.
Simply put, how can the minister stand in this place and defend
such a bogus compensation package?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ministers of health of Canada looked at this situation, made
a difficult decision and said that the principle of who should be
paid cash or compensation should be determined by who was
infected at a time when it was avoidable, if we had acted as we
should have.
Every commentator who knows about this chronology, who looked at
it, has said that the beginning of 1986 was the time when we
could have taken steps to avoid the infection. Before that it
was a risk in the system, like all the other risks people face.
That is what sets the period apart.
In answer to the member's question—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlotte.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, with due
respect, I disagree with the minister.
I want to go at it from another angle. Tuesday night there will
be a confidence vote. If the government loses the confidence
vote, obviously we move to an election. I am wondering what the
theme would be of that election. Would they campaign on the
theme of “The land is strong”? Remember that one in 1972?
Would it be “Let them eat cake”? Or would the campaign theme
be “Abandon the sick”?
What is the theme going to be of this upcoming election?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact
that the Reform members were wrong when they said they could give
a commitment that none of the opposition members would treat this
as a confidence vote.
An official spokesman for the Conservative Party just said that
he considers the matter to be a confidence vote. Let the record
show what the hon. member said.
My hon. friend is asking an interesting hypothetical question,
but I believe that when we vote on this next week the resolution
will be defeated and the government's position and the position
of the ten provinces and the two territories will be upheld.
* * *
[Translation]
BANKING SERVICES
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
More and more bank branches are closing down in rural areas, and
the people living in those areas are being forced to travel long
distances in order to have access to banking services.
1455
Can the minister tell the House what steps can be taken to
lessen the problems being faced by our fellow citizens who live
in rural areas?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member's question is an important one. Moreover, it is an
excellent example of why we have struck a committee to look into
the future of the financial services sector.
I can assure you that we are going to take the necessary steps
to guarantee that this matter will be settled properly. It is
very important, and the government has made it perfectly clear
that access to quality financial services in Canada's rural and
outlying areas is of critical importance for the government.
* * *
[English]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the forest industry is already reeling from the decline
in forest exports to Pacific rim nations, but more forest
industry jobs are threatened by the new U.S. customs service
decision to set tariffs and quotas on predrilled softwood
imports.
What action is the minister taking to protect Canadian jobs in
this industry?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting and a conference call
with the Canadian industry across the country because we have
said that clearly we have an agreement that largely works. We
will make no move in response to that customs agreement until we
have been able to establish a sense of consensus within the
industry.
The industry has also asked us for an additional period of a
week, at which time we will be coming together again in Ottawa
with representatives of the entire industry. If we can I think
it would be very important to try to establish a consensus within
the industry so we can march in the face of this decision in
unity.
* * *
[Translation]
COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Francophone Saskatchewan is disappearing according to the
Fédération des francophones de la Saskatchewan, which clearly
contradicts the federalists who say that French is gaining
ground throughout Canada. A key to the survival of francophones
outside Quebec is the ability to appeal to the courts to
guarantee their right to education.
Why is the minister refusing to improve the Court Challenges
Program as she promised to do on March 18? Will she do as she
did with the GST and break her promises?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I totally and absolutely support the request of the
francophone community in Saskatchewan that French be recognized
as an official language in Saskatchewan and I recognize the same
thing for all provinces.
Unfortunately, the secretary of state in a former government,
now the premier of Quebec, who had the opportunity to do the
same thing, never gave his support.
* * *
[English]
REFORESTATION
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister responsible for the Treasury Board. In 1995
the Elijah Smith Reforestation Fund was set up, but unfortunately
there was a mix-up and no money is coming back to the Yukon for
reforestation, which is particularly needed this year.
Will the minister fix the problem and make sure reforestation
money comes back to the Yukon for work this year?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will look into that question and give an answer to the hon.
member as soon as possible.
* * *
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Health has said he is prepared to let class actions determine
the government's policy on hepatitis C. This is very worrisome.
Canadians have already seen the minister's prowess in other
legal matters. The Airbus affair and Pearson airport are two
examples that come to mind.
Is the Liberal government going to abdicate its responsibilities
and those of all parliamentarians in favour of a court decision
or will it allow Parliament to determine policy as it should?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
governments of Canada, including Conservative governments,
decided to compensate the individuals infected during the period
between 1986 and 1990, when governments and officials could have
acted but did not. It was not the courts, but rather the
governments that decided and accepted responsibility for the
1986 to 1990 period.
* * *
1500
[English]
PRIVILEGE
INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATIONS—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: On Tuesday, April 21 the hon. member for
Fraser Valley raised a question of privilege concerning the
government press release announcing the establishment of a
Canada-China interparliamentary group.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Fraser Valley contended that, in issuing
this press release, the Minister for International Trade gave
the impression that this group would be sanctioned and funded by
Parliament. He argued that this was a clear contempt of the
House.
After hearing submissions from several members, I took the
matter under advisement. I am now ready to proceed with a
ruling on this question of privilege.
[English]
The creation of Canadian interparliamentary groups is governed
by certain administrative bodies within the House of Commons and
the Senate. It is not an executive matter to be decided by
cabinet. Although the government may from time to time make
recommendations in this regard in the context of Canada's foreign
policy, these matters do not fall directly within the purview of
any government department or agency.
Interparliamentary relations are carried on under the
responsibility of parliament. There are in place certain
decision making processes governing their administration. As I
mentioned on Tuesday, there are ongoing meetings this week and
next week concerning these very matters.
1505
It is the Speaker of the House of Commons who has the
responsibility to represent the House in its dealings with
foreign legislatures. For this reason, I feel it is my duty to
comment on the actions taken by the Minister for International
Trade.
In their submissions many hon. members made reference to the
fact that actions such as these appear to undercut the authority
of parliament. As parliamentarians we should all be aware of the
differences between the authority of cabinet and that of
parliament. In matters of foreign relations, cabinet may enter
into agreements with other governments while parliament pursues
relations with other legislatures.
Parliament's decisions are taken in light of Canada's foreign
policy and the interests of all Canadians, but cabinet does not
dictate the nature or scope of the interparliamentary relations
of the Parliament of Canada.
In announcing the establishment of a Canada-China
interparliamentary group and thereby prejudging a decision which
has yet to be taken, the minister clearly overreached his
authority. I am somewhat disappointed that a minister of the
crown in acting with such haste may have prejudiced the very
outcome that he wished to bring about. Such disregard for the
administrative competence of parliament does nothing to enhance
its prestige on the international stage.
Members have expressed their frustration over other
announcements by the government which appear to bypass the
authority of the House. As I have been reminded, this may have
taken place on more than one occasion during this parliament.
There is reason for legitimate concern since it appears that a
pattern is developing in spite of cautions which have been made
from the chair. My duty however is to confine myself to the
jurisprudence which exists and governs the operation of
privilege.
[Translation]
Given the preoccupation over these matters, I would suggest that
this particular issue must be handled through a different
avenue, namely the Board of Internal Economy, which holds
statutory responsibility for such matters. I noted during the
discussion on April 21, 1998, five of the hon. members who
intervened were members of the Board of Internal Economy.
[English]
Until the board has been seized of this matter and pronounced
itself on it, I wish to advise this House that there is no
officially recognized parliamentary association with China.
Consequently there can be no interim chairman either from the
House or from the Senate.
I regret having to make this statement so publicly. I trust
that our Chinese friends will understand that this situation is
strictly an internal Canadian matter relating to the basic tenets
of our primary law. Indeed I trust that our Chinese friends will
have a better understanding of our parliamentary democracy as we
pursue this dialogue.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Have you referred the issue to the
Board of Internal Economy? Do we table a motion in this House at
this point in time?
The Speaker: This motion has been referred to the Board
of Internal economy.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I have only been here for four years.
I have never seen this done. I was ready to make the appropriate
motion which I thought was necessary if the minister had been out
of turn, to refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs
committee. If it is being referred to the Board of Internal
Economy, that is your decision. My question is, is that a
debatable motion or is it just a decision that you have made?
The Speaker: It is not a debatable motion. I decided
that it was not a point of privilege for the reasons I gave. I am
sure if the member reads over my decision he will see the reasons
therein.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Board of Internal
Economy while having jurisdiction and authority grounded in law
is not a body that is open to the public. It is not a body that
is open to members of parliament.
It would seem to me that a matter that is rightfully before the
House can be referred anywhere and you would require an order of
the House for that to happen.
1510
Mr. Speaker, in your decision you have found a prima facie case
of breach of privilege. The only thing you could do in my
respectful submission is to allow the hon. member to put the
appropriate motion and the matter should go based on
jurisprudence to the appropriate committee of parliament which is
open to the public and which is open to members of parliament to
call witnesses. That is the appropriate way. It is not the
appropriate way to simply sweep this matter under the carpet.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I thought that it was reasonably
clear. I have ruled that it is not a prima facie case of
contempt. I believe that this falls under the Parliament of
Canada Act, under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy.
That is the ruling I have made at this point. This point should
sit where it is.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Again, I have never seen this done. Could you quote for
me what section of Beauchesne's or whatever you used to base that
ruling on? As far as I know this has never been done before. If
something is wrong, we have always referred it to that committee.
I have never seen this done before.
Another point is there could be an argument that not all members
are represented at the Board of Internal Economy. For example
independent members are not. Since it was seized by the House, I
am not sure how the board can deal with that. I am interested to
know how that is done or under what rules it is done. I have
never seen it done before.
The Speaker: My colleagues, as a general rule the Speaker
does not give legal explanations for his decisions. I would be
happy to pursue the discussion of the Parliament of Canada Act
and this particular matter in private.
I did rule that there was not a prima facie case of contempt in
this particular case. I would like to let the matter rest at
this point and go on to the Thursday question.
I have a point of privilege from the member for York
South—Weston.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of
respect, you made a decision. The conclusion is not consistent
with the remarks in your decision.
You found that the minister was out of line. He issued a press
release. It was inappropriate. You apologized. You commented
to our Chinese friends that this is purely an internal matter.
Then you went on to say that it was not a breach of privilege.
It is inconsistent.
My point of privilege is that independent members are not
represented on, nor are they permitted to attend meetings of the
Board of Internal Economy. One of the complaints the public has
had is that often the political parties sweep things under the
carpet to be dealt with in the backrooms of this parliament—
The Speaker: The hon. member does not have a point of
privilege.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With respect to establishing parliamentary associations, I am
the whip for the NDP. We were in a meeting last night with one
of the deputy speakers and the clerks. We were told at that time
on an issue unrelated to this one that if a new parliamentary
association is to be formed, it has to come from the members of
the House to the interparliamentary committee, the committee
which I am a member of, requesting funding therefor.
If we did not have the funds we would then forward it to the
Board of Internal Economy.
1515
With respect to my independent colleague, he does make a point
which I think is important, and that is that if it is sent to an
interparliamentary committee or to the Standing Committee on
Procedures and House Affairs there is an opportunity for
consideration of all circumstances around the particular
question.
I am not saying we should do one thing or another, but I was
informed yesterday the procedure was that it should go before the
interparliamentary committee first and before the Board of
Internal Economy second.
The Speaker: The hon. member is correct.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker,
again because this is new to all of us I am wondering, in the
interest of having all members in the House represented at such a
meeting, is it possible for that one meeting to have the
independent member present, or is it possible to exchange a
position such as mine with having him there present?
The Speaker: As a general rule I as Speaker of the House
represent the independent members on the Board of Internal
Economy. If the Board of Internal Economy as a body wishes to
entertain any other witnesses, it can do so.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader the nature of the
business for the remainder of this week and for the week
following.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on
his very excellent question, which is no doubt the finest one
asked today.
Tomorrow the House shall consider second reading of the
environment legislation, Bill C-32. If necessary the debate
shall continue on Monday.
When it is completed we shall call Bill S-9, the depository
notes legislation. When that is finished or on next Wednesday,
whichever comes first, we shall commence second reading of Bill
C-27, the coastal fisheries legislation.
Once that is completed it is our intention to resume debate on
the drinking water safety bill, Bill C-14. This would take place
and continue on next Thursday.
Next Tuesday shall be an allotted day. In the evening we plan
to hold a special take note debate on Bosnia.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
VOTING
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Today in question
period I asked a question of the government in relation to the
vote on Tuesday night on the hepatitis C issue and I just want
some clarification, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will give me a bit
of time here. I think this clarification would probably best
come outside question period and outside normal debate.
I want some clarification in terms of what the Prime Minister
meant yesterday when he said that it would be a confidence vote.
I am in favour of a free vote and I do not want people to imply
that I was not. I feel that this vote has to come from the heart
and it has to come from the independent judgment of members of
parliament.
What did the Prime Minister mean when he talked about a
confidence vote on Tuesday night?
The Speaker: I do not know how we can fit this into a
point of order. It is surely a question that should be put to
the Prime Minister in question period as we have that every day.
INTERPARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps for clarification, you indicated that what I was
told was accurate with respect to referring the creation of
parliamentary associations to the interparliamentary committee.
I am wondering if that is indeed what will happen, or will it go
directly to the Board of Internal Economy.
1520
The Speaker: It is my understanding that the Joint
Interparliamentary Council will meet before we get it before the
Board of Internal Economy.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions
among the political parties and I understand there is agreement
to defer the vote on this afternoon's motion, which would
normally take place on Monday evening, to Tuesday. The motion
would be as follows:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's
Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this
motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am prepared to give my consent to this matter on the
condition that I am permitted my full allotted time to speak to
the motion before the House today.
The Speaker: Who gives this guarantee?
Mr. John Nunziata: The House by unanimous consent, that I
be given permission to speak today and that I be given my full
allotted time.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe one of my
colleagues approached the hon. member and provided him an
assurance to that effect a little earlier today. If we have
given our word, as I believe we have, that one of the slots
provided for a Liberal member would be used by him, I would trust
that the word given is accepted as being reality.
The Speaker: What we have is a miscommunication. The
hon. member then gives his consent. Is that it?
Mr. John Nunziata: No, Mr. Speaker. I understood that I
would only be sharing time with a Liberal member. I do not wish
to share my time with a Liberal member. I wish to have my full
allotted time, that being 20 minutes to speak in the House.
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, if I may I will clear this
matter up. I am the Liberal member who was designated to share
time with the hon. member. I am quite prepared to give up my
time.
The Speaker: Is the matter settled?
Mr. John Nunziata: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: There is consent and that is how we will
proceed. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is that
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime
Minister's visit to Cuba and the people he was to have met on
Tuesday, I am wondering if the House would give further consent
to have this vote on Wednesday or what would be the disposition
of the House.
Mr. Randy White: We have already said no to that.
The Speaker: That settles that little matter.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEPATITIS C
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise to speak not as a member of the Reform caucus and
not even as a member of the House. Today I rise to speak as an
individual Canadian who is witnessing thousands of his fellow
citizens dying. They are dying while their government looks the
other way. They are dying while their government uses cold,
legal arguments and speaks of the need to make hard decisions.
They are dying through no fault of their own and yet the
government says that it has had to make a hard decision. The
government has not made a hard decision. The government has made
a cruel decision.
1525
Canadians put their trust in our national health care system and
they through its mismanagement are paying the ultimate price. I
am referring to the 20,000 to 25,000 individuals who were
infected with the hepatitis C virus through the Canadian blood
system prior to 1986 and today are either sick or dying.
While the government has chosen to compensate more than 28,000
who were infected after 1986, it has chosen to ignore the rest.
It saddens me greatly that I must participate in a debate of this
nature, a debate which could have been avoided had the government
respected the rights of its own citizens. This is justice denied
for a group that is rapidly running out of time.
Both the health minister and the Prime Minister are decent men
and are fundamentally good people. However, on this issue I fear
they are allowing their legal background to cloud their sense of
compassion.
I ask them to reconsider their position and to afford some
dignity to the thousands whose lives have been shattered. I ask
all members of the House to cast their partisanship aside and
vote to compensate all persons who contracted hepatitis C from
blood products. We must act now because compensation and justice
delayed are compensation and justice denied. This is especially
true for thousands who will develop the more acute symptoms
associated with chronic hepatitis C infection.
I have some notes but I will not read them. I will speak based
on what I feel. I sat here this morning listening to the
government side. I listened to the parliamentary secretary who
talked most of his time about what the blood system of the future
will be.
We are talking about people who were infected in the past. Not
only that, I have a note from Larry Maheu who asks “What about
victims after 1990 when the blood was supposed to be safe?” He
was told by his doctor in Sunnybrook Hospital that the blood
screening was not seriously done until 1993. What kind of
situation did we have prior to 1986? What kind of a situation
did we have from 1990 to 1993? What are we talking about?
Then another member talked about how hepatitis C was not serious
when compared to HIV. Excuse me, the member should ask the
people with hepatitis C. They are sick, and he has the gall to
say that is not a serious matter, that it is a matter of money.
Then the parliamentary secretary says that these people have the
right to go court. What is this nonsense? Of course they have a
right to go to court if they make the wrong decision. Is that
the right decision? No. Government members are making people
who are suffering go to court and suffer again. They are saying
that there is compensation for some people and not for others.
What nonsense.
I am amazed to see government members skirting the issue. Time
after time as I sit in the House I am getting more and more
depressed. We now have one Liberal member giving his time to an
independent member. I am glad he did that, but we can see that
he is running away from the issue because he cannot defend
himself.
Then we have the Prime Minister changing the whole issue and
saying that this is a confidence vote for the government, so that
he can make his members vote not according to their conscience
but according to the threat that they will go into an election.
1530
As my colleague from Macleod said to Liberal members, all we are
asking for is that they look into the eyes of those who are
suffering and make a conscientious decision. We are telling them
that this is not a confidence vote on the government. We are
only asking them to make a morally right decision. That is all
we are asking.
The government is justifying itself by saying it made this
decision with 12 other ministers. Well, yahoo. As far as I
know, before I was a member of parliament, this government did
not listen to the provincial ministers. Now it is justifying
this by saying that the provincial ministers have agreed so it
must agree. That is not what Canadians expect from a federal
government. Canadians expect the government to stand up for them
and not hide behind what the provinces say. It is the
government's responsibility because this is a federally regulated
institution.
Let us assume for a moment that the Minister of Health's claim
that nothing could have been done prior to 1986 is correct,
although I know it is not. If this were the case then the
government would not be responsible for the infection of
Canadians prior to 1986 and, by the government's reasoning, there
would be no need for compensation.
We have the principle that if the government was not at fault
then it would not have to pay. Then why does the government
spend tens of millions of dollars to compensate those affected by
floods and ice storms? The government is not responsible for the
weather, yet the government chooses to compensate those adversely
affected by it. Maybe there are some politics behind this. Maybe
there are more votes to be bought from those people than there
are from the poor victims of hepatitis C.
Perhaps a more compelling example is the fact that this
government has chosen to compensate all tainted blood victims
from 1986 on. The government's premise that it is not
responsible for hepatitis C infection is wrong.
An essential aspect of leadership is to acknowledge when you
have made a wrong decision. This is the time to acknowledge it.
Premier Klein did it. Premier Harris did it. This government
can do it too. It is a matter of compassion.
Why can this government not look beyond the legal arguments and
do the honourable thing? Do not listen to the lawyers, listen to
the people.
The Minister of Health is prepared to spend millions of taxpayer
dollars to battle victims in court.
The minister claims that the health care system will collapse,
that this will be a burden on the health care system. Really? If
a small mistake is such a threat to the health care system then
there is something seriously wrong with it.
I appeal to government members, including backbenchers. This is
not a vote of confidence against the government, it is a vote
that requires us to take a moral stand on a tragic issue. Let us
look the victims in their eyes and tell them that they have our
support.
1535
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I presume from the final remarks of the member that
members opposite consider this to be a free vote issue. I would
hope that if arguments are presented to them which are cogent
they would consider voting with the government when it comes to
the test before the House.
I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to an analogy.
In 1986 there is no doubt that the Red Cross should have done
something about the blood products because screening procedures
were available and the whole issue about liability revolves on
the fact that action was not taken at a time when it could have
been taken.
However, I would point out to members opposite that there is a
clear analogy between having this medical technology available in
1986 and not using it and not having it available to the victims
of hepatitis C before 1986.
I draw the hon. member's attention to parallels like the Salk
vaccine. Would he propose that those who had polio or who
suffered from the consequences of polio should have been
compensated by the government when the Salk vaccine was
introduced? Is he suggesting that all those who were suffering
from the disease before the arrival of the vaccine should have
been compensated, even though the vaccine was not available at
the time they contracted the disease?
It is exactly the same with insulin. Diabetes was a great
killer and a great maimer of people several decades ago. Insulin
was discovered by Sir Frederick Banting. It became available.
Do we assume that the government is therefore liable to all those
people who suffered from the disease before the vaccine was
available or before the medical technology was available to
address that disease?
Penicillin is a great example. Penicillin was known and
available but was not widely used by the medical profession when
it could have been the answer to all kinds of diseases of the
day. Does it mean because penicillin had been invented but was
not widely available in all medical communities that everyone was
liable because of something that was not yet in common use?
I hope they listen very carefully because we are coming to
exactly the same situation now with antibiotics. The efficiency
of antibiotics is deteriorating rapidly. Are we going to hold
governments responsible if a specific antibiotic is prescribed
for tuberculosis but no longer works? Are we going to hold the
government liable for a failure of medical technology?
The government can only be liable when it can affect the
outcome, when it can make the wrong decision that creates the
liability.
As much as our heart goes out to those suffering who contracted
hepatitis C before 1986, the reality is that the government could
not have done anything about it at the time and, therefore, the
government cannot be held accountable for it, in the same way
that the government cannot be held accountable for all the polio
victims and all the people suffering from tuberculosis who will
not get a result from the vaccine.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the
hon. member's question I feel sick.
They are trying to defend something which is not defendable by
coming up with ludicrous ideas. What has insulin to do with
this?
This was a federally-regulated body that had tests, but people
got infected. Insulin was discovered. What has insulin to do
with this? Did a federally-regulated body have tainted insulin
given to people? Is that what he is saying?
What we are saying here is very simple. We are saying that a
federally-regulated body could have stopped this infection,
possibly, had the power to do it and did not do it. There was
negligence.
Compensation has to be given to everybody who was infected. That
is the question. The motion today is to compensate everybody
infected with hepatitis C.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter.
It probably will be one of the most significant debates that we
will participate in during the course of this parliament.
1540
Quite simply, the government's position on the hepatitis C
question represents a betrayal of the Liberal principles and
traditions of going to bat for innocent people, of going to bat
for those who are unable to go to bat for themselves, of
assisting those in need in this country. Liberal principles and
traditions have driven Liberal policy for many years. One of the
hallmarks of the Liberal Party, I thought, was one of being a
fair and compassionate party. Now the government is turning its
back on innocent Canadians who have been victimized not because
of their negligence or oversight but because the system failed
them.
How is it that the small country of Ireland which is one-tenth
the size of Canada can have such a huge heart and provide
compensation for all its victims of hepatitis C? Canada is 10
times the size of Ireland. How is it that the Government of
Canada can be so heartless and cruel? How is it that a Liberal
government can take the position it is taking?
I sat as a Liberal member of parliament for 12 years. I was a
Liberal for many years before then. I was a Liberal when Pierre
Trudeau was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and when he
was the prime minister of Canada. Pierre Trudeau would never
have taken the position that this government has taken. Former
Prime Minister John Turner would never have taken the position
that this government today is taking. Prime Minister King, Prime
Minister Laurier and the entire list of Liberal prime ministers
from Confederation on would not have taken the cruel and
heartless position that this government is taking.
Liberals have been calling me from across the country. Rank and
file Liberals, small l and big L Liberals, are saying
to me that they are ashamed of being members of the Liberal Party
when they see their government abandoning disadvantaged
Canadians. Why does this government have a heart big enough, and
rightly so, to compensate victims of the ice storm in Quebec and
Ontario and to compensate flood victims in Manitoba and Quebec?
Why does it have the political will, the political wherewithal
and the heart to help those people, and yet abandon these 40,000
people? They are not losing property or chattels. They are not
unemployed. These people will lose their lives. Their lives
have been shattered as a result of the negligence of the
Government of Canada and its agencies.
Their families will suffer. We are not only talking about the
40,000 people who have been left out, we are talking about their
families. Their hopes and aspirations have been shattered. Give
them some dignity. Tell them the government cares. Tell them
the government understands what they are going through.
I wonder whether any of those Liberal members across the way
know of any victims or whether they have any family who were
victimized because of the tainted blood scandal in this country.
Perhaps if they had a family member or if they themselves were
inflicted they could understand the pain and suffering that is
going on out there. I do not believe this government understands
the magnitude of the suffering. It is a Liberal government and
that is what is most disturbing. I know that many members across
the way are deeply troubled by this.
What makes matters worse is that Liberal members are being told
they must vote against the motion because it is a vote of
confidence.
What nonsense. What a bogus position to take. What does that
mean? It means those Liberal members across the way will be
coerced and threatened by the whip and by the leadership of the
party. They will be stripped of their responsibilities if they
do not toe the party line.
1545
That is what is wrong with politics in Canada today. Those
people across the way were elected to represent their
constituents, to have some compassion, to be the representatives
of their ridings. Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians according
to a public opinion poll agree that all hepatitis C victims
should be compensated.
Those Liberal members across the way who are going to toe the
party line on Tuesday should be asking themselves who they are
representing. Are they representing themselves because they want
to be on a particular committee or they want to be parliamentary
secretaries or because they want to be cabinet ministers? Are
they representing themselves or are they representing their
constituents?
If they succumb to the pressure of the whip to support the
government and to vote against this motion, they are not only
betraying the Liberal Party and Liberal traditions, they are
betraying their constituents. There will be a political price to
pay. I can assure hon. members across the way of that. They
know in their heart of hearts that the right thing to do, the
moral thing to do, the Liberal thing to do is to compensate all
innocent victims. That is what Ireland is doing.
The Minister of Health, Mr. Compassion himself, a man who would
be prime minister is refusing to show some of that Liberal
compassion, that Liberal understanding which has made Liberal
leaders great over the course of this century and since
Confederation. He uses instead weak and bogus Bay Street
arguments for which he was paid a handsome sum when he was a
lawyer on Bay Street. He uses bogus legal arguments in order to
deny innocent victims their rightful compensation. I say shame
on him.
But is it his decision? Behind the scenes Liberal members of
parliament say it is really the finance minister, that he made
the final decision. He is the guy that controls the purse
strings. These are the people who support the Minister of Health.
The supporters of the Minister of Finance say that no, the final
decision was with the Minister of Health, that it was his
decision.
It really does not matter because ultimately it is the Prime
Minister's decision. If he wants to be remembered as his
predecessors are remembered, as Mr. Trudeau is revered and
honoured and remembered by Liberals and non-Liberals across the
country, as are all his predecessors whom he often wishes to
emulate, he would follow in the true traditions of the Liberal
Party. He would open up his heart and provide compensation to
all those people who are suffering.
The fact that this government is insisting it be a vote of
confidence would suggest how bankrupt it is with respect to
morality. If it was such a right decision, if it was the correct
decision, if it was the moral decision, if it was the Liberal way
of doing things, why has the government chosen to consider this
or deem it a confidence motion?
If it is the right decision, members of parliament on the
Liberal side would vote for it based on the merits because that
is the right thing. They know that the backbenchers on the
Liberal side of the House know it is the wrong thing.
The only way the government can ensure Liberal members on the
backbenches will vote against the motion and in favour of the
government's position on the matter is by deeming it a vote of
confidence, declaring it to be a vote of confidence and then
threatening them like it threatened me. When I decided to vote
against the budget two years ago the government said publicly in
its talking points “he voted to defeat the government and on
that basis he has to be removed from the Liberal caucus”.
1550
That is the same way the government is going to deal with
members of Parliament opposite. Over the course of the remainder
of this day and throughout the course of the weekend the phones
will be ringing. The Prime Minister's office will be tracking
down MPs in their ridings right across the country. They will be
told that it is a vote of confidence and if the member votes
against the government's position, if the member votes against
the leader, the government is going to fall, so the member had
better be there to vote against that motion. That is wrong. It
is immoral, it is unjust and it is unfair. As I said, it is a
betrayal.
The Government of Canada, a previous government, appointed a
royal commission of inquiry. The government's position
challenges the integrity of the royal commission itself. Mr.
Justice Horace Krever in his report indicated “Until now our
treatment of the blood injured has been unequal. Compensating
some needy sufferers and not others cannot in my opinion be
justified”. Let me repeat that: “Until now our treatment of
the blood injured has been unequal. Compensating some needy
sufferers and not others cannot in my opinion be justified”. He
is saying that the position of the Government of Canada today
cannot be justified.
Justice Krever sat through many months of hearings. He heard
witnesses. He looked into the eyes of suffering witnesses. He
heard experts and he came up with the conclusion that to
compensate some and not others cannot be justified. That is what
the government is doing. It is compensating some and not others.
Some 69,000 people were infected and only some 20,000 will be
compensated.
When it came to other Canadians who suffered as a result of
tainted blood, the HIV victims, the government did the right
thing. It compensated everyone regardless of when they
contracted HIV as a result of the blood system. That was the
right decision. The government ought to be consistent and do the
same for all hepatitis C victims.
Getting back to the Minister of Health, on April 29, 1996 he had
this to say in the House: “The answer of course is that when
there are resolutions as there are today involving victims
rights, members of this party”—referring to the Liberal
Party—“vote as they see fit. I already told the House this
morning that I am going to be voting in favour of the resolution
because I share the objectives expressed by the hon. member. I
expect the other members of the government side will vote as they
see fit”.
What absolute hypocrisy. He speaks one way on April 29, 1996
with respect to a certain group of victims in this country and
now he and his government are saying that members cannot vote as
they see fit. They must vote as they are told, not based on what
they believe to be right in their hearts, but based on the
decision taken by the government.
The position of the government today is morally wrong. As the
debate intensifies, Canadians will express their position in
clear and certain terms. The Prime Minister often goes abroad
and talks about the Canadian way, about how Canadians have
compassion, how they are understanding and how they are tolerant.
This is inconsistent. The government's position is inconsistent
with the so-called Canadian way.
1555
As I indicated earlier, the government over the years has seen
fit to compensate victims whether they be flood victims, ice
storm victims or unemployed fishermen in Atlantic Canada. The
Government of Canada has also compensated Canadians who insulated
their homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Remember
that? I suppose those people lost some monetary value to their
homes and because of a government decision, the government felt
it was morally responsible and therefore provided compensation.
How does the government reconcile these decisions to compensate
some and not others?
What really bothers a lot of Canadians, what really irks a lot
of Canadians is that this government finds money, some $80
million, to hand over to Bombardier, one of the most profitable
corporations in Canada. Yesterday it announced record profits,
the most in the history of the company. People are writing their
cheques as we speak to the receiver general as they complete
their income tax forms leading up to the deadline. This is hard
earned money made by hardworking Canadians and the Prime Minister
hands over some $80 million to a profitable company. How can that
be justified? How can he hand over money?
Did it contribute to the Liberal Party of Canada? Does he have
some friends, family or connections on the Bombardier board? I
do not know. It boggles the mind how one set of standards can be
applied to wealthy business friends and another set of standards
applied to poor innocent Canadians who are suffering physically.
We are not dealing with a flooded basement here. We are not
dealing with property damage. We are not dealing with urea
formaldehyde foam insulation in homes. We are dealing with
people who will die. They will die as a result of having
hepatitis C, not because of their own negligence, not because of
the negligence of their doctor. Had it been negligence on the
part of their doctor, at least there would be compensation
through insurance plans. They are going to die. Many will
suffer.
A constituent who lives in my riding has written to me. I will
not quote from her letter. I spoke to her a few days ago and she
knows who she is. She is on Eileen Avenue in York South—Weston.
She told me the impact this has had on her family and the
uncertainty it has created for her, her children and her husband,
the pain and suffering they are going through.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of
Finance are okay. They will go home and sleep well. They are
healthy. Their children are healthy. Their spouses are healthy.
Do they know what it is like to live with the uncertainty of not
knowing what the future might bring as far as their health is
concerned? I think not.
I appeal to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister of
Canada, in particular to the Minister of Finance. I would ask
him to look in the mirror and ask himself what would Paul Martin,
Sr. do on this issue if he were the Prime Minister of Canada, a
position that he aspired to and a position that the Minister of
Finance aspires to. What would Paul Martin, Sr. have done? I
think he will find that in his heart of hearts he knows that Paul
Martin, Sr. would have done the right thing. He would have
compensated all innocent victims of hepatitis C.
It is not too late for this government to admit it has made a
mistake, that it will do the right thing and that it will
compensate all victims. It is not fair that only the victims from
1986 to 1990 will be compensated. All victims should be
compensated.
1600
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member made an allusion in his speech that party
discipline on this side is governed by a punishment process
whereby if we do not align ourselves with the government we may
lose the opportunity for a free trip or a position as
parliamentary secretary.
I understand from the member that he was a Liberal for 14 years.
How many times did he vote against his conscience because he
wanted a parliamentary secretary's job or because he was afraid
he would lose the opportunity for a free trip? Come to think of
it, how many free trips did this member take when he was a member
of the Liberal Party?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute pure
nonsense. That member opposite lacks the spinal backbone to
represent his constituents.
In the years that I was in the Liberal caucus, whenever I was
faced with a choice of voting on the basis of my conscience or on
the basis of what was right for the leader of the Liberal Party,
I always voted consistent with the best interests of my
constituents. I do not know if he knows his history. On many
occasions I voted against the party and the leader, whether it
was on the Meech Lake accord, cruise missile testing or on
cutting health transfers to the provinces. He knows that when I
was a member of the Liberal caucus I did not suck up to the PMO
the way he sucks up to the PMO.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
after the member's 14 years experience in the Liberal government,
what advice would he be able to give his former colleagues and
backbenchers on how they might approach the Prime Minister this
weekend to get him to change his mind?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, very simply they should
not even refer to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's
office will be calling them. The whip will be calling them. When
they have a difficult case the Prime Minister may be making those
calls. If called, all they have to say is “I have a moral duty
to represent my constituents. I want to do what is right. What
is right in this case is to compensate all victims, not to pit
one victim against another. I am prepared to suffer the
consequences of doing what is right”.
Ultimately the people who put these people in office will
understand and separate those members of parliament who stand up
for principle and those who do not. Just ask the people of York
South—Weston.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am in total agreement with the member on this side of
the House. What is happening is totally disgusting. What we are
seeing is a government that just does not care.
We often hear the government side saying that it did not know
before 1986. I believe that in the Krever report it had been put
on alert in 1981. Could the member confirm that for me?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that is where the
Minister of Health and the government are being intellectually
dishonest. They are misstating fact.
The fact is tests existed prior to 1986. Perhaps the tests as
far as the Americans were concerned began in 1986. But Germany
and other jurisdictions had tests. There were mechanisms. There
were opportunities available to Canada in order to prevent the
tragedy that occurred.
Regardless, we should be looking at a no fault system. We
should not be looking at laying blame at the feet of an agency or
government. We should understand that this is the largest
medical tragedy in the history of Canada. We should be focusing
our attention on providing compassionate and fair compensation to
those who are suffering or will suffer as a result.
1605
I urge the government to look at the Irish example, to look at
the way the Irish government is treating innocent victims. It is
making generous compensation available to all victims of
hepatitis C regardless of when they contracted it as a result of
the blood system. That is the model. That is the fair and
compassionate way the government should follow.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very tragic issue. I
sat in utter amazement during question period today as I listened
to members of the government stand up time after time and put
their largest possible smokescreen forward to try to divert
attention away from the fact that we are dealing with the
government's failure to ensure that people who were getting blood
transfusions were getting safe blood transfusions. That is what
we are dealing with here. The government failed. It failed in
the regulatory process to ensure that the health of Canadians was
put first.
Government members have said there is nothing we could do about
it. Prior to 1986 we had no means of testing. We did not know.
Therefore how could we be responsible?
That statement, that premise, is an absolute lie. I know it.
The Liberal government knows it. The Canadian people know it and
most certainly the victims of the tainted blood know it
themselves. They are having to live with it day after day.
How can this government, if it has one ounce of conscience, say
it will take responsibility for those infected after 1986 but not
those before? There is not one substantial piece of rationale
behind that decision that anyone in the world could ever
determine.
Once again the government has clearly displayed that it is
morally bankrupt, that it would prefer to talk in legal terms,
like the Minister of Health is so good at, and talk in dollars
and cents and try to hide behind some decision it came to with
the ministers of health of the different provinces. It thinks
this somehow is the most important part of this discussion.
It totally forgets that the most important part of this
discussion is the people who were infected with hep C, the
victims. They are the most important part of this discussion.
Why can the government not understand this? The government
members do understand it. They know it. They know that the
victims are the most important part of this whole issue but they
will not recognize it because it is going to cost them money,
because they say they have come to some agreement.
This is a very sad day for Canadians. It is a sad day when
victims of hepatitis C who were infected prior to 1986 have to
watch the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister and the Deputy
Prime Minister say that prior to 1986 it is not their fault and
therefore cannot be held responsible. They have to watch the
government leaders stand up one after another and tell what they
know is an absolute lie. Everyone knows that.
1610
These are the facts. In 1981 the Red Cross rejected a
recommendation from its own people to implement surrogate tests,
the ALT test and in 1994 the anti-HBc test. A 1995 study
revealed that their combined use would have lowered the incidence
of post-transfusion hepatitis C by as much as 85%. In 1986 the
Red Cross was aware this testing was being used but did not
implement it in Canada. As early as 1978 the Red Cross was aware
that non-A and non-B hepatitis was getting into the blood supply.
It is unfortunate that Red Cross officials did not appreciate
the significance and the long term implications but they knew it
was happening. How can the government deny responsibility?
During this debate we can talk about the impact on the victims
and about the moral bankruptcy of the Liberal government. I will
address something the Liberal government has the audacity to
stand behind. It has tried to cloud this issue by saying that it
is simply a non-confidence ploy of the opposition parties to try
to bring down the government. It has said that it cannot allow
its own Liberal backbench members to vote the wishes of their
constituents or of their consciences because this must be treated
as a non-confidence motion.
I quote from something referring to opposition supply motions
being treated by the government as non-confidence motions: “This
completely unnecessary and incorrect interpretation of the rules
serves only to create greater frustration and partisanship and it
is urgent that the standing orders be further amended to clarify
that no opposition motion may be considered a matter of no
confidence unless it specifically and explicitly indicates that
it is intended to condemn the government”.
Nowhere in the motion of today is it specifically indicated that
this motion is intended to condemn the government. This motion
urges the government to respect the report of the Krever
commission. That is a wonderful statement. It came from the
Liberal plan for the House of Commons and electoral reform
entitled “Reviving Parliamentary Democracy”. Liberal members
will want to know who was among the signatories to this report,
the person who is now their own House leader. At that time he
was the assistant House leader.
Government members have the audacity to say that this is a
non-confidence motion of some sort and that their members must
vote with the government on it when in this report, which they
prepared themselves and which their current House leader worked
on and was an author to, condemned that very line of thought they
are putting forward now. Not only is this government morally
bankrupt by the way it is handling this case but its members by
their statements today have displayed the highest form of
hypocrisy I have ever seen in my life.
Only one thing can be done on this issue. This government must
recognize the victims and award full compensation to all victims
of hepatitis C, not only those it has put into this convenient
little window.
1615
I end my presentation today by appealing to the Liberal
backbenchers to appeal to their hearts and their conscience that
they would know the right thing to do when this issues comes up
for a vote.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of
comments because as earlier on in the day, the debate has moved
partially away from the issue at hand and on to political
tactics. Political tactics are fine. They are partisan and
everybody who watches this debate understands this is a side
issue that does not have much to do with the motion.
On the substance of the motion, I am sure that all those
following the debate want to be appraised of the issues at hand.
The last speaker along with the other colleague from his party
made references to federal responsibilities and leadership on the
matter of infection. He will know and he will want everybody
following the debate to have a full understanding of all the
players who had a role in the management of the blood system.
I wanted to make some comments so I could have an opportunity to
give them a full appraisal of the issue. He will recall for
everybody who is engaged in the debate that one of those players,
the one responsible for administering the blood system, as of
this coming September will cease to have existed, the Red Cross,
a venerable institution.
Second, the provincial authorities responsible for administering
health care have also participated in this and have put forward a
package for everyone to consider. I know—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just
heard. The Liberals themselves purposely moved this whole debate
away from the issue of compensation. It was the cabinet
ministers, the Minister of Health and the House leader, the
Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister who purposely moved
this away from a compensation issue to hep C victims to a
political issue. That is what happened.
We do have a full understanding that the Krever commission
sanctioned and created by the Liberal government reported that
all hepatitis C victims should be compensated. The government
said it was going to accept that report only if it liked it.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has really put its foot in it this time.
A terrible injustice has been done. I hope that the members of
this government will understand that they have made a blatant
error. I call upon them to recognize that error. Everyone
makes mistakes, but they need to open their eyes to the
injustice here. They need to say that it is not right for some
people to receive compensation while others do not.
I ask my Reform colleague how they can be made to realize that
they have committed an injustice and a mistake.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations in the
Krever commission are very clear. He did not say compensate some
of the hepatitis C victims. He said compensate all of them in
the same way that he recommended a compensation of all the HIV
victims.
1620
The government has displayed a reprehensible attitude on this
issue. I hope once again the backbench members of the Liberal
Party will have enough good sense to look into their hearts and
conscience and when this motion comes to a vote they will vote
what they really believe to be the right thing, not what their
government whip tells them to vote.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is really important to continue the debate on this issue. It
seems we have not yet been able to change the government's mind
on this and we hope to continue to raise the issue until we have
it convinced it is wrong, that it is dividing Canadians into
different groups on the basis that the day before yesterday some
contracted hepatitis C and some did today and so they do not
qualify for help.
In 1993 the federal government commissioned an enquiry to
examine what happened, to look into the regulation, management
and operation of the blood system. It issued a report and made
some recommendations, among them that there should be
compensation paid to those who suffered as a result of it. They
are suffering. They are suffering a lot.
They have not come to Ottawa for a holiday. There is no place
to take a holiday right now. They are here because they are
hurting.
It is not our rhetoric that matters. It will not betray us for
what we are. What betrays us is our actions. High flown words
and intentions do not do anything. It is our actions that speak
loudly.
The Minister of Health said: “We Liberals feel deep sympathy
for those who were infected prior to January 1, 1986”. That gets
them nothing. They cannot take that to the bank. They cannot
live it in health. They cannot work because somebody felt sorry
for them. They cannot put their children through university.
Their wife, who may end up being an early widow, that is not any
help to her. It is not going to help them to and from hospitals
and all the expenses. This makes me sick.
Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians want hepatitis C victims to
be compensated for loss of health, livelihood, years of life,
enjoyment and productivity. Canadians know what is right. Over
there they do not know what is right.
What do they get from the Liberal government? Back alley
brutality. I think it needs to be made clear just what
constitutes the government in this country. When I came here as a
rookie there were seminars held for rookie members of parliament.
What did they say? In Canada we have the government within the
parliament and particularly the government is drawn from the
party with the most members elected. This time it was the
Liberals. The way they are going it will be the last time.
I think it would be a real good idea if we painted all those
chairs another colour so that those members of the governing
party who are not members of the government would be able to see
who they are and see what their relation is in policy development
in their party. That way everybody would know. Everybody would
be on the same line.
I want to draw a couple of parallels since our Minister of
Health was in the previous parliament minister of justice. When
gun control legislation came up, what did he do? He said it is
the right thing to do. They set aside money for it. They have
alienated half the country.
There is a constitutional challenge on it. The government forged
ahead in the face of all that opposition. It said $85 million.
Now it is up in the region of $600 million. This has not stopped
the government one bit from forging ahead with its plan to
implement gun control. It is the reason the Liberals lost western
Canada. It is the reason that the oppositions combined almost
equal the government.
1625
They acted on principle and money was no object. But now when it
comes to hepatitis C and people have been hurt and they are going
to be for life disadvantaged because of their illness, what is
the response? Now it is political consideration. We have all
the provinces on board. But the government does not have the
people of Canada on board.
Yes, it has the provincial health ministers in line just as it
is trying to line up its backbench supporters, but I bet a number
of them will vote for this.
If the government wants to make this a vote of non-confidence
that would certainly please us, but it is not to be a motion of
non-confidence. As a previous member said, it is a motion to
move the government to action. That is what we want to see.
Earlier when the Liberals were the government they compensated
people who had the wrong kind of insulation in their homes
because it might injure their health. there was a statistical
possibility that it may have injured people's health. But did
they know it was a dangerous product when they proposed that it
be put in people's houses? Probably not. Did it matter? No.
They removed the insulation and compensated homeowners for what
was happening.
To get back to my Bill C-68 comparison, the gun control
legislation applies not to criminals but to every Canadian who
owns a gun. But here the government is saying that is too much to
apply a law to those people who have been hurt by tainted blood
products. That is all we are asking. Target this thing. The
government does not have to pay everybody for everything. We
want to see some compassion. There are compelling arguments for
it and they have been made time and time again today.
We heard bogus arguments raised against it like tainted insulin,
as if lack of having treatment was equivalent to mistreatment.
That does not hold water. I cannot understand where the Liberals
are going. As I said, they are not under a vote of
non-confidence here but they are losing the confidence of the
Canadian people. They bring dishonour on this House if they
enforce party discipline to defeat this supply day motion. I
will be ashamed to be associated with this House if it fails.
I call on members from the governing party to join with the
opposition members in doing the right thing and bring honour to
this House by supporting the supply day motion next Tuesday.
I trust there will be a groundswell of support, that people will
be phoning constituency offices across this country to show their
support. I trust that the ministers' fax lines and e-mails will
be loaded by Canadians letting them know, that their phone lines
will be jammed and their mailmen will walk in like Santa Claus
dumping mail on their office floors. That is what we want to see
happen across this country between now and next Tuesday.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
first off, I must say that I am in agreement with the motion
introduced by the Reform member.
1630
I must say, though, that I am a bit confused and I would like my
colleague to explain something to me Since I was elected, I
have been hearing the Reform Party push the Liberals to cut and
to cut some more. They are not interested in equity in health
care or education. Now today we see them calling for equity for
everyone.
I am completely in agreement with them that everyone affected
should receive some compensation. I wonder why we cannot hear
the same thing from the Reformers in the House about how there
ought perhaps not to be different policies for the rich and for
the poor of this country. That is something we often hear from
the Reformers.
They are pushing the Liberals so that we will end up with one
health system for the rich and another for the poor. The same
thing goes for education.
Can my colleague explain why today they have changed their tack
and want everyone to be treated equitably? I wonder why they do
not always support such ideas.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I did not think the
member would be trying to make political hay out of this motion.
The Reform Party listens to Canadians. Eighty-seven per cent of
Canadians want the victims of hepatitis C to be compensated. Also
the Reform Party was founded on a set of principles and it acts
on principle.
I reject the hon. member to the left of me making some sort of
comparison. This is a policy many Canadians want implemented in
the country. Something of this nature is doing the right thing.
It is acting on principle which is supported by the people of
Canada.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I observe that the government is certainly acting on the
situation in this instance. However it is controversial and
there are feelings both ways. Even on our side there are some
problems.
It cannot be anything but a confidence vote now because of the
rhetoric from the other side. I allude to a speech by the leader
of the NDP in which she said that the Canadian government now had
the opportunity to act with compassion and end the battle being
fought by the wounded. Then she said that instead of acting with
fairness and justice the government has drawn an arbitrary line,
et cetera.
When a government tries to do the right thing and the rhetoric
comes from the opposite side saying that the government is acting
without principle, there is no choice but to treat the motion as
a confidence motion.
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I will just quote his own
health minister speaking in 1996:
The answer of course is that when there are resolutions, as there
are today involving victims rights, members of this party vote as
they see fit.
I already told the House this morning that I will vote in favour
of the resolution because I share the objectives expressed by the
hon. member. I expect that members on the government side will
vote as they see fit.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some people have mentioned that the intent of the motion
was not to help the victim but to unite the right. Can he
confirm if that is the case?
Mr. Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, if this unites Canadians
against what the government stands for on this issue, so be it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Bras D'Or, DEVCO.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to urge members to vote against the motion
presented by the Reform Party.
The motion is about an agreement announced on March 27 and
entered into by all of Canada's health ministers, that is to say,
all 10 provincial governments, the 2 territorial governments and
the federal government.
1635
What does this agreement say? On March 27 Canada's health
ministers announced that the federal, provincial and territorial
governments were offering $1.1 billion of assistance to Canadians
infected by the hepatitis C virus during a time when some of
these infections might have been avoided had the Canadian blood
system responded differently. The compensation offered is $800
million from the federal government and $300 million from the
provinces.
All Canada's governments recognize the harm caused to a group of
Canadians during the 1986-1990 period. The health ministers from
all the governments involved representing four different
political parties agreed it was right and appropriate to offer to
assist these Canadians because during the period in question the
Canadian blood system could have taken certain risk reduction
actions but did not do so.
When governments provide financial assistance surely it should
be in situations where government action or inaction resulted in
harm. I am told, and I do not claim any expertise in these
matters, that prior to 1986 there was no consensus in the
international medical scientific community on how to accurately
test for the virus then known as hepatitis non-A, non-B, which we
now call hepatitis C.
What is very important is that the motion in effect expresses a
lack of confidence. It attacks the decision not just of the
federal government but of the 10 provincial governments and the 2
territorial governments. We are dealing with an agreement made
by all of them. This is an agreement in which today all the
provinces and the territorial governments, as far as I am aware,
remain part of. They are steadfast in supporting this agreement.
The hon. member who just spoke suggested that the provincial
governments were out of touch with their constituents. That is a
strange comment coming from a Reform member. He is attacking,
and I will be talking about this later on in my speech, the
government of Premier Klein. Is he saying that government is
totally out of touch with the people who elected it? Is he
saying that the government of Premier Harris is totally out of
touch with the people who elected it? I suggest it may well be
on a number of issues, but the Harris government is steadfast in
support of this agreement.
Clay Serby is not just the minister of health in the NDP
Government of Saskatchewan. He is spokesman for all the
provinces and territories on this issue. He said on April 7,
according to the Toronto Star:
Provincial ministers, along with the federal health minister,
remain committed to the deal announced in Toronto. As health
ministers from every province, we worked together to reach a
consensus on this very difficult issue. This was not an easy
decision to reach. This is a very complex issue. We have come
up with an approach that is national in scope, fair and
reasonable.
Elizabeth Witmer, the Ontario minister of health in the
Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris, said on April
7, as quoted in the Hamilton Spectator:
There has been a very careful analysis and a decision was made.
I support the decision that was made.
[Translation]
Here is what Jean Rochon, Quebec's health minister, said in a
letter sent to our health minister on April 12, 1998. As you
know, Mr. Rochon is a minister of the Parti Quebecois, which is
affiliated with the Bloc Quebecois here in the House.
Mr. Rochon said “I feel that our program is justified and that
we made a fair decision. Our respective governments have
recognized that, between January 1986 and July 1990, action
could have been taken to prevent infection, since a screening
test was scientifically recommended during this period”.
[English]
If the federal position is wrong, is the provincial position not
wrong as well? Yet neither the Reform Party nor any of the other
opposition parties in the House have said one word, not one one,
to criticize the compensation agreement, the one entered into by
all provinces and territories and their ministers of health.
1640
As I say, if the federal position is wrong then why is the
provincial position, taking part in the same agreement, not wrong
as well? That is not what the Reform Party or the other
provincial parties are saying.
The Reform Party has not criticized their friends and allies,
Premier Harris of Ontario and Premier Klein of Alberta. They are
especially careful not to say one word about Premier Klein's
support of this proposal.
The last speaker talked about how the Reform Party is a party of
principle. I thought one of the principles of the Reform Party
dealt with federal-provincial relations. The Reform Party is
quick to blame the federal government if it does not agree with
the provinces because in the Reform's opinion provincial
governments are closer to the people.
If that is the case, why does the Reform Party not listen to the
provinces it usually defends on this issue? Based on its
response in other cases, one might expect the Reform Party to
congratulate the federal government for achieving agreement
between all the provinces and listening to the views of the
provinces.
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois has not made a single criticism of the
position of the Government of Quebec, its leader and the Bloc's
former leader, Lucien Bouchard, or the Parti Quebecois.
[English]
The NDP has not said one word of criticism against Premier
Romanow and his NDP Government of Saskatchewan, not one word of
criticism against Premier Clark and his NDP Government of British
Columbia.
The Conservative Party in this House has not said one word of
criticism on this matter against the position of the Binns
Conservative Government of Prince Edward Island, against the
Harris Conservative Government of Ontario, against the Filmon
Conservative Government of Manitoba or against the Conservative
government of Premier Klein of Alberta.
The opposition parties would have a lot more credibility on this
matter if they used their opportunity to speak in the House to
say something about the provincial governments they are allied
with. They are not saying anything about the positions of those
provincial governments.
They are not saying one critical word when they have had over
and over again opportunities to do so. Of course they say things
about the federal government's position on this difficult matter,
but if they are to be considered credible why do they not get up
in their place and say the same thing about the provincial
governments?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. Deputy
Prime Minister would excuse the Chair, is it the member's
intention to split his time?
Hon. Herb Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In that case the
Deputy Prime Minister has a minute and a half left.
Hon. Herb Gray: Please give me a firm signal when that
point is reached.
By remaining silent in this way they show, for all their claims
of support of free speech in this matter, that these claims do
not amount to very much.
Why are members of the NDP not using their right to speak in the
House about their Saskatchewan government which has not changed
its position? Why do they not say what is wrong with this
agreement?
The same applies to the Conservative Party in the House and its
lack of criticism of its provincial allies.
[Translation]
Why is the Parti Quebecois saying nothing?
[English]
This lack of criticism shows the weakness of the position of the
Reform Party and the other opposition parties in the House. It
shows that there is no real merit in their position.
Members in the House should consider carefully their position on
this serious matter. When they do so, I think they will agree
with me that members of the House should vote to oppose and
defeat this Reform Party motion.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister says that there has been no criticism levelled at
the provincial governments. It is funny that a federal member of
parliament, facing the federal government that has the primary
responsibility for being the policemen of the blood system, would
criticize someone else.
The federal government has $800 million in the compensation
package compared to $300 million from the provinces. Let me make
very clear that the federal government is the main culprit in
this issue. It deserves the main criticism in this issue.
1645
I have a quote from Krever and this says it plainer than I could
concerning the federal bureau of biologic:
During the 1980s, the bureau did not decide independently
whether to use its authority to require that measures be taken to
reduce the risk of non-A, non-B hepatitis. Instead, it relied
heavily on information given to it by the Red Cross—
The very organization it was supposed to regulate.
That is why the federal government is being so criticized for
this foolish decision.
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understood the provincial
governments all during this period were partners with the federal
government in the blood system. If the federal government is the
only one to blame then why did the provincial governments join in
the agreement? They joined in the agreement because obviously
they felt they had some responsibility. The Reform member does
not have the courage to get up in this place and point the finger
when it should be pointed at provincial governments instead of
just pointing it at the federal government.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the Deputy Prime Minister
after following his career over the years. But as a new member in
this House I am ashamed of what he is saying.
He knows damn well this is a federal agency that is responsible
for the hep C victims and he also knows damn well there has been
$7 billion cut from health care and that is why the provincial
governments were coerced into this agreement. That is exactly why
these governments have been sucked into this deal by the federal
government.
It is the federal government that should be showing leadership
on this, not the provinces.
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have a federal system
where provinces have their authority and the federal government
has its authority. In some cases there is overlap and they have
to co-operate.
Is he saying Premier Romanow is a wimp and could be coerced by
the federal government? Is he saying that Premier Clark of B.C.
is a wimp on this matter and can be coerced by the federal
government? That shows the lack of credibility in his position.
If they did not think they had some responsibility and that the
agreement was right, those provincial allies of the hon. member
would not have joined in. We know that to be a fact.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
something really struck me when the hon. Deputy Prime Minister
began speaking.
He said he urged the members of this House to vote against the
motion. I wonder if I can take that to mean that is all it is,
urging his own members, or is he simply urging the opposition or
are they applying caucus solidarity on this thing? It is an
interesting word he used. Have they withdrawn from their
position that this is a vote of confidence and they are enforcing
party discipline?
Hon. Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am looking the hon. member
in the eye and I am saying he is wrong and I urge him to vote
against this motion. I say that to all members of the House but
principally I am facing the opposition members because we have
stated our position as a party. We believe in it and we stand by
it.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have listened to today's debate with great interest but one
striking feature of the debate in the House today is that among
those who have spoken in favour of this resolution, not one hon.
member has confronted the true question at issue.
The true question is whether governments should make cash
payments to those who are harmed through no fault of anyone but
because of risk inherent in the medical system.
I intend in the few moments permitted me to deal with that
question and to examine it. In doing so I urge all members to
put aside the rhetoric, put aside the inflammatory words and the
high sounding language of fairness and moral duty and instead
confront the real question.
It seems the opposition parties have failed to confront that
real question. They paper over that question because it is very
tough. It is a very difficult question to answer. Ministers of
health of this country came to grips with it some weeks ago and
we concluded that we had a position on when governments should
pay cash payments to those who are injured through no fault of
anyone but because of risk inherent in the medical system.
The easy course, naturally, would be simply to pay those who are
making a claim upon the government.
Ministers of Health are custodians of Canada's health care system
and we have a larger responsibility, a responsibility to show
leadership on these tough questions and confront them directly,
no matter how difficult they may be.
1650
This issue is larger than just those infected with hepatitis C.
Hon. members know that every year there are thousands of people
in this country who are adversely affected by the health system
through no one's fault but because there are risks inherent in
it.
Last week researchers identified what they felt was a source of
many deaths in hospitals every year because of adverse reactions
to prescription drugs. This was brand new research and they said
the figures in Canada are staggering.
We all know there are those who have adverse reactions to
vaccines, anasthetics or to prescription drugs or who have high
risk births delivering babies with brain damage who will need
special care for a lifetime.
In the absence of fault, if it is a risk inherent in life or in
delivering medical services, where is the obligation of
governments to pay cash to those who are harmed in that way? That
is at the root of this difficult issue. This is not the first
time we have had to confront that issue.
In 1990 governments in Canada, because they were concerned by
the rates of medical malpractice insurance by doctors and the
number of claims for compensation, established a commission that
was chaired by Dr. Robert Prichard who is now president of the
University of Toronto. The Prichard commission was made up of
distinguished Canadians, including the then dean of medicine at
McGill University medical school, Dr. Richard Cruess, Madam
Justice Ellen Picard of the Superior Court of Alberta who has
written a definitive text on hospital and doctor liability, and
Dr. Gregory Stoddart, one of the leading health policy analysts
of this country. What did they conclude? They concluded in
their recommendations the following:
We recommend the development of a no fault compensation scheme
for persons suffering significant avoidable health care injuries.
We recommend that the general criterion for determining which
significant medical injuries are compensable under the
compensation scheme should be the test of avoidability. That is,
the principal inquiry to determine if an event is compensable
should be whether, with the benefit of hindsight, the injury
could have been avoided by an alternative diagnostic or
therapeutic procedure or by performing the procedure differently.
They specifically recommended that the same test be applied to
those who are injured through the blood system. That is exactly
what the ministers of health have done in this instance.
We looked back over the chronology of events and asked when was
it, in all that happened, that these injuries were avoidable. So
when is it that no fault compensation should be offered? History
shows on the balance of the evidence that it was between January
1986 and 1990 that avoidable element occurred.
It is true to say there were tests here and there in different
parts of the world and in different states earlier than that but
broadly speaking, the evidence of those who know is it was by
January 1986 that steps should have been taken. They were not.
That is when the avoidable injuries occurred.
What should governments do about people before 1986?. What
should we do about the victims who suffered the unavoidable
injuries by virtue of risks inherent in the health system before
January 1986? Among other things we should focus research on
trying to find ways to treat and hopefully cure the infection. I
have asked the chair of the Medical Research Council to take
whatever necessary or appropriate to focus research priority on
hepatitis C.
We must also do whatever we can to minimize risk in the future.
We will be accepting the recommendations of Mr. Justice Krever in
terms of the federal watchdog role, putting into place more
elaborate controls over the safety of the blood system in the
future. I will be coming back to this House with more particulars
on the steps we are taking in that regard.
We must accept responsibility for that period when the injuries
were avoidable. That is why we are contributing $800 million as a
federal government to a compensation fund which will total $1.1
billion, more I hope if the Red Cross joins us, offered to those
in the category who suffered injuries that were avoidable, 22,000
plus victims in that category. That was on the agenda because of
federal leadership. It was only in the last year that the
federal government put that agreement together among all the
provinces.
It is easy today to suggest that we should simply write a cheque
for all those who demand it. We are responsible for maintaining
a public health care system in this country and it will not be
sustainable if we simply pay cash to all those who suffer harm
not through anybody's fault but because of risks inherent in the
system.
That is what happened here before January 1986.
1655
When we hear the colourful language from the opposition parties
today, when we hear them talk about our duty to the sick and the
vulnerable, when we hear them talk about our moral duty, let us
remember that as custodians of Canada's health care system we
have no greater duty than to ensure that medicare is going to be
there for those who are sick when they need it.
We have no greater moral responsibility than to safeguard
medicare for the very hepatitis C victims who will require
treatment as they develop symptoms and their condition
deteriorates. We have no greater obligation of compassion than to
ensure that our public health care system remains affordable and
sustainable.
We shall not do it if we follow the course suggested by the
other side because next month or next year there will be others
who come forward with claims equally as compassionate, with
demands equally as desirable, equally as emotional and they too
will want money. Where will it end? It will end with
governments paying out cash compensation regardless of fault to
all who have an emotional claim and will end with a country
unable to afford or sustain its health care system.
The moral high ground does not rest with those who urge that
easy course. The true moral high ground is with those on this
side of the House with the courage to stand and say we will take
the tough decision on the difficult question we face. The true
moral high ground rests with those in the government who will
stand in their places next Tuesday and vote against this motion
not because we are callous, not because we lack compassion, but
because we are responsible for a public health care system that
cannot and will not continue if we take the course the opposition
urges.
I encourage all members of the House to consider the
implications of this difficult and wrenching dilemma but to
confront the real question that lies beneath it. Can we sustain
our public health care system if we make cash payments to all
those who are harmed by the health care system, regardless of
fault, merely because of the risk inherent in the process?
Infection with hepatitis C through the blood system was just
such an inherent risk before January 1986. As a result I say we
should conduct research, we should do whatever we can to prevent
such injury in the future, we should accept responsibility for
the period when we should have acted, but I oppose this motion
because it is not the proper policy.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to hear the legal arguments from the health minister.
I note publicly that the minister referred only to legal
precedents on this issue.
I accept his point that government should not pay cash
compensation to people who are injured when there is no fault. No
fault, no compensation I accept. But in this instance can
anybody convince me that there was no fault, can anybody convince
Judge Krever, our premier expert on the blood system, that there
was no fault? He said it plainer than I could ever say it. The
federal government regulator failed the public.
All I will say is that Krever is our expert. The health minister
has turned down his expertise. He says that the members in this
House will not vote for this motion because it is the right thing
to do. I say the Liberal members will not vote for this motion
because they are being coerced and forced and pushed into the
hole. Argue with that if they will but every single person in
Canada knows that is true. If it is not true, take off the whip.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon.
member has said, I urge him to withdraw his motion. If he limits
the entitlement to cash compensation to those circumstances where
government was at fault, then he ought to withdraw his motion. If
he reads the Krever report he will see that the weight of the
evidence had that it was January 1986 onward that Canada should
have acted. Before January 1986 there was no fault on the part
of government. The hon. member knows it.
That is why Mr. Justice Krever recommended no fault across the
board. We do not accept that. But the hon. member has just
conceded the point on this motion and he ought to withdraw the
motion.
1700
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
support entirely what the member for Macleod said. The minister
is attempting to use a legal argument to get rid of this so his
responsibility will disappear. At the end of the day it falls at
the doorstep of the Minister of Health. There is only one
national Canadian Minister of Health and he is dodging the
bullet. He prefers to put the blame on someone else. However,
at the end of the day he is charged with the safety of the
Canadian blood supply system. It is as simple as that. He
cannot dodge that bullet.
I hope that members on the other side of the House will ignore
the threat or the stick being held over them, or, as the member
said, the whip that is being applied to them to bow in and vote
with the government on Tuesday night. The minister is being
surrounded by a ragtag assortment of supporters; just simply a
handful. There are 150 empty seats over there and they do not
support the minister on this issue.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): First of all, we do
not refer to members who may or not be here, and when we do refer
to each other we refer to each other through the Chair.
Hon. Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, what is striking about the
intervention is that the hon. member will not deal with the tough
underlying issue. He will not confront the question. I put it
simply. When should governments pay compensation? Should they
pay cash compensation to those who are harmed through the medical
system not through anyone's fault, but because of the risks
inherent in the medical system? The member will not answer that
question.
He accuses me of having a legal analysis as if it is some sort
of condemnation. The Prichard committee in 1980 was not a legal
analysis. It was made up of health care experts who understood
health policies. Their recommendation was to do exactly what
ministers have done in this case, which is good public policy.
The member will not confront the question because he knows where
it leads. It leads to the conclusion that this motion is
ill-founded and inappropriate. The very person who moved it, the
hon. member for Macleod, has conceded that it is without
foundation. He has conceded that if there is no fault there
should be no cash payment. The history of this matter shows that
he has just cut the ground out from under his own motion.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on this
motion about which I and my party are deeply concerned and will
be supporting on Tuesday night.
I wish to refer to what we have heard in this House today. We
have heard that people with hepatitis C lead normal lives. We
have heard that people with hepatitis C who will not be
compensated can go the CPP disability route. We have heard
unbelievable statements from the other side of the House today
that the provincial governments should show leadership in
changing the government's view on hepatitis C.
These statements are absolutely unbelievable, coming from
so-called educated people on the other side whom we call Liberals.
History will prove that this government is probably one of the
cruelest, craziest and silliest governments of all time. History
will prove me right on that.
It is just unbelievable that the Minister of Health can stand
here and deflect like a stick-handler in hockey. Unfortunately
he cannot score. He never has and he never will. The
unfortunate part is that there are 40,000 people and their
families who are infected by hepatitis C who will not be
compensated. He stands there and says they have emotional
claims. When people die, when people get sick, when people are
injured by this disease he says they are basing their arguments
on emotion only. He would not know a hepatitis C victim if that
person lived in his basement. It is most unfortunate.
I have a few questions to ask the minister, if he ever cares to
answer, in letter form, privately or whatever.
Does he agree with his parliamentary secretary that people who
do not have hepatitis C compensation can go the CPP route?
I know in my riding that hundreds of people try the CPP
disability route and it takes years to get processed. In the the
end, when the tribunal awards it to them, the Minister of Human
Resources Development can turn around after 90 days and deny the
claim.
1705
My colleague from northern Saskatchewan was in this House and
presented a compelling question to the Minister of Human
Resources Development. It was about a young man of 26 years who
had no legs and was missing an eye. He was denied CPP
disability. If an individual of that nature can be denied CPP,
how in the hell can they stand in this House and tell us that
people who have hep C can go—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I have no idea how
he is going to know, but he is not going to know using that
language.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I will
refrain from using such strong language.
It is only because of my strong feelings on this particular
issue. I feel that everybody with hep C in this country should
be duly and fairly compensated. With that remark I will end my
comments.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to the debate today with considerable interest.
Obviously it is an issue that has gripped the country. People
are quite aware of the issue now. They have followed it very
closely and I think that Canadians are always compassionate.
When we look at the facts in this case we cannot help but
support the position taken not only by the Reform Party but by
all oppositions parties. I should pay tribute to members of all
parties who have spoken today in the interests of standing up for
Canadians. I say that of members of the opposition.
Let us go back through the chronology. In October 1993 the
government appointed a commission. It appointed Justice Krever
to look into the contamination of the blood system. We had an
interim report in February 1995 and a final report in November of
last year. In that report Justice Krever made the recommendation
that all victims should be compensated.
We know, for instance, that AIDS/HIV victims going back to 1978
were compensated. They were all compensated. Justice Krever has
made the judgment that all of the victims of hepatitis C should
also be compensated.
I point out to the health minister that it is the justice who
this government appointed who is making that recommendation. It
is not another government, it is his judge who chaired the
commission to bring forward these types of recommendations. We
are simply pointing out that it is the government's own committee
with its own expert review that has made these recommendations.
We are simply asking them to listen to Justice Krever's advice
and to do as he suggested.
It is not only in Canada that this advice has been followed. We
have heard over the last couple of days how the Government of
Ireland eventually had to yield to considerable public pressure
because of the public's superior moral conscience which forced
its government to pay compensation to all victims.
I would urge the government to listen to its own conscience and
to finally come around to the point of view that it must start to
compensate all victims.
The government has drawn an arbitrary line. It says January
1986 is the point at which it will start to pay compensation. As
other members have pointed out, in other parts of the world
testing was already under way, going back to 1981, which would
have detected hepatitis C.
I point out in response to questions from the health minister
that when a federal body takes on a responsibility to regulate
something like the blood system, implied in that is
responsibility and culpability.
When the federal government steps in as a regulator the public
has the right to assume that the government is taking all
reasonable steps to ensure that it is doing its job, that it is
getting the best possible information and that it is reaching out
around the world to find out, in this case, whether or not there
are tests available to determine whether there are things like
hepatitis C lurking in blood. It did not do that and it should
therefore be culpable. It is that straightforward.
1710
The justice minister wants us to absolve the government of all
blame. He is essentially justifying not paying compensation on
the basis of the tardiness of the regulating agency to use other
tests that were available around the world. The regulating
agency was responsible for not utilizing all the available means
to ensure that the blood system was safe. If it did not take
those steps, then it is culpable. It is that straightforward.
I say in response to the health minister's speech of a few
minutes ago that the regulating agency simply did not do its job.
It simply did not use all available means at the time, which is
why Justice Krever ruled that everybody should receive
compensation.
The second point I want to go to is the idea of a free vote. I
say to the health minister, the former justice minister, that if
he is so convinced of his position, then allow this issue to go
to a free vote. If he really believes that the federal
government has no more responsibility previous to 1986 then let
us ask him to put his position on the line with his own members.
If he really believes in that, let us ask him to put his position
on the line. Does he not trust his ability to make a persuasive
argument to his own caucus? Let us let the people's
representatives make that decision.
Today in the House we know that the leaders of the respective
opposition parties got up and said “We do not view this as a
vote of non-confidence. This is not a confidence motion”.
We also know the government has spoken in the past. It has
written volumes about how it would allow more free votes. We
view this issue as a moral issue. We say that this is an issue
whereby the public should have the right to be represented by
their representatives in the House of Commons. Let us have the
government now finally put its money where its mouth is. Let us
have it actually bring this motion to a free vote in the House of
Commons on Tuesday.
We know there is a three line whip. People are being called
back from all over the country. They are being told to be here,
not to vote freely, but to vote against the motion, to vote
against their own consciences, to vote against what their
constituents are telling them.
No matter what theory of representation they believe in, they
cannot possibly believe in one whereby the government says “it
is my way or the highway” irrespective of what the public is
telling them, irrespective of what their conscience tells them,
especially when opposition party members have said they do not
view this as a confidence motion.
I conclude my remarks by saying that if the government truly
believes it is on the moral high ground here, then let us put
this issue to members in a free vote. That is the true test.
That is the real way to find out whether or not the government's
arguments have carried the day. Because if those arguments are
as persuasive as the health minister thinks they are, the
government will have no problem carrying just a very few members
on the government side that it will need to win the vote.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the questions on the
motion are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is
deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday,
April 28, 1998, at the conclusion of Government Orders.
1715
[English]
Is it agreed that we call it 5:30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
withdraw all funding from the federal Court Challenges Program.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Court Challenges Program by way of
background is an independent corporation based in Winnipeg that
receives $2.75 million of public money every year. It
distributes this money to interest groups so that those groups
can then argue their views on the meaning of the charter of
rights and freedoms in the courts.
In the 1994 contribution agreement between the program and the
government, the overall objective of the program is very
carefully stated. It says “the objective of the program is the
clarification of constitutional rights and freedoms”. Note the
word clarification.
The Court Challenges Program was not charged with the task of
advocating specific interpretations of constitutional rights and
freedoms. Its role in this process of clarification was to be a
relatively minor one having to do with money. It was to provide
interest groups with the money needed to present their charter
interpretations in the court. Obviously, the judges are the ones
who by their rulings must do the actual work of clarifying
Canadians' rights and freedoms under the charter.
The problem with the Court Challenges Program is that it does
not know its place. Its ambitions go well beyond its mandate. It
is not content simply to handle the money side of things and let
the courts decide the merits of various arguments. It has set
itself up as judge and jury over the interest groups that apply
for funding. For example it has been very welcoming to groups
that promote gay rights, socialism and radical feminism. But
interest groups that bring contrasting viewpoints to the courts,
viewpoints which judges need to hear in order to render informed
decisions are denied funding altogether.
The Court Challenges Program thus violates section 8.3 of its
contribution agreement which says that the program shall fund a
broad range of individuals and groups. The program has been
anything but broad and inclusive.
This kind of blatant bias is made possible by the lack of
adequate, unambiguous criteria for funding decisions. It often
happens that when governments decide to fund interest groups,
they are unable to answer the question: On what basis did you
support one group and not another? In the absence of clear
criteria, there is no other way for funding decisions to be made
than in an ad hoc way which leaves too much to the discretion of
the person who happens to be making the funding decisions.
In a 1992 study undertaken at the request of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs Canada, four researchers concluded that various
strict procedures needed to be followed in the process of
determining which groups would receive government funds. Among
those procedures was a process for arriving at some fair criteria
for funding decisions. It involved four stages.
The very first stage was that of writing a draft statement of
criteria. The second stage was the distribution of that to all
affected parties, stakeholders. The third stage was the unbiased
consideration of comments on those proposed criteria from the
affected parties. Last was the publication of the final
criteria.
The authors write that at a minimum, what seems to be required
is clearly articulated rules, which are applied equally to all
with a stake in the activity and administrators who are obliged
to adhere to those rules.
The Court Challenges Program is a notorious transgressor in this
regard. Its criteria for making decisions are extremely vague
and are therefore susceptible to manipulation by the Court
Challenges Program's obviously biased decision makers. Most
importantly, since the Court Challenges Program can only fund
cases that deal with equality rights under sections 15 and 28 of
the charter, the Court Challenges Program decision makers have
taken it upon themselves to in effect define what that equality
means when clearly that should be left to the judges.
How is it that the Court Challenges Program could be as biased
as I am saying it is? The reason for such consistently biased
funding decisions is clear. The members of the Court Challenges
Program board of directors and also of its equality panel which
makes the actual funding decisions are also members of those very
same groups that wind up getting funded.
1720
It is a very clear conflict of interest. The organization has
no checks and no balances that would serve to guard it against
partisan and biased decision making. Instead the government has
written these groups a blank cheque by giving them control over
the organization that disburses public money for charter cases.
Let us look at an example of an interest group that has been
treated unfairly, in order to highlight the bias at the Court
Challenges program. REAL Women of Canada is an organization
whose approach to women's equality seeks to be sensitive to the
needs of other members of society, including unborn children. On
many issues, their view contrasts with that of the Women's Legal
Education and Action Fund or LEAF for short. Time and again,
REAL Women has been denied funding by the Court Challenges
Program while LEAF has been consistently handed out cheques.
There have been six court cases in which both groups
participated on opposite sides of an issue. In all six of those
court cases, LEAF's bills were paid by the Canadian taxpayer via
the Court Challenges Program but REAL Women had to struggle to
scrape together the necessary funds.
There is no logical reason for this inequality and
discrimination against the group REAL Women. Regardless of what
one thinks of the views of this group, it is clear that its
positions on various issues are representative of the views of a
large number of Canadian women. How large that number is is not
my present concern, but it is clear that the Supreme Court has
regarded this organization as worth hearing in court since it has
consistently granted REAL Women intervenor status. Yet the Court
Challenges Program whose equality panel is cut from a different
ideological cloth than REAL Women has consistently refused to
grant funding to REAL Women.
What is most shocking is the written response the Court
Challenges Program gave to REAL Women after the group applied for
intervenor funding in the Borowski case. Here is how REAL Women
describe what happened in a letter written this year concerning a
period in the mid-1980s: “In its refusal the Court Challenges
Program stated that our view”—REAL Women's view—“of equality
was not in accordance with the accepted and current understanding
of equality both by society and the courts. This was back in 1987
when the courts had barely dealt with equality issues under
section 15 of the charter which came into effect only in 1985”.
Only two years later and the response is that their view or
understanding of equality does not fit the set understanding of
equality in society and in the courts. Two years later. It is
really quite a far stretch to imagine that it would already be
that set at that point. “To add insult to injury, the Court
Challenges Program enclosed an analysis or critique of our
Borowski factum written by Rosalyn Curry, a member of LEAF, which
was opposing us in the case”.
Imagine. The Court Challenges Program wanted an expert to
examine REAL Women's application for funding and just happened to
choose a lawyer who was a member of LEAF, REAL Women's arch
rival.
The Court Challenges Program is clearly usurping the role of
judges by deciding whether or not a group's legal arguments have
merit. They have appointed themselves the justice system's
gatekeepers on charter cases of crucial significance.
There is other disputable evidence of bias at the Court
Challenges Program. Quite tellingly when the courts have not
ruled in favour of one of the Court Challenges Program's
favourite groups, the program's literature subsequently portrays
that decision as a great setback for justice and equality. That
makes it clear that the Court Challenges Program is not
interested in letting judges clarify the rights and freedoms we
have under the charter, which is their mandate, their reason for
existence. Rather the organization is itself an advocacy group
whose true objective is to help its friends in the left wing
advocacy business.
That was even acknowledged publicly by one of the funded groups
EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere. In their
newspaper Capital Extra, they told their readers as
recently as November 14, 1997 “federal funding for the Court
Challenges Program means that you have an advocate”. It does
not get much clearer than that, straight from the mouth of the
gay lobby.
1725
I would like to raise a question which I find interesting
concerning how the Court Challenges Program might fare if it were
ever itself subjected to a court challenge. I enjoy thinking
about this. A 1994 supreme court case dealt with the very issue
of selective funding of interest groups. It throws some
interesting light on the Court Challenges Program.
The Native Women's Association of Canada argued that the
government had unfairly denied it funding and a seat at the table
in the so-called Canada round of constitutional consultations
that led up to the Charlottetown accord. Four native groups did
receive direct funding and a seat at the table but NWAC was not
one of them. The group argued that its freedom of expression had
been violated as well as its equality rights under the charter.
There were some interesting ideas in terms of the judges'
reasons for their decisions. Some interesting ideas emerge which
are helpful to us in our consideration of the motion before us
today.
The court ruled that a government is free to choose its advisers
as long as it does not base its choices on discriminatory
grounds. Writing for the majority, Justice Sopinka said that the
government must be free to consult or not consult whomever it
pleases. There is nothing illegal about a government funding
some groups and listening carefully to them while totally
ignoring others. So far so good.
Let us be careful to realize that Judge Sopinka's words about
the acceptability of bias toward different interest groups
applies to governments but not to the judiciary. It would be
completely unacceptable for judges to want to hear only one side
of an argument and to completely ignore and not even hear
arguments from the other side. If they did so the public would
lose confidence in the courts pretty quickly.
That is why the Court Challenges Program is such an absurd,
offensive and unjust program. It may sometimes be acceptable for
the government to listen to arguments on only one side of an
issue but the government cannot and should not spend money in the
hope that the judiciary will be subjected to one-sided
argumentation.
The government can choose its own advisers but it must not
choose the judiciary's advisers. However that is the effect of
the Court Challenges Program. By funding this biased
organization, the government is meddling in the affairs of the
judiciary. It is attempting to determine which interest groups
will be able to press their case in the courts.
There is another thing which we learn from this supreme court
case. The court ruled that the government's decision to fund the
four aboriginal groups but not NWAC, it was not based on
discriminatory grounds. The decision was based on a procedural
preference and not a gender preference. The NWAC argued that the
four groups were pushing a male dominated view of aboriginal
self-government but the evidence did not support this. It showed
that the four funded groups adequately represented both men and
women in native communities and that there were no barriers to
NWAC's working within those four groups and thus having a voice.
Not only were these groups open to working with NWAC but two of
them gave $260,000 of their government funding to NWAC precisely
to assist the group in presenting its views. It is instructive
that the courts clearly assumed that NWAC's equality rights would
have been violated had the evidence shown that those four groups
were biased against women and did not represent the views of
native women.
It is clear from Judge Sopinka's ruling that the decision would
have been different had the evidence shown that the four groups
hand picked by the government to represent native Canadians were
hindering NWAC's participation in the aboriginal consultation. If
we apply Justice Sopinka's reasoning to the Court Challenges
Program, the program comes up short.
First, the positions advanced by the Court Challenges Program
are not, and I underline are not, representative of the views of
the interest groups that have been denied funding. Second, all
the evidence shows that the Court Challenges Program is indeed
biased against the views of many of the non-funded groups. They
do not give out dollars to those groups with whom they differ.
Third, unlike the four aboriginal groups that opened their doors
to make room for the NWAC to participate in the constitutional
process, the Court Challenges Program has no interest in working
with groups it regards as ideologically suspect. Fourth, unlike
the four aboriginal groups which redirected $260,000 of their
funding to the NWAC, the Court Challenges Program has not
directed any money to groups whose views it does not share.
1730
For all these reasons I brought this initiative forward. Let
me read it into the record again:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
withdraw all funding from the federal Court Challenges Program.
I seek unanimous consent of the House to have the motion before
us deemed adopted and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The question of whether there will be
unanimous consent for adoption and passage of the motion is not
up for decision since the motion is not votable. Is the hon.
member asking that the matter be made votable?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Adopted and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to adopt
and pass this motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and defend the Court
Challenges Program, anything which assists in putting meat on the
bones of the charter.
We know that a right in law is not much use to somebody who
cannot afford it or does not have the means by which to enforce
it. To hear members of parliament suggest that having a right
and having the inability to enforce it is nothing other than a
taking away justice for those people is surprising.
We have a modest program which is available only to those who
are disadvantaged in our society who are contending that their
charter rights are not being respected to historically
disadvantaged groups and those who have over time suffered most
at the hands of the majority. One would have thought that
members of parliament would be here to protect those very people
and to do what they could to ensure their rights are protected
and enhanced.
The program is a modest one. It provides modest support to
those who have a case to make. The decision whether to support a
program does not, as the member for Wanuskewin suggested, mean
that the Court Challenges Program is doing the job of the court
or this House. The Court Challenges Program and the experts who
are there to dispense these relatively modest amounts are of the
view that the case is one which is in the public interests to
debate and one in which the person bringing it forward in the
public interest is in need of some support in order to do that.
The program is unique and fundamentally an important one in the
sense that it provides the opportunity to generate some
substantive equality in Canada where that is presently not in
place. It is limited in funds and it is limited to challenges to
federal laws, policies and practices.
I ask those who would want to throw this program away do they
not see some benefit in that program. Is their desire to throw
that program way driven by ideology and not by common sense? I
cannot believe that the member who wants to get rid of the Court
Challenges Program would not be in support of the Court
Challenges Response in assisting, for example, the Eldridge case,
a deaf women to assert her right to sign language interpretation
when she is communicating with physicians in her quest for health
care.
Is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong
with ensuring that a woman who is deaf and who can only
communicate through sign language can assert her right to be
accommodated so that she can be treated as everyone else? I
cannot believe that many in Canada would oppose assisting a woman
in that situation.
Neither can I imagine that there would be many in Canada who
would oppose the support to persons of colour who work for CIDA
and who are asserting that there has been systemic racism in the
employment practices of that department. It is not whether it is
true. Surely we would want to support those who assert that it
is true and who are affected by a practice which we would all
condemn. Are there many in this country who would say that we
should not as a society support someone in that quest to
eliminate racism in a federal government department?
Those who are saying we should get rid of this program would I
suppose say that is not a very important question, racism in
employment practices in government departments. I contend that
most Canadians would disagree with that.
1735
What about the case of an Indian woman who is being denied the
right to participate in band elections? We hear a lot from the
Reform Party about the need for accountability in Indian affairs.
Here is an opportunity to support someone who is trying to ensure
that there indeed is greater participation, greater democracy in
Indian band elections. Would there be many who would
legitimately complain about that?
What about the case of Tracey Smith, an aboriginal woman with
children in both the United States and Canada? She is
challenging immigration policies which prevent her from freely
crossing the border to be with her children. We hear much from
the Reform Party about families. Why would we not assist this
mother to clarify this plainly unfair situation? Why would we not
assist her so that she can be with her children, her family? I
find it odd that those who argue so strenuously that they speak
for families would not assist a mother to be with her children.
I am sure that few would disagree with the Court Challenges
Program in its assistance to disabled persons. We know for
example that immigrant status is generally denied to persons with
physical disabilities. We must all have experienced the case of
members of a family wanting to immigrate to Canada and finding
they are faced with a choice of leaving their disabled child in
their country of origin or in another place and coming to Canada
with the rest of their family or not coming at all.
We should support those who try to resolve those kinds of
disputes, the kind of thing the Court Challenges Program looks to
assist a person with.
We have also experienced significant difficulties on behalf of
our constituents with disability pensions. I am sure we have all
seen the unfairness of that system. Why would we then not
support the Court Challenges Program when it assists a disabled
person to challenge the eligibility requirements for disability
benefits which have adversely affected them?
It seems this program has provided a useful service to
Canadians. It has enabled us to ensure that rights contained in
the charter of rights and freedoms mean something to those who
otherwise would not have the means to enforce them.
There are many cases in which the Court Challenges Program has
provided Canada and our society and our community with
significant benefits. Take the case of Mark Benner.
He was born of a Canadian mother and an American father in the
United States. Children born abroad of Canadian fathers do not
have to apply for citizenship. Canadians born overseas of
Canadian mothers do, which is a plain discrimination.
Why would anybody think it would be undesirable to assist Mark
Benner in clarifying and changing this situation? Is there
something justifiable about that discrimination? I think not.
Would it not be useful then for us as a community and a society
together to provide some support for that case?
The case which seems to have raised the member for Wanuskewin's
ire most of all is that which is being brought and supported by
the Court Challenges Program by Dr. Ailsa Warkinson from
Saskatoon regarding section 43 of the Criminal Code. That
provision provides a defence to a charge of assault against a
child victim, that is child abuse, to a parent or a teacher who
uses reasonable force for the purposes of correction.
There are a number of cases identified by Dr. Warkinson in which
that argument, that defence, has been used to gain acquittal even
in serious assault cases against children.
1740
I cannot fathom any reason why anybody would want to be
critical, oppose or stop either Dr. Warkinson or the Court
Challenges Program in trying to do something about a very serious
problem and, if we are really concerned about children, something
we should be very seriously concerned about.
It is disturbing to see an obsession with opposition to anything
governments do overriding common sense and overriding something
that has been useful to many individual Canadians and to us as a
society.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on this motion today to speak against it. The
issue we are debating is of great importance to Canada. It
touches the heart of what defines our country. It deals with the
core attributes of modern democratic societies. It focuses on the
ideal of equality before the law which Canada pursues actively
and for which it is recognized internationally.
I think it is ironic that today of all days we would be debating
this motion when there is a delegation of members of parliament
from South Africa touring today. That country has modelled its
own program after the Canadian program.
The issue is the Court Challenges Program, which the opposition
would like to kill. This program is a symbol of the Canadian
commitment to democracy. It is also a tangible demonstration of
our progressive Canadian identity.
We on this side of the House, and I gather members over there as
well, are proud to have created this program and to have
reinstated it in 1994 after a previous government discontinued
it.
This government firmly believes that in a free and democratic
society fundamental rights have to be protected and interpreted
by the courts in a manner that reflects contemporary society.
When the Liberals reinstated the Court Challenges Program at a
time of severe fiscal restraint, we made a deliberate choice at
that time because the government is committed to and believes in
a Canada where fundamental rights are respected and furthered.
In April of this year we signed a new contribution agreement to
secure additional annual funding of $2.75 million for this
program until the year 2003. The government stands by that
commitment and is therefore not supportive of the motion we are
debating today.
The Court Challenges Program was first established in 1978 to
assist court challenges in relation to language minority rights.
In 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into
force, entrenching basic freedoms and democratic, political,
legal equality, language and aboriginal rights, and the
fundamental law of the land. That same year the mandate of the
program was broadened to include language rights guaranteed under
the charter.
In 1985 the government expanded the program further to include
funding for equality rights cases arising under section 15 of the
charter. The program has played a significant role in bringing
before the courts those cases which have helped to define and
advance language and equality rights guaranteed in the
Constitution. It has already led to a number of key decisions and
its usefulness has already been very well established.
Examples in the area of equality rights include the Andrews case
on the overall definition of the concept of equality, the Swain
case on the rights of mentally disabled people, the
Tétreault-Gadoury case on the rights of persons over the age of
65, the Canadian newspaper case involving the provisions in the
Criminal Code which protect the confidentiality of sexual assault
victims, and the Butler case concerning the constitutional
validity of the Criminal Code pornography provisions.
In the area of language rights there were the Forest, Société
des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick and Mercure cases concerning
legal bilingualism, the reference re Manitoba in 1985 and 1992
and the Sinclair case concerning legislative bilingualism, the
Ford judgment on freedom of expression and the right to use
languages other than French on public signs in Quebec, and the
Mahé case on the education rights provided in section 23 of the
charter.
The Court Challenges Program was designed to provide access to
the courts for groups and individuals who would not otherwise be
able to challenge government policies and practices related to
constitutional and charter rights.
1745
It provides a means for enforcing and clarifying the law. Since
1985 the program has received over 1,000 applications for
funding. The program has funded several hundred challenges and a
number of them made their way to the Supreme Court of Canada
where judgments were rendered favourable to the group or
individual funded in almost half the cases.
The program had some 350 language rights and equality case files
before it when it produced its most recent annual report in March
1997. Clearly there is a need to pursue the program and to
develop further charter jurisprudence in the areas of language
and equality rights.
Canadians will be pleased to know that third party evaluations
have confirmed that the program is well administered by an arm's
length, non-profit agency with representatives from the private
bar, non-governmental organizations and academics. It has clear
rules and procedures for providing funding.
The program provides assistance only for test cases of national
significance involving federal and provincial language rights
protected by the Constitution of Canada as well as challenges to
federal legislation, policies and practice based on section 2 of
the charter dealing with fundamental freedoms and sections 15, 27
and 28 dealing with equality and gender equality.
Funding proposals are reviewed by two independent panels: the
equality rights panel and the language rights panel. Members of
the panel are chosen by independent selection committees after
consultation with over 300 community groups.
Members of the selection committees and panels volunteer
hundreds of hours of work to pursue the clarification of
constitutional rights all of us have. They play an important
role in building a free and democratic society in Canada. The
government takes this opportunity to thank them for their work
and dedication on behalf of all Canadians.
As reflected in its decision of 1994 to reinstate the Court
Challenges Program the government is committed to advancing
constitutionally based equality and language rights. Allowing a
variety of voices to be heard on these rights is essential to
maintain the social, economic and cultural vitality of Canada
that has distinguished our country internationally and that all
Canadians can be proud of.
The program plays a pivotal role in ensuring the ongoing
adjustment of the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in protecting the rights of all Canadians.
With the support of Canadians the government will continue to
support the Court Challenges Program in the years to come. All
Canadians and all citizens of the world can be proud of this
accomplishment.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my Reform Party
colleague. This motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
withdraw all funding from the Federal Court Challenges Program.
I would like to tell the House immediately that the Bloc
Quebecois is strongly opposed to the member's motion, having
given it lengthy and honest consideration.
The Court Challenges Program was created to fund legal cases
having to do with the defence of equality and linguistic rights.
In moving such a motion, it is evident that my Reform Party
colleague is unaware of the importance of preserving these
rights in a society such as ours.
Section 15 of the Charter protects the right of every citizen
not to be subjected to discrimination. Is there any right more
important than that of equal recognition for every individual?
A society cannot claim to be free and democratic if it does not
adequately protect the right of its citizens to be treated
without discrimination. With this in mind, we must make the
necessary tools available so that those whose rights have been
trampled can demand appropriate redress.
Some members are apparently under the impression that it is easy
to take a case of discrimination before the courts.
It is important to know that victims of discrimination think
twice before launching into a long and costly legal proceeding.
The grounds for appeal against unjustified discrimination are
not always easily determined. The line between what is
considered discriminatory and what is considered a justified
distinction is sometimes a very fine one.
It is therefore essential that these people be able to count on
something like the Court Challenges Program to help them obtain
justice.
1750
The program provides financial assistance for cases appealing
legislation that may deny rights to equality. It also, and this
is very important, helps people express their linguistic rights.
Once again, I would point out the implication of the recognition
of language rights. Section 133 of the Constitution of 1867
provides for the optional and mandatory use of the French and
English languages. Furthermore, the charter of rights and
freedoms contains certain provisions on protecting the use of
the official languages.
Some will claim, and rightly so, moreover, that language rights
are not sufficiently promoted. French language services are
certainly not provided all across Canada. Language rights are
as important in a society such as ours as equal rights. It is
through language that people express themselves and make
themselves understood. Language provides expression to our
emotions, our dissent, our approval and our feelings.
Democracy cannot function properly if the public cannot make its
voice heard. Justice will not be served if those who come
before the courts cannot make themselves understood there in
their own language.
The reason the court challenges program supports people wishing
to protect their language rights is to preserve the delicate
balance between the official languages. The program provides
funding for preparing court cases and for pre-trial research.
The court challenges program is essential to ensure that
everyone has access to justice. That said, what explanation can
there be for the hon. member's proposal that the program funding
be terminated? This is incomprehensible. One would have to be
very short-sighted and narrow-minded to propose such a thing.
In proposing such a motion, the hon. member will certainly
attempt to find support in the policies of the former
Conservative government, which had decided to put an end to the
program, to kill it.
It is important to keep in mind that the Minister of Justice of
the day, Kim Campbell, the colleague of future Quebec Liberal
Party leader Jean Charest, had used the difficult economic
climate of 1992 as justification for termination of the
program's funding
At a time when the federal budget surplus could reach several
billion dollars, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding
the hon. member's motion. I am not, moreover, alone in
wondering what lies behind the Reform member's proposal. I
would invite him to justify it to the members of the Fédération
des francophones de Saskatchewan, who are this very day here in
Ottawa calling for their province to become bilingual.
In a release issued today, the president of the federation said,
and I quote “The ethnocide of the French-speaking minority has
always been perpetuated by provincial governments in areas such
as education, health and social services, while the federal
government looked the other way”. In such a context, it is
completely inconceivable that a member would dare to move the
withdrawal of funding from this program.
In addition, in its June 1992 report, the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons—the Bloc was not
there at the time—concluded that the program played an essential
role by giving individuals access to the courts. The Court
Challenges Program has become indispensable to the development
of equality and linguistic rights case law.
The Bloc Quebecois feels not only that funding for the Court
Challenges Program must be maintained, but that improvement of
the program would be justified. I urge my colleagues opposite
to give this some thought.
The inequality that has existed with respect to historically
disadvantaged groups is justification for preserving such a
program. We must ensure adequate access to the courts and make
it possible for rulings having to do with the violation of
equality and linguistic rights in our society to be enforced.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Reform Motion No. 327. The
motion, as has been stated, already calls for the government to
withdraw all funding for the federal Court Challenges Program,
the program presently administered out of Winnipeg.
It was mentioned by the member proposing the motion that the
money currently available is $2.5 million. As described by my
colleague in the New Democratic Party, this is really a modest
sum when one looks at the overall money spent in the present
court system relative to what the government spends on a single
case. For example, the Airbus case would probably double that
total budget.
1755
The federal Court Challenges Program was established in 1968, as
indicated by the Department of the Secretary of State, to fund
challenges to federal and provincial language rights protected
under the Constitution of 1867. The overall objective clearly
was to clarify rights and freedoms as protected by the charter.
In 1982 the program was expanded to include language rights
under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1985 the
administration of the program was vested in the Canadian Council
on Societal Development.
In 1990 it was moved to the human rights research and education
centre at the University of Ottawa. In 1992 admittedly the
Progressive Conservative government cancelled the Court
Challenges Program based on the need at that time to cut spending
and the deficit. It was subsequently reinstated, as has been
indicated in the Chamber, by the Liberal government in 1994.
However there is an historical fact that needs to be on the
record, and that is that the Campbell government was prepared and
had a platform that called for a reinstatement of a program
similar to one that was in place. I will speak to that later in
my remarks. Were it not for a slight electoral shift that
occurred in 1993, which some might call an earthquake or even the
earth opening up and swallowing us whole, the program would have
been in place in a somewhat revised form.
Since then and what we have now is a fiscal situation where the
deficit has been harnessed much through the work of previous
administrations and those policies that were carried on by the
current government. This brings into question the basis of the
motion questioning the funding and the motivation behind the
particular program.
Parliamentarians have to stop and question the legitimacy and
the necessity of a program such as this one. The federal Court
Challenges Program has been of real benefit in several important
legal decisions in the country. The program allows Canadians to
clarify the Canadian charter rights that exist. However it was
not intended to give a perpetual fund for lobby groups,
particularly lobby groups that may have some spurious intent. The
suggestion that we should cancel the program outright is the
usual solution we sometimes hear in the Chamber where we throw
the baby out with the bath water.
The suggestion I will be putting forward is that the program is
necessary, but there are perhaps some improvements that could be
made. There has been mention of the fact that the program is
susceptible to manipulation and perhaps abuse if that money is
made too readily available. This can be addressed by having
assurances in place that a strict criterion must be met, a
criterion with respect to the cause and the need. That currently
exists. As in all situations involving boards and
administrators, what we have to see is a more diligent approach
and perhaps a more proactive effort made to ensure that the
criterion is met.
Obviously what the country does not need and what our legal
system does not need is more spurious challenges to the court. We
have seen in recent years Canada becoming an overlitigious
society. We see the courts called upon daily to rule upon issues
that seem to me, and I am sure to some Canadians, to be issues of
common sense that could be applied and settled far from the
chambers of the courts.
That being said, the Progressive Conservative Party and I
believe there is legitimate need for a program such as this one.
The government should remain committed to equality rights for all
Canadians and should therefore continue to support a program that
will flesh out or allow a forum for individuals who feel
oppressed to access resources they might need to pursue those
rights in the courts.
I think there can be no other or no more important purpose for a
fund such as this one.
1800
Thousands of charter rulings in the courts have been handed down
in recent years. These decisions are critical to the operation
of our justice system and to the operation of Canadian society
generally. Morals are sometimes shaped there. Ideological ideas
are given a forum for discussion. Legal issues are explored in a
more detailed fashion.
We have become a more rights oriented society as a result of the
charter. However the charter of rights and freedoms has also
become an agent of change in this country. Pursuing cases through
the courts is a critical and crucial part of this avenue for
change.
The court process of course can be very long and arduous. It is
a process that at times is beyond the reach and beyond the
economic capacity of some individuals who wish to challenge
rights or infringements of their rights.
Calling for a blanket removal of this fund I suggest is not the
answer. It was for these very reasons that the original program
was put in place, to establish test cases which deal with certain
provisions of the charter. It does not mean that this program
should be abused or that charter rights should be brought forward
at every turn of the road.
A further suggestion one might make with respect to the
improvement of the federal Court Challenges Program would be that
one could perhaps look at reducing or in some ways adding to the
funding by the invitation of other groups in the community being
permitted to contribute to the fund itself.
I would suggest that provincial bar societies might be
canvassed. Other civil rights groups that feel strongly that
this fund should remain in place should be invited to contribute.
I suggest that this would in fact enhance the present program.
It would also recognize the importance of ensuring that this
mechanism which is available for bringing forward significant
test cases to clarify the charter law would continue.
The Conservative Party of Canada has always embraced this
concept. We would put forward the suggestion that we could
improve and build upon the present program. That is not to say
there should be more money necessarily poured into it by
government, but it should be open perhaps to other sources for
funding. Adapting the present program is a suggestion we put
forward.
The new charter law program might also differ from the actual
federal Court Challenges Program in that it would be used to test
federal laws not only under equality of language provisions of
the charter, but also under fundamental freedoms provisions such
as those of freedom of speech, conscience, religion and others.
There does not have to be a trend toward either a left wing or a
right wing movement or challenges in the court. It should
certainly be open. Again I refer back to the necessity of
criteria.
Tightening the requirements and the criteria would be the way to
combat some of the suggestions put forward by the mover of the
motion that have led to the abuses.
Another way or a new way of administering the program would also
have the double advantage of reducing federal funds without
killing this existing program. The purpose here is not to
encourage lengthy and costly court cases, but to build upon the
charter law and the usefulness this program provides.
Before approving any funding for a court case, the program would
have to satisfy the issue of it being a new and significant issue
and one of national significance.
This brings me to the closing point I would like to make.
Unfortunately there is an emergence in Canada where courts are
being called upon ever more to delve into the area of policy. It
is extremely important that the parliamentary process and the
sanctity of parliament in making and passing laws be enhanced and
always be buttressed by those who arrive in this chamber.
In closing I would just say that the courts should be satisfied
that they are not the exclusive defenders of the charter. For
the reasons I have set out, we cannot support this motion.
1805
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge your indication of the time and I want to make sure
my colleague has the opportunity to sum up at the end of the
debate.
I want to follow on the comments of the hon. member who just
spoke. I found it interesting that he on the one hand calls for
accountability through the democratic process and for policy to
be shaped by the democratic process, yet intertwined in his talk
is support for the Court Challenges Program. I found a real
inconsistency when we look at what is actually going on here.
My experience prior to coming to this great House was that I
worked in a business environment and had some exposure to certain
business practices. One of the things that is brought to mind is
the generally accepted accounting principles and practices that
are norms and structures for the business environment.
Why are those principles put in place? They are there to ensure
that business processes are structured in such a way that there
is not even the appearance of a conflict of interest or the
appearance of misuse. They protect the processes against any
kind of misuse. The problem with the Court Challenges Program is
it does not have that kind of protection for the taxpayer.
One of the new terms we have heard coined in Canada lately is
the term of judicial activism. I see that as the will of special
interest groups using unelected judges to override the
parliamentary or democratic process which if successful imposes
the will of the minority on the majority. This is of particular
concern to us with this program.
Since the charter of rights, and the hon. member who just spoke
made mention of this, many social policy debates have shifted
from the political arena and from the democratic process into the
courts. My concern and the concern of many of the members of my
party is that special interest groups are imposing their
particular positions on the will of the majority.
Policy matters should properly be handled not by taxpayer funded
special interest groups presenting their cases before unelected
judges but by common support and elected representatives debating
and deciding these issues in parliament and legislatures. This
is the foundation of our country, the democratic process, yet we
are seeing it overridden by programs like the Court Challenges
Program.
I quote an example. The Lawyers Weekly, in a 1992 issue
stated that 75% of the Women's Legal and Education Fund, LEAF for
short, which is known as a feminist activist group, had
interventions before the Supreme Court of Canada which were
funded by the Court Challenges Program. Many of their
interventions were funded by this program. The group LEAF
intervened on a number of cases. Borowski, Daigle, Lemay and
Sullivan were all cases dealing with the laws around abortion. In
these same cases another group, REAL Women of Canada, had also
been granted intervenor status by the Supreme Court of Canada but
they were refused funding by the Court Challenges Program.
Regardless of where one sits on these particular cases or on
this issue, there is a fairness issue here that is obvious. Even
if one is going to endorse this program one would think there
would be some component of fairness. But when one side of the
argument is funded and not the other and it is done in such a
heavily weighted fashion, there are clearly some significant
problems with the process.
These are the kinds of examples which illustrate that certain
groups with certain ideologies and certain opinions are being
endorsed and funded by taxpayers. I liken it to being forced to
pay someone to beat you up with a stick. That is what is
happening to Canadian taxpayers thanks to this program.
I know my time is short so I will move to my concluding remarks
to ensure that my colleague has time to summarize.
1810
Our party's position is that we would like to ensure that the
foundation which built this country, the democratic process that
gives Canadians an opportunity to shape policy in the public
arena but not through the court system is what is entrenched.
Those are all detailed in our policy. We stand behind them and
that is what members will see in the House as we represent our
positions.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member
but his colleague has five minutes to reply. The hon. member for
Wanuskewin has five minutes, if he wishes to use it, and I should
advise the House that if he speaks now he will close the debate.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there has been a fair bit of a thread of fallacy that has run
throughout the speeches that have been made today. It is the
fallacy that these cases would not be heard, that there is no way
they would have their day in court if it were not for the Court
Challenges Program.
I need to state for the record and for the Canadian public that
is blatantly false. It is untrue. These cases have been, can be
and will continue to be heard in the courts quite aside from
court challenges funding. It is important for language rights
and equality rights cases to be heard and they can in fact be
heard without the Court Challenges Program.
There are other means by which, as they say, poor dispossessed
groups that do not have the resources can achieve resource to
take issues to the courts. There are wealthy individuals. There
are foundations. There is legal aid as well, which is a very
good suggestion because it is based on a means test. If those
people have a valid case they can have it brought forward and
paid for by the taxpayer in that manner.
What we have here is a major problem. The Court Challenges
Program in my view is not committed to equality as clarified by
judges but rather to their own predetermined understanding of
equality. They already have this set idea of what is equality.
Then they only allow in and shunt down the road those who meet
the particular definition. As we said before legal aid is one
means. There are others, as I have suggested, that could be
explored as well.
The Court Challenges Program funds interest groups, not
individuals. The hon member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
referred to Ailsa Warkinson, a lady out of Saskatoon, my home
city, who had to link up with a group because she had not been
corporally corrected and therefore was bringing her case forward
on that basis. Rather it is an interest group. It is a group
with a cause, with an agenda.
Also we mentioned before that there were groups. I read from
one group that makes the point that “there are many court cases
in which we did not intervene or initiate simply because we
lacked the funds”. They did not have access to the Court
Challenges Program because they did not meet the definition of
equality of that biased group which sits on the Court Challenges
Program board. These other groups are cut off, shut out and not
allowed in. In every case we have been opposed by organizations
which were funded by the Court Challenges Program.
Then there is the myth of disadvantaged groups without access
that have been made much of today. There are groups that have
wanted and needed the funding, that do not have the resources or
do not have the reserves. They have been put at a decided
disadvantage because time and time again they have been turned
away and not allowed any access to the Court Challenges Program.
The charter recognizes certain disadvantaged groups. It is
natural, the myth goes, that they should get funding to help them
catch up to the rest of us. If that were the case, both sides of
the argument need to be heard. Both sides need to be heard in
court. That remains. We go to court presuming that one side is
right. Therefore there is a necessity in a democratic system, in
a proper judicial setting, for both sides to be heard.
As my colleague before me mentioned we have had this great beast
of judicial activism beginning to rear its head in Canada, this
judicial imperialism, the end run around democracy, usurping the
supremacy of parliament. The Court Challenges Program is trying
to re-engineer society and set the social policy agenda. It is
doing an end run around the elected representatives of the people
of Canada.
If groups with social causes want to push an agenda, if they
want to push a cause célèbre, they should put a candidate forward
at election time. They should get involved in the political
process and push that agenda as hard as they want. That is their
right. They should not attempt to do it by way of an end run
around the courts, usurping the supremacy of parliament.
Obviously I object to the Court Challenges Program. I will
attempt once again to seek unanimous consent of the House to have
the foregoing motion before us deemed adopted and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
motion be deemed adopted and passed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
1815
[Translation]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and this item is dropped from the Order
Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
DEVCO
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
after rising in the House on March 16 to ask the government about
the future plans for Devco I was attacked by the Minister of
Natural Resources who, when asked by a fellow government member
about the Liberal position on Devco, the Donkin mine and other
issues of grave concern to the people of Cape Breton Island,
resorted to the worst form of heckling and insult.
I was accused of not thinking of my constituents, but of trying
to save the skin of the NDP. Regardless of what the hon. member
thought my motives to be, it was clear that I had no need to
worry about saving the skin of my party, as we are all aware of
the stunning defeat suffered by the Liberal government on March
24 and of the NDP's rise to official opposition status.
Perhaps the minister and the House would also be interested to
know that of the seats on Cape Breton Island that went NDP, the
two with the biggest majorities are in the areas where coal
mining has been the way of life for hundreds of years. Those are
the people who stood on March 24 and rejected the party that has
hurt them and their communities, which has refused to listen and
to speak honestly.
I hope that this latest political rejection of the Liberal Party
will be noted by this government and we can now start a new era
in relations between this federal administration and the people
of Cape Breton, an era where justified and factually supported
questions are no longer dismissed as fear mongering, where
questions are answered instead of questioners being attacked, and
where the people of my island are treated as equals with those
from any part of this great country.
I hope that this new era will begin. As the weeks pass I grow
more and more concerned that the process of closing down the coal
industry is continuing with increasing speed. Since I last spoke
on this issue, the international coal piers have been closed,
shutting Devco coal off from the export market for at least two
years.
It is easy for the government to comment on Devco's inability to
make a profit, but it should also be critical when the crown
corporation is cutting itself off from valuable future markets.
While more and more miners are being placed on indefinite layoff,
the latest Devco revelation comes in a letter I received this
week from the tripartite task force on fires and explosions in
coal mines that expresses grave concerns over the shutdown of the
coal research lab in Sydney earlier this year. The lab, which
was urged to expand its activities in the report on the Westray
disaster and whose necessity has been reinforced by the recent
coal mine disasters across the former Soviet Union, was closed
down despite objections from the industry and from the task
force, which itself is a government funded body.
We have a government body questioning and condemning the actions
of the government. More than that, in a copy of a letter from
1996 included with the pleas to restore funding to the research
lab, the former chair of the task force talks of how he has been
made aware of a government plan to shut down the lab if it cannot
be privatized.
The orderly shutdown of Devco continues. The government
continues to hide the truth. Why is this government helping
Devco to shut down its future by destroying the corporation's
ability to develop new markets and new technologies? I have
asked this question so many times. I hope you will indulge me
one more time, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the government will take
advantage of the changed political landscape and start a new
relationship based on open dialogue with the people of Cape
Breton.
Will the government release its real plan for the future of
Devco and come clean with Cape Bretoners?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
my hon. colleague for her intervention.
This is not her first intervention on this particular issue of
an allegation of a secret plan to shut down Devco. I am sure it
will not be her last, for the simple reason that the hon. member
has found considerable grief in being subjected to the worst form
of heckling and insult by the Minister of Natural Resources in
responding to the continuous litany of accusations that there is
a privatization plan to terminate the operations of Devco.
The minister has responded with what has been called the worst
form of heckling and insult; that being, of course, the truth.
But there is no such plan to terminate the operations of Devco.
The hon. member may find that heckling and insulting, but that
may be because the truth may sometimes foil a good story.
The story being perpetuated by the member is not very helpful to
the operations of Devco, nor is it helpful to the management or
to the orderly operations of this firm which is quite capably
developing an economic opportunity for the people of Cape Breton.
I am concerned with the hon. member's continual insistence that
this strategy exists. The secret cabinet document that was
referred to has been found not to be a secret cabinet document at
all. Frankly, it does not exist. The allegation, being quite
false, is not very helpful to the workers of Devco. I plead once
again for the hon. member to cease and desist and to work with us
to explore the truth for a change and to continue in supporting
this corporation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
81.
(The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m.)