36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 99
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 5, 1998
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENSURING ACCESS: ASSISTANCE FOR POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXTRADITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-40. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1010
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1015
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
1040
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1045
1050
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1055
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1100
1105
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1120
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1135
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1140
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1155
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1210
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1225
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1250
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1255
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1300
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1305
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1310
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1315
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1320
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1325
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1330
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1335
1340
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1355
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUDGE LEE GRAYSON
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1400
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELIZABETH FRY WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMILIES
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1405
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN HOCKEY TEAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MENTAL HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1410
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FRESH WATER
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE ROBERT DE COSTER
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FINANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1420
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1425
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1430
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM BUG
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1435
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASSISTANCE TO ICE STORM VICTIMS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASSISTANCE TO ICE STORM VICTIMS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1440
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1445
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
1450
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1455
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1500
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on Health
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1505
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1510
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1515
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Questions
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1520
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1525
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1530
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1535
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1540
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1545
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1550
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1555
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1610
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1625
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1640
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1655
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1710
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1715
1745
(Division 134)
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
1755
(Division 135)
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-27. Second reading
|
1800
(Division 136)
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-30. Second reading
|
1805
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA STUDENT LOANS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1810
1815
1820
1825
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1840
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1905
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1910
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1915
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1920
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multinational Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1925
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
1930
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BC Mine in Black Lake
|
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1935
![V](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 99
![](/web/20061116181656im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 5, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
ENSURING ACCESS: ASSISTANCE FOR POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108,
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two
copies of the government's response to recommendations made in
the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities,
entitled Ensuring Access: Assistance for Post-Secondary
Students.
* * *
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 four petitions.
* * *
[English]
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the second report of the standing joint committee on
the Library of Parliament.
* * *
EXTRADITION ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-40, an
act respecting extradition, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the
Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, and to amend and repeal other
acts in consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Canadians, including from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is a honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners also concur with the national forum on health
which stated that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that choose to provide direct parental care in the home
for their preschool children.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on parliament to
pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against those
families that choose to provide care in the home for their
preschool children.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is signed by 75
residents of the city of Quesnel, British Columbia in the
constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin. They request that parliament
impose a moratorium on ratification of the MAI until full public
hearings on the proposed treaty are held across the country so
that all Canadians can have an opportunity to express their
opinion about it.
HEALTH
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 75 residents of the
city of Quesnel in the constituency of Cariboo—Chilcotin who
request that parliament deny the right of any board of group to
remove or confiscate natural herbal supplements until public
hearings are held across the country.
1010
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
despite the fact that the MAI talks have been suspended, and we
hope for good, petitions continue to roll in from across the
country from thousands of Canadians who are concerned about the
MAI and the fact that the government still has not given up the
idea of a multilateral agreement on investment similar to that
which it was seeking at the OECD.
Therefore I have petitions from various provinces calling on
parliament to reject the current framework of MAI negotiations
and instructing the government to seek an entirely different
agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based, global
trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the
ability of governments to act in the public interest.
The opportunity is now for the government to do this. Given
that the talks have broken down, we hope the government will
finally listen to the many thousands of petitioners who have been
asking it to do this.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition
from 525 residents of the province of British Columbia who are
concerned about the hepatitis C debate that is ongoing in Canada.
These petitioners draw the attention of the House to the
following. Whereas the majority of Canadians are in favour of
fair compensation for all victims of tainted blood; whereas
research indicates that the validity of the surrogate testing was
available in 1981 as opposed to the 1986 year stated by the hon.
health minister; whereas the number of infected individuals
appears to have been dramatically overstated by the Minister of
Health; therefore the petitioners pray and request that
parliament revisit the issue of hepatitis C compensation to
reflect the concerns of the citizens of Canada, to offer a fair,
compassionate and humane compensation package to all who received
infected blood.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also have
a petition which sounds like it came from the same group of
individuals. Many of these petitioners are from British Columbia
and they are also calling on the federal government to change its
stand on hepatitis C.
These petitions are coming in vast numbers and will not stop. As
the victims have said, they will not go away until the federal
government changes its mind. There have been some chinks in the
armour and these petitions will carry on until that takes place.
TAXATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions this
morning. The first petition is signed by residents of
Burnaby—Douglas and other British Columbians.
It points out that the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982
guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and it urges
parliament to establish peace tax legislation by passing a
conscientious objection act which recognizes the right of
conscientious objectors to ensure that their commitment to apply
a portion of their taxes that was to be used for military
purposes to instead go toward peaceful purposes such as peace
education, war relief and humanitarian and environmental aid,
housing and so on.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is similar to that tabled by my
colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona.
It calls on parliament to reject the current framework of MAI
negotiations and instructs the government to seek an entirely
different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules
based, global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the ability of governments to act in the public
interest.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): The final
petition, Mr. Speaker, notes that there continue to exist over
30,000 nuclear weapons on the earth and that the continuing
existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the health and
survival of human civilization in the global environment.
Therefore the petitioners urge parliament to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I might be permitted to
express the pleasure of the House at seeing the hon. member back
on his feet.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of Canadians who live in Hamilton, Burlington
and Toronto, Ontario and a number of other places in Ontario.
The petitioners are unhappy with the MAI negotiations, in
particular with Don Johnston, the head of OECD and who is pushing
this agreement on Canadians. The petitioners feel this is the
wrong approach and are calling on parliament to reject the
current framework of MAI negotiations. They are calling on the
government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the
world might achieve a rules based, global trading regime that
protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments
to act in the public interest.
* * *
1015
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 71 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. John Reynolds:
With
respect to the report of the Legislative Review Advisory Group,
Department of Citizenship and Immigration, released January 6,
1998, could the Minister please provide: (a) the names of all
individuals, groups, associations, inside and outside of
government, that were consulted in the preparation of this
report; and (b) the names of the individuals, groups and
associations, and their addresses, that comprised the 500 written
submissions received.
(Return tabled)
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I ask the
government when it will call Question No. 21 which we tabled on
October 22, 1997.
The parliamentary secretary tells us the government is
continuing to make inquiries, but it has not yet given us an
answer.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I will look seriously into
the whereabouts of the response to Question No. 21.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 28, 1997 I asked Question No. 33. There
seems to be a reluctance to answer the question. The question has
to do with the Oak Bay Marine Group and the Sport Fishing
Institute, two organizations very near and dear to the fisheries
minister's heart. I was told on April 29 that the response was
with the House leader's office. I was informed he had it on
March 26 and on April 16 as well.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could look in his desk
to find that response this morning.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I do
not have the response in my desk, but again I will look into it.
Mr. Speaker, you will have noted that in the last several days
we have in fact replied to a considerable number of questions.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, on December 2, 1997 I
asked Question No. 56, which at one point I was told was with the
House leader's office.
The parliamentary secretary pointed out at one point, quite
inaccurately, that roughly 800 questions had been received to
that point, which was a great exaggeration. He said that he had
answered half of them. If he had I guess I would be finished.
On many occasions he has told me that I could expect an answer
in a timely fashion. The parliamentary secretary is beginning to
remind me of Bill Clinton. Clinton said that Monica Lewinski was
going to—
The Deputy Speaker: That is a point of order and I think
the hon. member is straying far off the point. I think the
parliamentary secretary has got the point. He has indicated
already that he is working on answers to the hon. member's
questions and I am sure he will continue to do so.
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary wish to address this
question also?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, again I have noted Question
No. 56 and I will make a point of consulting with the member to
hear the end of the story.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I think that is appropriate.
Is it agreed that all remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEPATITIS C
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) moved:
That this House urge the government to press
for the invitation of representatives of the Hepatitis C Society
of Canada to the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and
territorial Health Ministers in order to provide advice on how to
address the financial needs of all those who contracted
Hepatitis C from the federally-regulated blood system.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an unexpected and an unanticipated
honour for me to be the lead speaker in this important debate,
but an honour nonetheless. I will be sharing my time with our
leader, the member for Halifax.
We in this Chamber have been at this issue now for more than a
month, 39 days to be precise, and all of us on this side of the
House have been trying to ensure that social justice be provided
to all hepatitis C victims on this sad and tragic issue.
A week ago today we voted on a motion that would have extended
some measure of justice, dignity and compassion to all who
contracted hepatitis C regardless of the date they became
infected.
1020
The government refused and in the ensuing vote the government
position was upheld narrowly. The federal, provincial and
territorial ministers of health stood shoulder to shoulder behind
the agreement they had made in Toronto. The agreement was that
governments would compensate only some of those infected with
hepatitis C through tainted blood.
The Prime Minister insisted that last week's motion to extend
compassion to those on the outside looking in on the agreement be
treated as a motion of confidence in the government. It worked
to some extent. The government won that confidence vote by 155
to 140. It won the confidence vote in the House of Commons, but
in the process it lost the confidence of the nation.
The federal Minister of Health said that the file on
compensation was closed, but this file would not stay closed
because this deal would not and could not survive public
scrutiny. It would not stay closed because it is a deal that
draws a line in the sand and says that if a person became
infected with hepatitis C after January 1, 1986 they will receive
compensation, but if they were infected before December 31, 1985,
the governments are sorry but they are unable to extend benefits.
We have listened day after day to the Minister of Health as he
has tried to justify this sordid deal. When he talked about the
class action suit Canadians contrasted those words with the
classless inaction they were witnessing from this government.
The most moving moment in my short tenure as a member of
parliament occurred after the vote last week when victims of
hepatitis C and their family members stood in the visitors'
gallery to applaud opposition members for their support even
though that support fell slightly short.
What governments have been trying to do for the past 39 days
against tens of thousands of Canadians is not the Canadian way.
When calamity or disaster strikes it is not the Canadian way to
draw a line in the sand. When the flood in Quebec's Saguenay
region occurred two years ago relief went out to all, not only to
some who were affected. It was the same last year with the Red
River flood in Manitoba. When the ice storm struck eastern
Ontario and Quebec this past January provisions were made in the
emergency relief program to ensure that small farmers working off
the farm were also protected. That is the Canadian way.
Why did our health minister think he could get away with
something so thoroughly un-Canadian as this hepatitis C deal? I
believe part of the answer lies in the current lack of resources
extended to our provincial and territorial governments for the
provision of health care by the federal government.
Five years after medicare was introduced at the national level,
a gift from the Government of Saskatchewan introduced by Tommy
Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd, the Pearson government made it
attractive and saleable to the other provinces by providing 50:50
funding, 50-cent dollars. The federal government would match
every 50 cents put up by the provincial and territorial
governments. Today those 50-cent dollars have been whittled down
to less than 13 cents.
I believe Saskatchewan is the only province that has backfilled
every penny of health care money which the federal government has
taken out in recent years. It has not been easy for Saskatchewan
to continue with the important health funding that is necessary
in an era of transition. Thanks to this government
pharmaceutical costs have been going through the roof. The
Saskatchewan government and other governments have been managing
as best they can.
Tommy Douglas is recognized as the father of medicare in Canada.
As I said a minute ago, medicare was Saskatchewan's gift to
Canada. Tommy had a great way with people and with words, as
those who had the privilege to know him will attest. One of his
phrases goes like this: “When someone tells you that it's not
the money, it's the principle, you can be almost certain it's the
money”. That is what we have been witnessing in the House over
the past 39 days. This has not been about principle, it has been
about getting away with it as cheaply as possible and not doing
the right thing, not doing the Canadian thing.
1025
The original deal pleased no one because the victims were not
present to make their case or to counter misinformation at the
negotiating table. No one knows the hepatitis C issue better
than those who live with the disease. They must be at the table
for the next round, as this motion indicates.
Canadians expect us to act in the best interests of the victims
of this blood tragedy. Let the victims now have their say on how
to address their financial needs.
We do not often have a second chance either in life or in this
House. In this Chamber we tend to deal with a topic and move
on. However, this is one time that Canadians, by their words and
actions, have forced all governments to revisit an important
issue.
We should celebrate this opportunity to do the right thing,
finally, for all the victims of hepatitis C. Let us celebrate the
fact that we have been given a second chance to make amends and
offer compensation fully and fairly. That is the Canadian way.
We have been given a second chance to do the right thing. This
file is open once again. Let us not blow it this time. We call
on all members of the House of every political stripe to support
this motion.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
the New Democratic Party brings this motion before the House in a
spirit of working with the health minister and his government and
with their provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure the
successful negotiation of a compensation package to meet the
financial and health needs of all victims of hepatitis C.
A week ago today will be remembered as a low point in the
history of this parliament, perhaps a low point in Canadian
history. It will be remembered as the day when 155 members on
the government benches, for all the wrong reasons, stood together
to oppose a public policy measure that Canadians knew in their
hearts as well as in their heads was the fair and proper thing to
do, namely, to compensate all victims of hepatitis C.
It is clear that victims of hepatitis C had no control over the
conditions that resulted in their infection, but it is also clear
that the Government of Canada had regulatory control and
responsibility. That responsibility remains to all victims of
hepatitis C.
When last Tuesday's vote was over the federal health minister
declared that the file was closed, that the matter was over and
that there was nothing more to be said. However it was
absolutely clear to us, to the members of the New Democratic
Party caucus, indeed to all members on the opposition benches,
that this file could not be closed until justice was done.
If it was not already clear to members on the government
benches, it certainly was clear after they visited their ridings
over the weekend and heard from ordinary Canadians the sense of
outrage they felt about the violation of the very promise, the
very essence of Canada's health care system, namely, dividing the
victims into the deserving and the non-deserving, dividing the
victims into categories of have and have not, and shutting out of
our health care system those who had no ability to control the
conditions that resulted in their being infected with hepatitis
C. It is a health condition with which many will live for the
rest of their lives and to which many will lose their lives in
the months and years ahead.
The fact of the matter is that it goes to the very essence of
being a Canadian to ensure that people get the health care
attention they need when they need it, and that means recognizing
that we share a community and societal responsibility for that.
1030
Today it is clear that the federal minister and the provincial
and territorial ministers will meet again. We want to plead
today with the health minister and his colleagues to ensure that
the victims of hepatitis C have representation at the table.
They are the ones that understand the devastating effects of
hepatitis C. They are the ones that understand what a toll it is
taking not only on their lives but on their families. They are
the ones who need to be given voice and an opportunity to ensure
this is not just another round of false hope but in fact becomes
an opportunity to ensure that justice is done.
Some may dwell in the days ahead on why some members of the
House did the wrong thing when the opportunity was presented to
them a week ago. Others may dwell on the question of what
motives account for various governments changing their minds.
Let me say I think that all 301 members of the House have a
responsibility, as my colleague from Saskatchewan has already
said, to work together to set aside the recriminations, to set
aside the imputing of motives and to ensure that justice is done
on the basis of decency and compassion.
We have seen the incredible courage of hepatitis C victims over
the last weeks and months. In case we need any reminder of what
we are doing here, what our responsibility is and what unites us
as members of the House, let me briefly quote from a letter
received today from one of the spokespersons on behalf of the
Hepatitis C Society. Jo-Anne Manser wrote:
I don't fear death—I know that I'll walk straight into the arms
of God who loves me as His precious child. So it matters not
that my Prime Minister and health ministers think so little of us
now.
But, I do fear for my children who must grow up in this, so
please stay strong and continue to fight for truth, justice and
compassion in Canada—not only for victims of the tainted blood
disaster, but for our kids.
You are in my heart and prayers always. Hopefully, one day we
can all heal from this painful process and then have the courage
to forgive.
That was a note written obviously with a very strong sense of
compassion, not just concern about her own circumstances as a
mother of young children but a sense of compassion for all
families of the victims of hepatitis C. It was written not just
to express appreciation for the fact that members of the House
have remained in solidarity with those victims, but I choose to
believe that it is a message to all 301 members of the House.
We have a responsibility now to move forward. We have a
responsibility to include the victims of hepatitis C through
their representatives of the Hepatitis C Society in the process
of working together with the different levels of government to
find a solution, a fair solution that will compensate those who
through no fault of their own find that their health has been
jeopardized and in far too many cases their lives foreshortened.
Let us accept that as a challenge to all members of the House.
Let us see it as a reminder of why our constituents sent us to
Ottawa, why they entrusted to us the responsibility to work
together to find solutions to problems that Canadians face and to
ensure that at the end of the day the Canada that has had
compassion and caring at the very heart of our being is the
Canada that emerges from this disastrous chapter in Canadian
health history.
1035
I move:
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair finds the amendment to be
in order.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canada
internationally is seen as a country that is very compassionate
and caring for its people.
When we see what happened last week in the House we question
that. The victims of hepatitis C had no choice or alternative to
turn to. They did not have the option of banking their own
blood. Therefore they had to accept tainted blood.
It is for this reason that I stand today to say that we have
what is right. We have to do the just and honourable thing. This
cannot be something that involves petty politics. These are
people's lives. They are parents. They are sons and daughters.
I cannot imagine why all of us do not have the same feeling.
Therefore I have to support the comments made by the leader of
the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us will
remember the last few weeks on Parliament Hill when people have
been forced through circumstances absolutely beyond their control
to come here, in some cases in wheelchairs, in some cases on
crutches, and in some cases bearing crosses symbolizing the
mothers and fathers, family members and friends who lost their
lives to hepatitis C.
It is absolutely clear that today we have a responsibility to
resolve that no longer will the victims of hepatitis C have to
get out of their sick beds, and in some cases literally leave
their hospital beds, to plead for compassion and justice from
their elected representatives.
Let us today use the opportunity to recognize the dedication and
the diligence of people who fought to ensure that this file did
not close and that the compassion of Canadians prevailed in this
public policy debate. Let us resolve to ensure that their
attention and energy can now be concentrated on their own health,
on their own families, and on trying to live out their lives with
some dignity and some decency.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a well known fact that a number of people who
enter into the health care system oftentimes quite tragically
come out of the experience much sicker, whether it is hepatitis C
victims or a variety of other diseases they may pick up.
If there is no negligence and there is no legal liability, does
the member think we should be moving into a system of no fault
insurance or no fault compensation? If the member does not
believe in a no fault compensation package, what distinguishes a
group of pre-1986 hepatitis C victims from all the other people
who enter into the health care system and come out, tragically,
oftentimes much worse for the experience?
1040
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I have to say in all
honesty it distresses me somewhat that I feel there is some back
sliding here into those spurious arguments that focused on what
the Minister of Health and his 154 colleagues who voted against
justice last week have done over the last few weeks. This is
what has been so lamentable and so tragic.
They have insisted on reducing the matter to issues of legal
liability. They have insisted on saying they cannot set
precedents. They need an artificial construct or a window, in
this case from 1986 to 1990, during which time they can actually
say the Government of Canada should have administered a test that
was available and did not, and therefore they accept the
responsibility and the legal liability and it is just too bad
about those other victims who succumbed to hepatitis C before the
test began to be administered.
First, it is simply inaccurate to say that 1986 to 1990 is some
magic set of dates. The fact of the matter is that there were
discussions taking place between the Government of Canada and
provincial governments about introducing such a test as early as
1981 and the decision was made not to do it for all the wrong
reasons, for financial reasons.
Second, let us recognize that there is a wealth of ethical
capital in the country, the same ethical capital that results in
Canadians saying it was nobody's fault there was an ice storm but
we will compensate; it was nobody's fault that there was a flood
but we will compensate.
We are talking about a system failure here and we have a
responsibility to compensate people for having been infected by
it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
fascinated by the headline I saw on Saturday which said the
hepatitis C victim compensation was rock solid. The headline I
would put on the docket today is that the hepatitis C
compensation package of the government is more like a rock slide.
There is a hopeful nature to what I am to say today. Although
the issue is not resolved and is not completed, I see positive
movement.
I give credit today to the victims. I have actually met some of
them. I hope it would not be unfair to characterize them as a
ragtag assortment of people who are sick. The hepatitis C
organization which I have come to know a bit about does not have
enough money to rent space. It borrows space. It is lucky if it
has enough money to afford faxes. It is borrowing computer
equipment for the Internet and whatnot.
I am proud this little ragtag group—and if anyone takes that as
a slam, it is not—of ill people has up to the might of the
federal government, to its PR people, to its communications
people, to its huge spending capabilities, and has said quietly
and sincerely “This is not fair and we won't go away until it is
changed”.
For the group of cynics who says “You cannot do anything in the
face of a big, powerful government”, this indicates to me that
is not so. I am so proud of those individuals who would not lie
down, who would not fall over, who would not just say “Because
I'm sick I will accept this compensation”.
The joy of this is in a fax I received this morning from a woman
in B.C. She congratulated the opposition parties for what they
are doing and whatnot, but what she went on to indicate was heart
rending to me. She is eligible for compensation. She is in that
window as the deal stands. However, she said “I will not take
anything until all the needy are properly looked after”. She
also said that I could use her name and her remarks.
Her name is Doris Corrigan in Surrey, B.C., who in my view is
compassionate beyond belief.
1045
It has also been fascinating to watch the arguments of the
government systematically dismantled by these individuals. The
argument that this would cause a floodgate of frivolous legal
claims has been dismantled. The argument that this would cause a
precedent to be set that would destroy medicare was dismantled.
There is also the argument that the test was unavailable before
1986.
I practised medicine from 1970 until I came to parliament. I
must admit that my memory is not always perfect but I remember
the very first week I was in practice in my small community. What
test did I order during that very first week in 1970? I ordered
the ALT test. I ordered that test to try to find out if one of
my patients had hepatitis. It was the most specific sensitive
test available to us at that time. Normally a screening test
would be done to look for liver damage. If liver damage was
found the most specific test which was ALT would be done. I used
the ALT test throughout my medical career. I used it every
single time there was a patient with hepatitis and I wanted to
see how serious the hepatitis was.
The minister said so plainly on TV last week that the test was
not available in Canada before 1986. What he should have said
and should have added to that is that the regulators decided not
to use that test to screen for hepatitis C in donated blood. If
he had added that proviso, he would have been on firm ground. But
to say the test was not available before 1986, I cannot use the
word I would like to use to express how I feel about that, but it
was wrong. It was available. It was here. I used it. Every
single MD in Canada knows that.
For those physicians listening who do not know the name of the
test by ALT, we call it SGPT. That is the common name of the
test. It was the most specific test we had available. It was
available, used here and regulators decided it was not useful for
screening, which was a mistake.
This is not a negative talk at all. Because I am hopeful I
wanted to say what the hepatitis C victims expect. I received a
letter this week from one of my colleagues at home who said “I
do not favour compensation for everyone who is not symptomatic”,
in medical parlance, asymptomatic.
Here is what the hepatitis C victims want. They want the
connection between hep C seropositivity connected to a
transfusion to give them the opening to walk through a door into
the room of compensation. They only want funds if they are sick.
They have not been able to make that issue clear because they are
not at the table, which is why I so strongly support my NDP
colleagues who are asking for them to be at the table. They are
not at the table to be able to tell the government. Who are
negotiating? Class action lawyers. My colleagues in the NDP are
on the right track by saying they need to be there to express
what they want from compensation.
They also need to be there because they have the best numbers
figures. They have gone through these. The trace back and look
back figures are now coming forward, but the numbers that the
government is using are inaccurate. We can look at the
international experience and do some calculations and find that
as well as looking at the domestic experience.
In my hopeful comments I also want to look to the future. What
does the future hold for our blood system? What really went
wrong in our old blood system is that there was not one single
person in charge. There were experts who gave advice and whose
advice was ignored for various reasons. There was no one there
who could say “That decision is wrong and for safety we must go
that road”. What will our new system do to prevent this? What
about CJD, the human variant of mad cow disease? Would it be
prevented by the new blood system? There is a big question mark
here because in the new blood system again it is not one person
in charge.
Who should be in charge?
The federal Minister of Health should have that mantle on his
shoulders. He should be able to say from all the discussions
that take place “This must happen”. It is not something he can
delegate to someone else. It is not something he can throw away.
1050
New therapies are coming along which are so exciting to these
victims. Ribavirin and interferon, a combination that has just
been approved in the U.S., gives me great hope that we may be
able to throw away this compensation package for those victims
who are not very sick. Is this not our desire, to have these
people cured rather than needing compensation? If we cannot cure
them, when they have been let down by the federal regulator,
surely we should look after them.
I want to pay tribute to Joey Haché. Joey is the 15-year old
boy who came here on his own hook. On Monday just before the
vote he said to his dad “Dad, I have hepatitis C. I want to go
down there and I want to see how this works in parliament. They
are voting on an important issue to me”. He does not live very
far from here, so down he came. He sat up in the gallery. He
watched the voting. He spontaneously rose afterward and clapped
for the opposition members for their stand. I had an opportunity
to meet Joey after. I shook his hand and said “I think you are
the bravest guy here”.
Joey watched the proceedings in the House of Commons the next
day and said that he did not like the way some questions were
answered in the House. He wrote out his questions to the Prime
Minister. He could not ask them, but who could? He brought them
to me. Joey was asked if I had approached him and tried to drag
him down here for partisan purposes “Did he try to use you for
political purposes?” Joey with his cute little 15-year old
smile said “You know, I think I am using the member for Macleod
for my political purposes”.
Just to set the record straight, Joey was not contacted. He
spontaneously came here and said what he wanted to say with his
resources.
I am very hopeful today for the victims. I want so much to be
able to stop this haranguing. I want to say to the government
that it has finally done the right thing, even if it had to be
dragged there kicking and screaming. That is my sincere hope for
the sake of the victims.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for his good speech and for the work he has put into
this file, as have all members on this side of the House.
One of the questions I have for him regarding yesterday's
announcement from Ontario is what will fundamentally change?
Obviously in this country, unfortunately and regrettably we have
rich provinces and poor provinces. At the end of the day I still
believe it is going to take a great deal of leadership by the
federal government to put a package together that will include
all victims of hepatitis C.
Many of the provinces are under financial restraint. Unless the
federal government takes a leadership role in this when they get
back to the table, what is going to change unless the health
minister stands up with the support of the Prime Minister and
says that all victims are going to be compensated?
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the member can take no small
pride in the amount of work he has put into this file as well.
It would be patently unfair for one rich province to say that it
will give funds and no one else would. Imagine the position a
poorer province would be in if it said it would not look after
these individuals when the numbers of dollars especially in
relationship to the numbers of victims are not that great.
We have seen inflated figures, figures which I think are
completely unfair. The numbers I have used as a comparison,
another jurisdiction with four million people ended up with 732
victims who were sick enough to go for compensation. If we
extrapolate that in Canada we will find that the figures are far
different.
Nova Scotia, a relatively have not province, led the file on
HIV. The Tory government there led the push for HIV
compensation. I do not think that anybody would say that it did
that because it had lots of extra funds.
The province did it because it was correct, proper and right. In
a sense it shamed other governments into following its lead.
1055
I believe that funds will be taken from other frivolous things,
such as giving money to businesses that are already successful,
and put where Canadians think the funds should go. That is to
those who have been unfortunately harmed because federal
regulators did not do what they should have done.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware that the federal Department of Health and
Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food got together and
established a new research facility in Winnipeg. It has been
commissioned and declared safe for studying the most exotic and
dangerous diseases. I believe it has a class four designation.
I want to ask the Reform health critic if he is aware of this
new facility being involved in any of the research in testing for
hepatitis C or any aspect of improving the well-being of
hepatitis C victims. Is this research facility involved in any
of this at all?
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the commissioning of this
new research facility has been fairly recent. It is the perfect
facility to be leading the charge in this way. This facility
looks after things like the ebola virus which is profoundly risky
to all human life. The facility certainly could and should be
involved.
I have only been in touch with one of the highest officials in
the lab. I am not certain how far down the road it is with new
equipment and whatnot to be conducting these experiments. This is
the perfect facility to be a world leader in this area and
certainly something I endorse personally. Once again, we surely
want to fix the problem before it comes rather than fix the
problem after it is there.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we usually say
we are pleased to take part in the debate on a motion tabled by
a colleague no matter which party he or she belongs to.
While I am not opposed to the motion by my colleague from the
New Democratic Party, I find it difficult to speak again about a
tragedy of national proportions where we have to fight to see
justice done so that the victims of this tragedy are not left
out in the cold.
The government has been trying to single out a number of victims
for compensation in order to show compassion and to exclude
other victims, who were not infected during the period agreed
on. But these people were also infected and have suffered
unprecedented prejudice. They are being told “It is not our
fault. You must face the consequences, as we will not recognize
our responsibilities”.
I think it is a shame we are forced to tear each other apart in
order to get those in power—this government, which is in a
position to see that justice is done—to understand that these
people who have lost their lives, who are in despair, have lost
everything because of this terrible disease.
I would be pleased nevertheless to try once again to heighten
the awareness of this government, who is in a position to make a
decision by taking part in the debate on this motion my NDP
colleague moved this morning.
1100
For the benefit of our viewers, the motion reads as follows:
That this House urge the government to press for the invitation
of representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to the
upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Health
Ministers in order to provide advice on how to address the
financial needs of all those who contracted Hepatitis C from the
federally-regulated blood system.
At the point we have reached with all that has been said and
written on the compensation of the victims in recent weeks, I
think a little clarity in the facts and a little compassion
would be well received. These the Hepatitis C Society of Canada
could provide.
We are in favour of this aspect of the motion.
As for whether or not it is appropriate to compensate all
victims regardless of when they were infected, I believe that
our audience along with the majority of members in this House
want the victims to be heard and justice to be done for them.
After four years and $15 million, the Krever commission of
inquiry into tainted blood reached the same conclusions. In his
report, Justice Krever made recommendations on this, including a
recommendation that there be no-fault compensation for all
victims.
Nevertheless, despite repeated demands from all sides, the
present government is still refusing to give in to common sense
and is stubbornly clinging to a rather dubious argument against
equitable compensation.
The answer is clear, however. Should there be fair and
equitable compensation for all victims who contracted hepatitis
C from tainted blood, as there was for those who contracted HIV,
or should there not? I believe the answer is self-evident.
Today I call upon all members of the Liberal government, who
will also be having to vote on this motion this evening, to ask
themselves this question and also to give some thought to what
the people of their respective ridings think.
Finally, I call upon the Minister of Health to reflect seriously
upon the reasons behind his government's acting this way, when
the most elementary logic tells us that justice and compassion
must take precedence over any other consideration, no matter how
legitimate.
Unfortunately, justice and compassion are not what has guided
the federal government since the start of the Krever inquiry.
Need I mention all the obstacles this government has put in its
way?
Briefly, if last November, we had the opportunity to read a
report that managed, for once and for all, to cast light on the
sad events surrounding this tragedy, it is surely not thanks to
this government, which did anything but help it.
It is never too late to do the right thing, and there can be no
better time than the present to remedy the past and show some
good faith.
In recent days, a number of new elements have been brought into
the picture. And although there have been no changes on the
government side, the present situation is no longer satisfactory.
The province of Ontario announced that it was going to
contribute between $100 and $200 million in order to compensate
those who contracted hepatitis C before 1986.
The Premier of Manitoba, Gary Filmon, said he was prepared to
sit down with the federal government and the provinces to review
the March 27 compensation package.
British Columbia passed a resolution supporting last week's
resolution by the National Assembly.
Nova Scotia's Conservative and New Democratic opposition plans
to hound Russell MacLellan's minority Liberal government to urge
the federal government and the provinces to negotiate a new
agreement compensating all hepatitis C victims.
It should be remembered that this Liberal government is a
minority government. The Liberals hold 19 seats, the New
Democrats 19 and the Conservatives 14. A vote of confidence on
this issue could topple the government. Nova Scotia's throne
speech is scheduled for May 21.
1105
Finally, we learned this morning that a meeting would soon be
held with the federal Minister of Health and his provincial
counterparts, but we do not know when. A certain openness to
compensating everyone can be detected, however. It remains to
be seen how.
Thousands of people are excluded from the agreement because they
were infected before 1986 or after 1990. This is unfair and
unacceptable.
In our view, the federal government must take its
responsibilities and set up a special program that would be in
addition to the existing agreement.
Since they took office, the Liberals have reduced the deficit
primarily by passing on the costs to the provinces. Between 1994
and 2003, Quebec and the other Canadian provinces will have
suffered a shortfall of $42 billion. This accounts for 52% of
the cuts, while the federal share is barely 12%. This in itself
says a lot about the financial situation of the governments.
By the year 2003, a further $30 billion in federal cuts will
have been imposed on Quebeckers and Canadians in health,
education and social assistance. Of course, it is the provinces
that will have to find ways to absorb these cuts, and they will
have to take the rap, not the federal government.
Meanwhile, the federal government has surpluses and, by the year
2000, there will be a surplus of $25 billion in the employment
insurance fund, which will have accumulated at the expense of
the workers and the unemployed.
This is why we are calling for the establishment of a special
fund, because this government has the means to compensate all
hepatitis C victims. The provinces have done their share so far
and, in addition, they must pay for the health care costs of all
these victims.
In conclusion, the motion by the New Democratic Party would
bring a little humanity and compassion to the upcoming meeting
of health ministers. Let us hope that the federal government
will follow up on it and recognize, after everyone else, the
unfairness of a situation it alone can correct adequately.
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suppose in an environment such
as this where people are trying to take the high moral ground
about who is doing the best for whom it might be worthwhile for
all of us to reflect on what is taking place. It is important.
Part of this national debate on blood is to note that the
consumers, and we have called them the victims of hepatitis C,
they have always been involved in the process. Their input
remains crucial and critical to the refinement of the policy, so
much so that we have turned directly to victim representatives in
order to establish how that initial package of $1.1 billion
should be spent.
I am not happy about the climate but it is important to keep in
mind that ministers in this government and especially the current
Minister of Health have had extensive consultations with
representatives of groups affected by the blood crisis, as did
ministers in other jurisdictions.
The consumer perspective was an integral part of the process of
negotiations and consumer representatives were appraised of
developments throughout the process. Representatives of groups
such as the Canadian Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C
Society of Canada met regularly with a variety of politicians and
their views were fed into the process at various stages.
The blood system is ultimately about people, altruism and
equity, not federal provincial relations, not partisan politics
and not political advantage. As soon as we come to realize this
not only will we have a more constructive debate but we will all
be better off.
1110
When Canada's governments agreed to offer assistance to
Canadians infected by hepatitis C through blood they were
building on a base of knowledge and the considered views and
inputs of many groups. Consultations are continuing and will
continue as formal negotiations with victims and their
representatives proceed.
I will address one of the more technical aspects of offering
financial assistance so members will be able to appreciate the
importance of consultations and open lines of communication with
groups such as the hepatitis C society. As many members in the
House are aware, governments are offering to settle litigation.
An offer to do so differs therefore from the standard approaches
to program development and the amount of money governments put on
the table does not flow into a clearly defined program to render
benefits but rather is placed before the courts as part of an
effort to negotiate a settlement of legal claims arising from a
specific set of factual circumstances from the past.
I draw the attention of the House to the importance of the three
class actions initiated in three provinces during the 1986-1990
period. As is normal, when the courts are approached to resolve
conflict, settlement is always a preferred option. The Minister
of Health has been on record for quite some time about his desire
to settle the litigation in an expeditious way so that plaintiffs
would not be obligated to wait years to determine how the courts
would rule on their particular cases.
Many Canadians are likely not familiar with the mechanism of a
negotiated court approved settlement. While this way of doing
things carries many complexities, it has several advantages.
First, the negotiations take place under the aegis of the courts
so there is an emphasis on fairness in the final determination of
that settlement. Second, both sides of an issue are brought to
the negotiating table to work out the details of the settlement
in a way that is both transparent and accountable. Third, that
flexibility is available to both sides in the determination of
the specifics of a settlement package so that many aspects of
what is inevitably a complex problem, which hepatitis C poses in
society, can be addressed.
Negotiated court approved settlements have been used on several
occasions in the past in health areas to deal with the
complexities of injury from health systems. While negotiated
court approved settlements are not perfect venues for addressing
all social problems, in cases where the issues are difficult and
there has been an adversarial context, they offer a way forward
which is both fair and open. Consultation with and involvement
of groups and their representatives is inherent in the process.
There has been some suggestion in society that we can substitute
for court mechanisms through other processes such as mediation,
arbitration, et cetera. While these alternative dispute
mechanisms are gaining popularity, in the present state of
affairs in the justice system most affairs are transacted using
traditional mechanisms. The seriousness of the blood tragedy and
the long term importance of these negotiations to the lives of
those affected argues in favour of employing a well established,
well understood mechanism to achieve a settlement.
Accordingly, governments have instituted negotiations with
plaintiffs through the courts. One of the major advantages of
this approach is that it can accommodate a variety of what are
called structured settlement negotiations. This means that far
from being a simple once off transfer of funds, a settlement can
involve a variety of mechanisms to accommodate medical need and
medical risk over time.
1115
Government negotiators will be indicating a preference of
ministers for an initial lump sum payment combined, and I stress
that word, with variable payments over time geared to severity
and disability. This is a suggestion only and plaintiffs may
have different views, but it does indicate the power and
potential of the structured settlement context to meet individual
needs over a lifetime.
While we are in the early phases of considering what long term
implications of hepatitis C from the blood issue are, during the
course of these negotiations governments will be displaying their
knowledge of the epidemiology, natural history, research dynamics
and treatment potential associated with hepatitis C so that the
best evidence and research can be mobilized to achieve solutions
in this area for a large number of people.
At the same time the negotiations will take into account
different preferences arising from different circumstances of the
plaintiffs. The process is therefore very flexible and open to a
very wide group of people, input and many points of view.
Another important element of the negotiated court approved
settlement context is the potential that it offers to design a
national solution to this issue which was initially a regional
class action. Certain provinces through their class action
legislation have the potential to create national classes to
which all Canadian residents who qualify could subscribe.
Part of the dynamic of the negotiated court approved settlement
will be to ensure that such a national class context emerges.
This is not to say that individuals will lose any of their
traditional rights before the courts, but rather to emphasize
that class action legislation provides a potential to generate
national frameworks for resolving issues of health injury.
One thing we want to do at all costs is to avoid the
balkanization of approaches to an issue and issues that are
fundamental as those raised by the blood tragedy. A Canadian in
Newfoundland should have exactly the same rights in this area as
a Canadian in British Columbia and others in between. The
justice system should not be used as a vehicle to advance
benefits to some at the disadvantage of others.
The courts have traditionally addressed medical injury using a
particular format: pain and suffering and economic loss. This
format has been engaged in the case of hepatitis C as well and is
inevitable on the basis of the calculations which will be made in
and around partial or total liability in this area. This does
not mean that we need to be limited to this format in determining
how a settlement could be structured. Indeed a structured
settlement could be based on a variety of formats, including
medical need over time.
The power of such an approach is that it would allow individuals
in like circumstances to be treated alike and individuals in
unlike circumstances to be treated differently. This would
undoubtedly enhance the perceived fairness of any settlement.
Mr. Speaker, I know you want to cut me off on this but I
appreciate the fact that you have been attentive so far and I
thank you.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to say first of all I am very encouraged particularly by the
latter comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Health. He talked about the importance of avoiding
balkanization, avoiding a situation where the victims of
hepatitis C in one area are compensated a different amount than
the victims of hepatitis C in another area. I am very pleased to
hear the parliamentary secretary, I assume on behalf of his
colleagues, the 154 other colleagues who voted against really
avoiding a balkanized system last week. We all have to be
encouraged by that.
I do have a question though for the parliamentary secretary. I
listened very carefully to his comments. He is the first
intervener from the government side today on the NDP motion.
Perhaps it was inadvertent but he appears to have strenuously
avoided dealing directly with the motion that is before us.
1120
I remind the parliamentary secretary that the motion before us
is to ensure that representatives, consumers as he called them,
of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada be invited to participate in
the upcoming meetings of the federal, provincial and territorial
health ministers to ensure that their financial and health needs
are addressed.
The parliamentary secretary himself has made the point that
there was consultation with the victims in earlier stages, that
their views were sought. Unfortunately the government chose to
ignore the views and petitions that the Krever recommendation
that compensation be paid to all victims should in fact be the
official position. That is why we now have a balkanized
situation where some hepatitis C victims have been offered
compensation and those outside the 1986 to 1990 window have not.
Would the parliamentary secretary specifically address on his
own behalf and on behalf of the government as its designated
speaker whether or not he and the government will support the
pleadings contained in the NDP motion? Will they agree that the
representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada be included
as participants at the table when the federal, provincial and
territorial ministers of health meet to deal with fair
compensation, not on a balkanized basis but on a universal basis?
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the
leader of the NDP for acknowledging, as she heard my presentation
on the matter, that the Government of Canada has been acting
responsibly, reasonably and purposefully on behalf of all
victims. I initially called them consumer groups but I indicated
that they are sufferers, victims of hepatitis C.
I am happy to acknowledge that for once there has been a member
of the opposition who has thought through the presentations of
the government and has agreed that there is merit.
With respect to her question about whether I am addressing the
issue presented by her motion directly, I would like her to
reflect a little bit more on the first few words I used in my
intervention. Specifically we have already over the course of
negotiations that led to the offer which is under discussion
talked with representatives of hepatitis C victims. We talked to
the individuals themselves. There were consultations by the
federal Minister of Health in all cases. All of those issues
were brought forward in the negotiations with the provincial and
territorial health ministers.
When someone speaks through actions, does that not indicate they
are acting in the same responsible fashion that the opposition
members would suggest we ought to adopt? If we have kept
victims, victims representatives and victims groups in the loop
of consultations leading to the package under discussion, have we
not already done what many would suggest we ought to do?
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the New Democratic Party for putting forward this motion.
It is an important debate and I thank the members for their
support. I believe I speak for all members on this side of the
House.
The position taken by the federal government in regard to the
compensation of the hepatitis C victims was certainly untenable
from the start. When that package was announced it included only
the victims between the years 1986 and 1990. The question was
how could it establish that date. There was no reason for it.
Basically it was a position that no one could defend and
certainly not the government. It came up with what I call an
artificial date or box of convenience. It was based on when
testing was available.
1125
I guess from the government's point of view if one were a lawyer
it could be argued that way. That was the position the
government could best defend in a court of law, that is, in any
lawsuits or civil cases that may come before the courts from the
victims prior to 1986. That in itself was also a very shallow
argument.
As members of this side of the House have said repeatedly over
the years there was a test available which was being exercised
routinely in West Germany prior to 1986 and going back certainly
to 1981. What is now commonly referred to as hepatitis C was
routinely being tested for in that jurisdiction and many others
before that time period.
The government's position is completely untenable. It leaves
thousands of Canadians outside a compensation package.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Greg Thompson: It is a shame. It becomes so
ridiculous that for example a person infected on December 31,
1985 would be outside the package and a person lucky enough to be
infected on January 1, 1986 would be in the package. From any
reasonable point of view it does not make a bit of sense. That
was the strategy the government decided to pursue. It was the
one the government attempted to defend and it has not done a very
good job of it.
Yesterday there was a move, I guess it could be called a crack
in the armour. Premier Harris of Ontario announced that he is
willing to put $200 million into a compensation package for those
people outside the frame or box of convenience, the years 1986 to
1990. That is heartening for many of us but it is not the end of
the debate.
The debate falls right back into the lap of the federal
government because the question then becomes, can all provinces
afford to do that? The answer is no they cannot. Where will it
leave the poorer provinces? We do not know where it is going to
leave them. Some are suggesting it is still going to leave them
out in the cold so to speak because many of them cannot afford to
do more.
That is why we on this side of the House have consistently
stressed the importance of the federal government acting
unilaterally to do the right thing. When the federal health
minister meets with his counterparts the provincial ministers, we
are hoping that will be addressed by the federal minister. We
hope they will say “Yes, we do have to take the leadership in
this”.
The generosity being expressed by other provinces is important
and I hope that file continues to move. I hope the other
provinces can come up with something. But at the end of the day
it still will be the federal minister who will have to lead on
this file. I do not believe he has done that in the past number
of weeks.
What I think has been happening on the government front benches
is that it has been a battle between the finance minister and the
health minister. I do not think any of us in this House would
stand and say that the health minister of this country would
actually deny compensation to victims. I think he has been a
victim of internal politics within his own government. The
finance minister with a big Cheshire cat grin on his face day in
and day out as the health minister is besieged and attacked
refuses to move, refuses to budge. That is one of the problems we
see being played out on the front benches of the government.
What has changed in the equation? I do not think a heck of a
lot has changed.
I think the health minister has caved in to the power of the
finance minister. At the end of the day there will still not be
any money for innocent victims left outside the original package.
I do not think that is right.
1130
We are going back to square one again. What I think the
government has to consider is the box it put itself in and the
difficulty the health minister will have moving off some of the
statements he made in this House.
Some of the things he stated are pretty outrageous. In the past,
he indicated this could bankrupt the Canada health care system as
we know it if compensation were extended to victims outside the
original package.
I do not know how he can retract those words. I do not know how
he can go into cabinet and wage a convincing fight if he still
takes that position. I do not know what will happen when he
meets with the provincial ministers if he still holds on to that
point of view.
I do not think it will be particularly healthy and I do not
think it is going to lead to any kind of package that we in this
House could support.
What I am saying is that there may be a need for a change in the
leadership of this file on the federal level. I will not go
beyond that because only the Prime Minister can decide. I think
the health minister is boxed into a position that will be very
difficult for him to negotiate from, basically a position of
weakness. I do not think that is healthy.
The motion today speaks to the inclusion of
hepatitis C victims in these negotiations. I think it is only
fair that that happens because I do not think these people are
asking for anything other than what is reasonable and what is
fair. I think their point of view has to be at the table.
The other thing that we have lost sight of in this House, which
the member for Macleod spoke on, is the real number of victims
left outside the package.
If members have been following this file they will find that the
number is absolutely exaggerated. The health minister sat over
there day in and day out telling us the victims are in excess of
40,000. He routinely mentioned 60,000 victims.
He is saying this for a reason. He wants the Canadian public to
believe that the health care system would be bankrupt because of
the number of victims who have yet to be compensated.
That has to be corrected. Again, I do not know how he can go
back in good faith to the bargaining table and disconnect himself
from some of the previous statements he made. That is one of the
reasons why the victims have to be there. I think they can talk
intelligently about what those real numbers might be.
In the Globe and Mail today, Mr. Picard is suggesting that
the number could be as low as 6,000 victims, 10,000 victims or
maybe 15,000 victims. We do not know. I think that is one of
the things to be established from day one.
I do not think they can come up with the kind of package that
means anything until there are real numbers to work around. That
is why these people have to be at the negotiations, so some of
the honesty in terms of numbers and what they are looking for is
actually expressed at that table.
We will continue our pressure on the government, particularly on
the health minister. I hope at the end of the day the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Health do the right thing. I hope
these victims are compensated and the real story comes out.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the discussion about a date is
causing some confusion. It is not an arbitrary date. It is not
a whimsical date. It is a date everybody is looking at.
We are talking about a period in which something was generally
available, a mechanism was generally available and people could
have done something and did not do it.
It is important to understand that. We are talking about
something that all interveners have suggested, that somebody else
is responsible for a condition which is regrettable and tragic.
Everyone acknowledges that but the moment that we recognize that
the fault is inherent we have to point the finger. The finger
was pointed specifically by those who have investigated the
situation as starting about 1986.
1135
If the member opposite wants to as well discredit other previous
speakers, for example the member for Macleod who talked about
tests being available in the seventies in which he as a
responsible medical practitioner engaged, and he wants to refer
to that as a point of reference, that is fine. Let him as well
address some of the issues that flow from that.
I think it is important to underscore that this is not an
untenable position. It is a position that everyone has agreed
has some basis in reason and rationality. For him to engage in
hindsight and the accuracy of the hindsight about tests being
available, I ask him to think again about whether they were
generally acceptable and whether there was action on them.
The reason the 1986 date was fixed, and it was not arbitrary, is
authorities recognized that something could have been done then
and was not done.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I
am hearing from this parliamentary secretary. They are sticking
to that line which is a complete failure. The member is talking
about going back to the table and still sticking to this date,
which is absolutely and totally artificial.
If that is the basis on which the government is going to go into
this argument, I go right back to the point that I made
previously. Nothing is going to change.
Has the government not learned anything in the last four weeks
in this House? The only people who support that position are
government members. If they continue that line of logic, the poor
victims will gain absolutely nothing.
After four weeks in this House I would think that the
parliamentary secretary to the minister would have learned
something. This indicates that nothing has been accomplished in
terms of the ability of government members to absorb information.
On that, I rest my case.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
procedural question for the member for Charlotte. The Reform
Party treats an opposition day motion as a free vote. We give a
recommendation and members will vote according to how they feel.
I wonder how Conservative members will treat this non-partisan
opposition motion today. Will they treat it the same way? Will
they be voting freely without whip constraint? Will they be
voting with their hearts, will they be voting the wishes of their
constituents?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly vote
with our hearts in the right place with regard to this motion. I
hope members on the other side can do that. There were a lot of
them squirming in their seats just a week ago when they had to
vote to deny compensation for those innocent victims.
I hope the Prime Minister allows his people to vote with their
hearts today. I am sure that if the parliamentary secretary and
even the minister spoke with their hearts, and just a bit with
their minds, they would have voted with us on this side of the
House, as I am sure Mr. Speaker would have done as well if you
were in that position.
This motion before us today is good and we have to continue
debating this issue. I believe at the end of the day this House
will overwhelmingly, at least on this side of the House, support
that motion. I know we certainly will.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party caucus and all members at least on the
opposition side of the House to propose a very constructive
suggestion for the government.
1140
We present this motion in good faith and in the spirit of
co-operation with the belief that if we all work together we can
make a difference. I sense the frustration that the Conservative
health critic has just expressed. We are beginning to feel that
same sense of frustration having listened to the parliamentary
secretary's comments pertaining to this very constructive
suggestion. We will try again, throughout the course of this
day, to put before members of the Liberal Party the rationale,
the testimony, to help them understand that the time has come to
overcome this impasse, to put aside the past history on this
issue, to do what is right and to act on behalf all blood injured
Canadians.
We hope today marks the turning point. As my colleague from
Saskatchewan said, if we have a second chance let us use it. Let
us not drop the ball. We have the opportunity to make a
difference today in an otherwise sorry chapter in this history
of this country.
We have had five weeks of emotional, difficult debate in the
House. We have had five weeks of personal testimonies on the
steps of this building. We have heard heart wrenching stories
from those people who are suffering from the disease of hepatitis
C through no fault of their own and who are affected by this
serious issue. They are looking for compassion and justice. We
know we have to end this chapter and get on with making a
difference for all blood injured Canadians.
Yesterday the Minister of Health gave us a light of hope when he
said he was prepared to convene a meeting, in short order, of all
federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health. That
was an important step. We took hope yesterday. Today we want to
see that hope become a reality. We would like to see the
government open the door a little further. We hope the
parliamentary secretary's comments are not a reflection of this
government's attitude and approach today.
Today the parliamentary secretary said a couple of very
disturbing things. I hope he will rethink his statements and his
position on those matters. He said that those people affected by
the failure of our blood system, the victims of this tragedy,
were consulted.
The reason we have made this motion today, presented this
constructive suggestion to include representatives of the
hepatitis C society and the hemophilia society, is they have not
been consulted. They were not included in the development of the
agreement that limits compensation to the period of 1986 to 1990.
Yes, there were consultations earlier on. Many months ago the
Minister of Health expressed to all those affected that he was
willing to listen and do the right thing. We have it in writing.
We have documentation from the minister showing his concern and
compassion. But we also know that five weeks ago when this
decision was put on the table at the federal-provincial ministers
meeting of health, they were not included. They were left out of
the process. They were not in the loop.
For the record and for the benefit of the
parliamentary secretary, let me read briefly from a letter dated
April 20 signed by Jeremy Beaty, president of the
hepatitis C society. In that letter he asked specifically for
the government to consider the viewpoints of the those affected
by the tainted blood scandal:
As representatives of the largest hepatitis C through
transfusion group in Canada, we ask that you provide funding for
independent legal representation to enable our society to access
professional advice that is based on social justice and
compassion, on behalf of all hepatitis C transfusion victims.
This is an issue you can immediately address, and show clear good
faith, through a willingness to assist us in our efforts to reach
a just resolution.
1145
There is a clear indication on the part of the Hepatitis C
Society, which includes all victims of this tragedy and which
certainly encompasses the feelings of the Hemophilia Society,
that they have not been included. They need to be included.
They want to be part of the discussions. We have before the
House a very positive suggestion to do just that.
Let us not forget today the contribution that members of the
Hepatitis C Society and the Hemophilia Society and all blood
injured Canadians have made to this parliament and to this
country.
It is hard for us to imagine what they have gone through, the
roller coaster ride they have been on, the ups and downs, the
hurts and the hopes. Today let us not hurt those victims once
again. Let us give them some hope and at least show good faith
that we as members of parliament will work together to ensure
that the deal is opened up, the question of compensation is
re-thought and that they will be at the table.
Let us be absolutely clear that we are not trying to get
political mileage out of the suggestion as the parliamentary
secretary suggested. At the outset he tried to dismiss our
efforts in the House and tried to cast aspersions on our
intentions as trying to divide and conquer. For once in the
House we have some solidarity. There is support from all
quarters. We are working together to do the best thing, to do
what is right. Let not the parliamentary secretary diminish
those efforts. Let us instead hold up this solidarity as an
example of what our democracy can be and what inroads we can make
when we work together.
We hope that today the parliamentary secretary will talk with
his colleagues and will check with the Minister of Health who
gave a very clear indication yesterday of re-opening the file, of
rethinking this entrenched, intransigent position, and of
accepting full responsibility for the fact that these people were
poisoned through the blood system which is clearly under federal
regulation. It is that federal regulatory body that failed. It
is the responsibility of the federal government to acknowledge
that failure and to work co-operatively with all the provinces
and territories to come up with a meaningful package that ensures
that all who were affected by this disaster, by this crisis, by
this tragedy are able to receive some financial assistance, some
compassionate relief, some compensation for the havoc that has
been wreaked upon their lives.
To conclude, all of us in the House recognize that the measure
of a society—and I believe Justice Krever said this as well—is
in the dignity and the respect that we confer upon the most
vulnerable in our society, the most humble members among us. Let
us today make the right decision. Let us hold up this parliament
and this nation as a shining example, a beacon of light for
compassion, concern and justice.
I wanted to indicate at the outset of my remarks that I would be
sharing my time with the member for Halifax West. I understand
my 10 minutes is about to lapse. However, before I pass over
this opportunity I would like to make one final comment and that
is that this has been a very trying time for everyone. Most of
all, it has been a heart-wrenching period for those affected by
this very sad chapter in the history of this country.
The onus upon all of us is to acknowledge that what we are
dealing with is a failure of the federal government to ensure
that proper regulations were in place to protect our blood
system. That is not to say there is not a will on the part of
all provinces and territories to co-operate and to work out
solutions to ensure that the financial plans and programs are in
place to assist everyone. It is to say that we need leadership
from the federal government and, most of all, we need compassion.
Let it happen today.
1150
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for
her presentation on this issue. I would like to indicate and
reiterate for the record that indeed the Minister of Health did
indicate yesterday during question period that “Today's
development is a new one. The ground has moved and an important
partner has changed its position”, referring of course to the
province of Ontario, a major province of our Confederation.
I was not present for the earlier part of the debate, but I am
sure we all share the point of view that this government is known
for its compassion. I think the hon. member would agree that had
it not been for the federal Minister of Health the issue of
compensation for hepatitis C patients would not have advanced.
In 1990 I started speaking on the issue of HIV infection and
certainly this has been a preoccupation of this government.
I agree this is a non-partisan issue. It is an issue that calls
on good public policy and policy that is imbued with
reasonableness and compassion at all times. We have to put this
together. The challenge for us now is how to creatively approach
this issue.
With respect to the motion before us, I certainly would agree to
a consultation with and the involvement of the Hepatitis C
Society of Canada. I have consulted with my constituents.
Patients have called me. When I explained to them the position
of the government I must say, without hesitation, that they
agreed with the position the government has taken.
I assured these individuals that we have not abandoned the other
patients with hepatitis C. In fact we have taken an approach of
compassion for all of them, contrary to the Reform member who
only alluded to the victims infected from 1981 on. When we say
all, we have to speak of all.
I would like to say that I am prepared—and I cannot speak for
the government—to work in a very non-partisan fashion as we
approach this very delicate issue to address in a creative way
the needs of patients with hepatitis C, even those who were
infected before 1986. We will have to approach this in a very
creative, non-partisan and careful way.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North—St.
Paul. I want to assure him that we on this side of the House are
questioning the individual positions of Liberal members. We are
not questioning their ability to feel compassion or to apply the
right values. What we are saying is that those values have not
been translated into public policy and the decisions by this
government to advance an agreement that is limited in scope,
which creates two classes of victims, is not grounded on the
values of compassion, concern and justice.
We have presented today a resolution that is in the spirit of
non-partisanship. It is in the spirit of co-operation to
encourage all players to get back to the discussion table and to
include those who are most directly affected, those who live and
breathe these issues day in and day out, as well as to consult
with members of the Hepatitis C Society, the Hemophilia Society
and all blood injured Canadians to get advice on how the
financial needs of all blood injured Canadians can be achieved.
That is the right thing to do.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is similar to that posed by my Conservative colleague. This is
an NDP motion and I presume the NDP would be supportive of this
motion. However, if there were a dissident, if someone decided
not to, would they be forced to vote against their conscience on
this issue or would this be a free vote for the NDP?
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I want to put all
of this into context. We are all united on this motion today and
we have been unwavering in our support throughout the past five
weeks for a compensation package that includes all blood injured
Canadians.
1155
Our support goes back to September 1996 when my leader and other
members of my caucus agreed to support members of the Hepatitis C
Society of Canada in their petitions to the government for full
and fair compensation. Our position has always been clear on
this. We will not change our position. We will stand united
with one voice because we believe it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very honoured to rise to speak on our motion. I will read the
motion again because it is very important to understand exactly
what we are debating and exactly what this motion is asking. It
reads:
That this House strongly urge the government to press for the
invitation of representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of
Canada to the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and
territorial Health Ministers in order to provide advice on how to
address the financial needs of all those who contracted Hepatitis
C from the federally-regulated blood system.
While I am honoured to speak to this motion, at the same time I
am somewhat saddened. I am saddened that we in this day and age,
we in this country of Canada, we in this House of Commons have
come to the point where we have to debate something which we
would expect would be a normal thing to do for those who have
compassion and caring. It is sad we have to debate something
that should automatically follow, fairness to our fellow human
beings.
Before I entered politics, when I was approached to become a
politician, I had to think long and hard about it. I shared
with so many Canadians a cynicism about the political process and
what we can really do within that process. I received wise
counsel from my wife, my children and people close to me. They
said “We need people like you in politics. We need people who
care about other people. We need people who will not sacrifice
or compromise their values. We need people who will not put
money or themselves first, but who will put others first”.
The more I thought about that the more I realized it is
important that if we feel we have something to contribute to
society we should move forward. We should put that forth in such
a way that politics will not change us, but that we may have a
changing effect upon politics. That is the reason I chose to
enter politics. Since then I have constantly said to people that
if they ever see me changing from the kind of person I am, to
remind me so that I may always remember from whence I came and
the primary purpose for being here, which is to serve others.
There are two principles that seem to be working at odds in the
issue of hepatitis C: the principle of economics versus the
principle of compassion and caring for others. The principle of
economics is ruled by the head. We figure out how many dollars
we have, we think about our bank accounts and we concentrate on
that bottom line in our budgets. But the principle of caring for
other people is ruled by the heart. It comes from the heart.
It is very important on this issue that we allow our hearts to
rule our heads instead of the other way around. We have heard
arguments in this House in which the rule of economics has become
the bottom line. We have heard that we cannot afford to
compensate all victims, yet we know that the auditor general has
found a $2.5 billion surplus. So we can rule that out right
away. We need not be concerned with the economics. We should
now be looking at doing what is right. We should be looking at
what our hearts tell us as we deal with this issue.
It is important for us to remember that we are indeed building
the future for our children. We are making history today. We
are setting a stage that generations down the road will look back
upon. They will look at us and judge us by what we have done
with respect to this issue. We want to build a future that our
children can be proud of.
1200
Our motion calls for an invitation. There may be a lot of
argument today about the cost and about setting precedents, but
our motion calls primarily for one thing. We are asking that the
victims, through their representatives, have an invitation to the
table so that they may be there to address the issue and be part
of a decision that will certainly impact upon their lives.
The motion emphasizes and underlines the need for communication,
the idea of people having a say in decisions that affect them. We
see far too often today that one of the problems of our society
is that we do not communicate with people about the decisions
that affect their lives.
We see it with respect to young people and the decisions we make
around scholarships, the millennium fund and so forth. Quite
often decisions are made without input from those who are to be
affected by these decisions. We see it with respect to our
aboriginal peoples. Decisions are being made at tables and first
ministers conferences when the aboriginal people are excluded
from those meetings. We see it so often in many aspects of our
lives. We see decisions being made about programs that affect
fishermen and people who are struggling to find a way to earn
income but they are not invited to the table.
Today we are emphasizing the importance of communication on a
very important issue. We are saying those victims should be
invited to the table so they may have a say in this matter.
Halifax West constituents care about this issue. Many of them
have approached me and asked my stand on the issue. They have
expressed full support. They feel that the victims should be
compensated and compensated fairly.
Two things have struck me since I have come to the House of
Commons, two things that kind of stand out for me, two things I
find hard to get used to because they do not seem to balance one
with the other.
The first is how we approach question period. I have spoken
about this matter before. When we are doing the nation's
business quite often it is very confrontational but also quite
often very disrespectful. We do not respect the opinions of
other people. We do not listen properly. We are constantly
yelling while people are trying to talk and express their views.
That bothers me. I hope it will continue to bother me because
the minute it stops bothering me is when I have started to let
politics change me rather than bring the change to politics I
hope to bring to politics.
Another thing that impresses me favourably is that we open each
session of the House with a prayer. The Speaker says a prayer. I
am not sure how many people listen to the words of that prayer,
but it asks for God's guidance as we do our deliberations on the
nation's business. The stark contrast is how we then proceed to
move into question period and everything that takes place there
seems to fly in the face of the prayer that has been said in
terms of what we hope to do in the House.
We need to think in terms of the heart. That is very applicable
to the issue we are dealing with. We need to think in terms of
the prayer when we open each session.
I pray that as we deal with this issue all members of the House
may give thought to doing what is right in the eyes of their
Creator, in the eyes of the God who put us on this earth to serve
Him and to serve our fellow man, so that we may let our hearts
rule as we deal with this issue.
The money element is not that terribly important. For example,
when I first started to work many years ago I worked as a welfare
officer. I was responsible for assessing applications from
single parent families, from the disabled, from many people in
circumstances beyond their control.
I was told on the first day on the job “When you go out to do
an application, make sure you never, ever give any one of your
clients money out of your own pocket because you will be setting
a precedent”. We have heard that word quite often during this
debate.
Armed with my rules and regulations I went out on my first case.
The first case I had was one young lady who came to the door
with three children, a baby in her arms and two children clinging
on to her legs. She looked at me and said “Mr. Earle, can you
lend me some money because I don't have any money to buy milk to
feed my baby. I can't feed the children”.
1205
She took me to show me her cupboards and her cupboards were
bare. Her refrigerator was bare. I looked at this woman, at the
baby crying in her arms and at her hungry children standing
there, and right away the first rule went out the window. I
reached into my back pocket and gave the woman some money. As I
walked away from her home I thought I may never see that money
again, but the feeling I got in my heart far outweighed any
concerns I had about losing the money.
The reassuring part was that about a month later I received a
phone call in my office from this woman. She wanted me to come
and visit her. I went to visit her and the very first thing she
did as I walked through the door was to repay the money she had
borrowed to get food for her family.
The money will take care of itself. We have to let the heart
rule in this matter.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member opposite
on a very emotional and passionate intervention. I remind him
that people on this side of the House are no less sensitive or
compassionate. As I said in my earlier intervention, we let our
actions speak as loudly as our words.
We have in the past through the Minister of Health engaged all
victims of this terrible tragedy in consultations. We have kept
them involved and have considered all their needs. They were
brought to the table, which led to the package that has received
nationwide attention over the course of the last month and a
half.
I may be a little unfair here and I will do a mea culpa if I am.
The member and the member who preceded him wanted to draw
attention to the fact that all of us share a particular
responsibility. His colleague, the member who preceded him, was
very forceful in indicating that the federal authority bears full
responsibility for the tragedy. I know members on the opposite
side of the House want to reflect on the way the blood system
worked.
Yes, there is a federal regulator. The provinces, as they know,
are directly responsible for administering the health care
system. The Red Cross at the time was responsible for
co-ordinating and delivering the blood system. Together they had
a responsibility to the public for the safety of the system.
I know members on both sides of the House when they quote Krever
will remember what he said in the interim report, that what
Canadians wanted was a system that was accountable, transparent
and, above all, safe.
When we are talking about responsibility I know members on the
other side want everyone to remember that this is a shared
responsibility and words like fully do not enter into the
conversation, into the dialogue, and should not be part of the
rhetoric.
What should be part of the debate is the important steps taken
by the federal authority starting from the interim report of
Krever to move immediately and forcefully on all aspects of the
report that related to the federal responsibility to ensure that
we have at the very beginning confidence in a blood supply that
was to be as safe as any other in the world. We started doing
that a couple of years ago and have continued on that basis. That
should be a priority.
We should also ensure that the accountability is transparent and
that everybody understands where it comes from. I know members
on the other side, even when they are prone to rhetoric in the
House, which I imagine is the proper place for it, will not want
to forget where the lines of responsibilities lay and will lie.
1210
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments. I certainly wish to assure him that my remarks
are more than rhetoric. My remarks come from the heart, as I am
sure his do.
I also take comfort from his remarks where he indicated that the
government had involved the victims up to this point. If that is
the case, it certainly lends support to the fact that he will see
fit to support our motion. The motion simply calls for a further
involvement of the victims by bringing them together at the table
so they can have a say in their future.
Also the motion is very clear with respect to the fact that the
meeting involve federal, provincial and territorial health
ministers. It will involve all parties as well. I thank the
hon. member for his comments. I certainly urge him to support
the motion because it will further underscore what he said about
the involvement of the victims.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would
like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the hon.
member for Waterloo—Wellington.
On behalf of the government, I wish to inform the House that it
is our intention to support the motion introduced today by the
party of the hon. member for Halifax.
[English]
Had I worded the motion myself perhaps I would have written it a
little differently in the sense that I think I would have
preferred wording which would have suggested that the
representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada be invited
to a consultation or meeting immediately prior to the ministers'
meeting in order to leave no ambiguity that the ministers may
want to meet among themselves. I think that is understood in the
motion although it is not quite clear.
The provincial ministers in any case would want it that way.
However the motion is that we urge the government to press. It
is not definitive in any case. In that regard we are prepared to
support the motion in question.
[Translation]
I would like to say a few words about the excellent work done so
far by the hon. Minister of Health.
My colleague, the Minister of Health, has worked tirelessly on
this issue and I can say that it is because of his efforts that
there is an offer today for Canada's hepatitis C victims.
I would like to offer him my full support and tell him that he
has my personal support, as well as that of all my colleagues, I
am sure, for the excellent work he has done to date.
[English]
We know of the very caring nature of the Minister of Health and
how he fought very hard for the package offered to the victims of
hepatitis C. We know a consensus was achieved which the minister
supported and defended on the floor of the House of Commons.
It is a spirit of solidarity when ministers of health of
different political stripes arrive at a consensus. I am not
saying what position he personally took to arrive at that
consensus but that does not matter in a sense. It is like a
cabinet decision in the sense that once the consensus was
achieved he defended it. He did it valiantly. He did it
brilliantly. He did a fantastic job.
We have a situation before us today, notwithstanding the
commitments repeated several times over, where some people are
now gravitating away from that consensus.
1215
Such is the case. Ontario has decided to do something outside
the consensus established and announced it in a press release
yesterday under the name of the premier of the province.
That consensus has been breached but not by the federal
government. To a degree it has been breached or at least it is
not the same as what it was before.
Therefore the Minister of Health indicated that he is willing to
have a meeting with his counterparts at the provincial level and
that meeting presumably will take place in the not too distant
future. He indicated his willingness to meet with
representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada.
[Translation]
I should add that the Minister of Health told me that he met
with representatives of the hepatitis C victims group on a dozen
or so occasions. This in itself shows the very strong
commitment by the Minister of Health to helping these
individuals.
In recent days, we have had many questions in the House from
members across the way. In some instances, we were told to cut
health spending at the same time as we were told to come up with
more money.
This is typical of the Reform Party members. They demand that
the government cut transfer payments to the provinces, including
those for health, slash aboriginal benefits, and so on, all the
while claiming to be the defenders of the less fortunate. The
Canadian people do not believe a word of it.
[English]
On the other hand, we had messages that were certainly
contradictory when it is known that the provincial and
federal arms of some of the other political parties were giving
messages that were different.
Be that as it may, the members of the House have asked a number
of questions on the floor of the House, as is their right. I do
not deny that. I have been in opposition long enough to know
that it was my right to ask questions when I was there. I think
I exercised it on a few occasions, if I can put it that way.
Today that is no longer the issue before us. The issue before
us is different. It is one of identifying whether, as I raised
moments ago, the consensus that existed and that was supported by
all ministers still exists.
In one case, we know there is some deviation. Now that
consensus is no longer the same, is there a need for a meeting of
ministers? It is our opinion that this would certainly serve a
very useful purpose.
When such a meeting is held should the Hepatitis C Society of
Canada be invited? Our position is yes, but we think the meeting
would have to be held somewhat separately from the one that would
follow.
All ministers would have to arrive at a new consensus, if there
is a new consensus. I have no way of prejudging the result.
Nevertheless, reading the motion in the broad sense as I think I
am doing, giving the benefit of how it could be read, then we are
prepared to support the motion in the name of the hon. member for
Halifax.
[Translation]
I will wrap up, because I know there are several members wishing
to speak today to this issue, which is a very important one for
all of us. There is not a single parliamentarian, I believe,
who does not have hepatitis C victims in his or her riding, just
as there are none without cancer or AIDS victims among those
they represent.
1220
We all have constituents living with very difficult medical
conditions, and suffering as a result of those conditions.
Naturally, we all sympathize, and wish to come to their
assistance to the extent that finances permit and to the extent
that the necessary money is available.
In the meantime, I am pleased to repeat what I said earlier,
which is that the government intends to vote in favour of
today's motion, in the hope that the discussions between the
Minister of Health and his provincial counterparts will be very
productive and that the meeting will take place in the near
future.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the NDP which moved the motion we are debating
today, we welcome the government's support for the motion. We
think this contributes to the progress we have been trying to
make in the last few days on this issue by pressing yesterday for
the minister to have a meeting, given the new circumstances,
getting that commitment from the minister late yesterday
afternoon so that we could then proceed to have a different
motion before the House today from the one we had planned.
Earlier we had intended a motion calling on the government to
have such a meeting.
We received the commitment that there would be such a meeting
and then we went on to move a motion to help influence the nature
and hopefully the outcome of that meeting by moving this motion
that the representatives of the hepatitis C society be invited to
any upcoming meeting.
I think the government House leader has interpreted the motion
correctly. It certainly does not mean to preclude in any way
that the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health
cannot meet on their own in the final analysis to determine
whatever consensus we hope there will be for compensating all the
victims of hepatitis C. It is very important that they do meet
with the representatives of the hepatitis C society in that
context so that the victims have a direct opportunity to put
their case before the people who will be deciding any future
arrangements for compensation.
I am sure that one of the people most happy about this in the
House of Commons today is the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Health because he will be saved any further embarrassment of
having to stand in his place hour after hour avoiding answering
questions as to how the government was going to respond to this
motion. I am sure he is greatly relieved and he will be able to
sort of untwist himself from the various positions that he
managed to take.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, let me start by
congratulating the parliamentary secretary for all his hard work
not only today in the House of Commons but every day and for the
interest he has in the health of Canadians, on informing himself
about all the issues involving health, on answering questions in
the House, on his faithful attendance in the House of Commons, on
his work generally here and in committees and even throughout the
country as he assists the Minister of Health. He has done a
superb job. I extend my congratulations to him as well.
I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona for clarifying
the intention of his motion. I think that is helpful. I am sure
everyone duly noted the context in which the motion was made.
This will certainly assist the ministers of health.
We have to recognize one thing, however, even on the passage of
this motion. This would urge the government to press for this
invitation and it is certainly our intention to do so once the
motion is passed. But it does not say that the premiers would
agree to it. That is a different matter. They will have to answer
for themselves in that regard.
1225
We intend to follow up and do that which is in the motion, with
the clarifying element that was brought to our attention by the
hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary secretary did give an interesting speech this
morning which was not down the government line. In fact, it was
somewhat negative on this motion.
I wonder if we could ask for unanimous support of the House for
the parliamentary secretary to come back now and give a second
speech where he can support the motion. He certainly did in the
first one.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I had previously thought
this was a serious issue. On our side of the House we still
consider it a serious issue. I hope other members consider it a
serious issue. Unfortunately it appears that one member does
not.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in the House today to speak in favour of the motion
presented.
On March 27, 1998 the federal government, the provincial
governments and the territorial governments announced financial
acceptance and assistance to people infected with hepatitis C
during the 1986 to 1990 period. Yesterday the Government of
Ontario offered compensation for pre-1986 individuals and is
exploring possible legal avenues to require the federal
government to meet the responsibility for its share of the total
hepatitis C costs.
The provinces, territories and the Red Cross were the operators
of the blood system in the 1980s. The provinces and territories
are also responsible for the operation of their health insurance
plans and the delivery of health care services. The federal
government is the regulator of the blood system. This role has
recently been confirmed and clarified by Justice Krever in his
final report. In addition, the federal government has taken a
leadership role in rebuilding what was clearly a flawed system by
acting to ensure the emergence of new forms of governance in this
area and new forms of risk management.
In addition, far from abandoning its responsibilities in the
area of blood and blood system management, the federal government
has taken a leadership role in negotiating the emergence of a new
blood system with a new governance structure. As part of this
effort, the federal government felt a responsibility to turn its
attention to the issues of the past. Following the release of the
final report of the Krever commission, it took upon itself the
role of leading the settlement of hepatitis C claims in the 1986
to 1990 period.
In doing so it moved to accelerate the settlement of claims from
victims for this period and to smooth the transition for the new
blood system. This government has been consistent, forward
thinking and diligent in its efforts both to help victims and to
reassure Canadians about the future of the blood system.
In redesigning the system and in dealing with the issue of
hepatitis C, the government has had the benefit of many
conversations with consumer groups and others. There has been
extensive consumer involvement in both processes. The Minister
of Health has met on many occasions with representatives of
groups such as the Canadian Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis
C Society of Canada. These consultations have been a source of
many new ideas. Their importance has been recognized in the
decision to involve consumer groups in the negotiated court
approved settlement process announced on March 27. As a
government we will continue to do so in the interests of all
Canadians.
I want to speak about the New Zealand experience. New Zealand
has a no fault accident compensation scheme. It came into force
in April 1994 and the relevant act was amended in 1982 and again
in 1992. Originally the scheme compensated for all injuries
resulting from any accident without any regard to fault,
including medical misadventure. While original the no fault
scheme was relatively generous, in 1992 it was changed.
Amendments were introduced to exclude hepatitis C infections from
the list of compensation events because it did not meet the
standards established for medical accident or something that was
severe within a period of mishap and therefore rare.
1230
In the same year changes in program administration led to lump
sum awards being replaced by an independence allowance for
non-financial losses of up to $38 Canadian per week tax free.
The New Zealand Hemophilia Society obtained an extension for
hepatitis C claims until June 1995 but as of that date New
Zealand's no fault scheme no longer covers hepatitis C
infections.
I draw the attention of the House to the independence allowance
cited above, in particular the $38 per week. This is not a large
amount of money. No fault schemes like this one strike a balance
between the range of conditions that can be factored into the
scheme and the affordability of it. In the evolution of New
Zealand's scheme awards, though they cover a range of conditions
they became small and common types of mishaps with gradual onset
and chronic impacts like hepatitis C and have therefore as a
result disappeared from that scheme. We should perhaps take this
history of New Zealand into account.
Equity requires inclusiveness and inclusiveness limits
affordability unless benefit levels are driven down to very low
levels as in New Zealand's case.
When equity is put aside and the focus is only on the specifics
of a particular diagnosis, there is capacity to contemplate
higher level awards as in the case of Ireland. Sooner or later a
scheme that runs on these grounds will face the challenge of its
own internal inconsistencies, and there will be a tendency to
drive out certain specific high cost conditions by redefining the
basis on which the no fault scheme applies.
At the end of the day, unless policy and program are carefully
designed, one is left with a no fault scheme that applies to
severe and rare conditions and is characterized by benefit levels
that are small marginal add-ons to income. We need to note that
is certainly most important.
While Justice Krever documented these various scenarios in some
detail, his report contains little analysis of the incentive
structures around the world with both for cause and no fault
schemes.
Canada like most other countries has much more experience with
for cause schemes than with no fault schemes. While there are
many calls to reform the justice system, the details of tort law
are sufficiently worked out that courts can render justice when
cause and effect are well defined.
The federal government and its partners in the March 27
announcement placed relevance on just these processes to render
justice in a very sensitive area. As to no fault, there are
serious and important issues of equity that will have to be
addressed in this area before a sustainable scheme can even be
possible. Doing no fault on the fly is a recipe for disaster, I
would suggest, especially in the medical area.
Even in New Zealand where it gave no fault a sustained effort,
the problems have been numerous and the administrative
difficulties immense over the years.
If Canada is to proceed down the no fault route it must be on
the basis of a sustained debate about the merits of no fault in
many areas and a careful analysis of the many implications that
no fault carries. We will not head up the blind alley New
Zealand has travelled, at least I would hope not.
Today in New Zealand commentators are pointing ironically to
Canada as an example of how things could have been done
differently on hepatitis C. Canada's leadership has been
recognized abroad.
One of the most important parts of the national debate about
blood has been the involvement of consumers in the process. Their
input remains critical to the refinement of our policy. Ministers
in this government, especially the Minister of Health, had
extensive consultations with representatives of groups affected
by the blood crisis, as did ministers in other jurisdictions.
The consumer perspective was an integral part of the process of
negotiation and consumer representatives were apprised of
developments throughout the process. Representatives of groups
such as the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C
Society of Canada met regularly with a variety of politicians and
their views were fed into the process at various points. This
will continue. It will be an integral part of the process and I
support that.
The blood system is ultimately about people, altruism and
equity, not federal-provincial relations, not partisan politics,
not political advantage. As soon as we come to realize this we
will all be better off.
1235
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time
with the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
I rise today to speak in support of the NDP motion before us. I
must say I am very glad to hear government members will be
allowed to support this motion. It is about time the Liberal
government did something positive for all hepatitis C victims.
For the Canadians who contracted hep C from tainted blood and
are now sick or dying what I say in the House are merely words,
and as they will say they are not looking for words but actions.
I cannot possibly convey in the few short minutes I have here
the pain, the suffering and the humiliation these victims have
had to endure over the past some 20 years. However I will read
into the record a letter that speaks volumes, far more than
anything I could say. It is a letter from a victim's
perspective. This gentleman lives in my riding. I met with him
over the weekend. I have had conversations and correspondence
with him before that. His name is Floyd Hubbard. He wrote the
following to me on Saturday:
I contracted hepatitis C through heart surgery in 1983. I've
been on Interferon for 7 months, which has caused me to have a
heart attack. My enzymes went down, but I've never been so sick
in my life. There were days when I thought I would die and days
when I wished I would.
This is the medical treatment you (Liberals) say you'll help us
get. Well I for one don't want it again. I had 15 years on
vitamins and minerals and herbs, plus a changed diet.
If I had to choose treatment I would choose a naturopath, a
masseuse, or to go swimming in a steam bath. In other words,
natural healing now if you're going to help us get this. That is
better than Interferon, the only treatment for Hep-C.
The other day I asked my doctor if I could get him to fill out a
form for my disability income tax credit. He didn't think I was
entitled to it. I had to beg. Do you know how this feels? Today
it takes me hours to shower and dress. I know I'll probably need
a wheelchair soon as I am going downhill fast. I was a capable
husband. Now I'm so sick my wife and I sleep in separate beds.
No wonder there's so many marriage breakdowns. I was also a good
father. Now my children and grandchildren are afraid they'll
give me their colds and viruses. I hardly ever see them. This is
a disease of loneliness, shame and isolation.
I had a good paying job, a 12-acre farm and a business. It's
all gone as a result of this disease. What do I have left? Not
even my pride, you (Liberals) took that away on Terrible Tuesday
when I watched the democratic vote that took place with the
Liberals. We are led to believe we all have one vote; you, Mr.
Prime Minister, took mine away from me. I couldn't believe I
live in Canada, “Glorious and Free”.
Mr. Hubbard is more than just one of thousands of Canadians who
contracted the hep C virus through no fault of their own. He has
been victimized twice, first by a federally regulated agency that
allowed poison blood to be pumped into his veins, and second by
an uncaring and cruel government which refuses to accept
responsibility for compensation.
This past Friday and Saturday I probably went through one of the
most difficult times in my short life as a parliamentarian. I
met with about two dozen other people who have been infected with
this disease in a couple of meetings in my riding. It was very
difficult to sit and listen to what they have gone through and to
realize how they felt about what happened on this day of shame
last Tuesday in the House.
The common theme in all of their talk is the hope that they would
not be forgotten.
1240
They said “Let us into the discussion. Let us sit around the
table with people who are making decisions concerning the
well-being of our lives. Let this not just be a deal that is
struck by politicians. Let us in”. They said “Give us a
compensation package for all. If it is not for all then it
should not be for any”.
Even people within the 1986 to 1990 window were telling me that
they would not accept the compensation package unless it was
given to all victims of the tainted blood scandal. Then they
said something else important that has not been injected into
this debate heretofore. They said “Compensation should be on
the basis of wellness. It should not just be a lump sum that is
simply given to people who have hep C and then forget about us”.
Right across Canada, as in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, there
are many others in the same boat. It has become to many of them
an abandoned boat void of government compassion. All this time
we have seen Liberal members across the way hiding behind a rock
of intransigence, failing to recognize that they need to do the
right thing.
Let us not dwell on this rock of cruelty. The events of the
last few days show us that perhaps the rock hard Liberal defence
of stubbornness and stupidity is finally cracking. With the
provinces slowly coming on board, the last line of government
rationale is turning out to be papier maché instead of rock solid
reasoning.
Though it appears government resolve in the matter is waning
there are still signs that Liberal backbenchers are not permitted
to think for themselves in this matter.
Let us take for instance what happened at the health committee
this morning. A few weeks back I requested through the clerk of
the committee that health committee MPs, a non-partisan group of
representative MPs from all parties, meet in order to invite the
health minister to appear. I want to personally extend my thanks
to the NDP member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Reform
members for Macleod and Wanuskewin in signing on to the
initiative.
It was my belief that the meeting would have allowed for better
questioning of the health minister concerning the hep C
compensation issue, that perhaps we could finally get to the
bottom of why this window is so narrow.
What happened at the meeting this morning? Did we get our
answers? No. We got a repeat of last Tuesday's vote, only worse
because not only are Liberals denying compensation for those
outside the timeframe but now it seems they are unwilling to let
the minister come to the committee to answer questions.
In effect, Liberal members decided to hide behind a rock of
silence. When it came down to the vote it was once again the
solidarity of the opposition against the solidarity of government
members, and the chairman had to cast the deciding vote because
there was a tie.
I am glad to hear that the members of the Liberal Party are to
support the motion. I am glad they have all been consulted on
the matter ahead of time and that indeed they will all
individually give the motion their support. That will be quite a
change from the day of shame last Tuesday.
Beyond that the party across the way really needs to examine its
commitment to accountability. That is the bottom line issue.
Indeed, how can they look their constituents in the eye and say
to them they represent their point of view in parliament?
In closing, I will be voting in support of the NDP motion. In
this regard my actions in the matter will speak far louder than
words. It is time to do the right thing and to vote to help all
victims of hepatitis C contracted through the tainted blood
scandal.
Prove to Canadians that we are truly caring for them and that the
Liberals across the way are truly the custodians of health care
and not the undertakers for those left out of the government's
compensation package.
1245
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is already foreseen how the
opposition will vote on every motion and how the government will
vote on every motion. That is fine.
A couple of comments made by the member opposite deserve some
attention. For the member to suggest that committees somehow work
in a fashion that is counterproductive just because other members
on the committee do not see it his way does an injustice to what
happens in this place. This morning in committee, committee
members reinforced the primacy of this place and the importance
of the accountability that ministers and the executive of
government have to all members of parliament in this place.
Over the course of the last six weeks we have seen member after
member pose question after question to the Minister of Health in
particular and the government in general not only on health
issues relating to the government's broader policies but also
general and specific government policies. For any member in this
House to suggest that is not a transparent and an accountable way
of keeping members of the executive responsible to this House is
to do a disservice to this House and to the committees
themselves.
For committee members to vote as they see fit on a motion,
whether it is properly put, properly worded, whether or not it
has merit has no bearing on what happens in this place other than
the committee draws its authority from this House. The member
would be well placed to recognize that. Perhaps he should
withdraw the kinds of statements that cast aspersions on his
colleagues in committee.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad for the hon.
member's diatribe on the committee structure. Unfortunately, the
very reason the motion had to be made in committee was that we on
this side of the House did not feel we were getting the answers.
We look upon the committee structure as the court of last resort
for us so that we can finally get answers. I reiterate that once
again it was the Liberal majority up against the opposition, and
the Liberals stonewalled it.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, one thing is certain. The new position of the
Government of Canada is not a position it took willingly and
freely. It is a position the government has been shamed into.
I have been listening very closely to the parliamentary
secretary and other members from the government side. I listened
very carefully to what the Minister of Health had to say
yesterday following the decision of the Premier of Ontario.
I have yet to hear the minister or the Government of Canada
accept the principle that all innocent victims of hepatitis C
ought to be compensated. I would like to ask the hon. member
whether I am correct in stating that the government has yet to
accept that principle.
The Minister of Health is now saying that he is prepared to
attend a meeting of health ministers. It seems to me that a
prerequisite of having any credibility whatsoever in attending
such a meeting is the admission, the understanding or the
acceptance of the principle that all victims should be
compensated, that all victims should have access to a
compensation package.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for the question. This is exactly why we wanted to open this
question up at committee.
We wanted to get the minister in to ask him these hard
questions. We wanted to ask why there is this narrow window of
1986 to 1990 when Justice Krever and other authorities on the
subject have told us that hepatitis C was in the blood system
prior to 1986. In 1981 Dr. William Moore of the Red Cross
laboratories told his own officials that he was concerned about
hepatitis being in the blood supply.
He said “Here is a test that has been used in other countries.
Use it”. They denied him that. It was not used.
1250
The government cannot get away from the fact that the Minister
of Health is the custodian of the country's health care system.
He is the top regulator. The minister has to take responsibility
for it. Health ministers in those days could have taken
responsibility for it, put a stop to it and we would not have
this tragedy today. That is where the liability lies. They are
not accepting it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to support the motion before the House and to add
my voice in urging other hon. members to do likewise.
For weeks the issue of securing fair compensation for all the
victims of tainted blood has been front and centre in the House.
The health minister and the Prime Minister presented legal,
financial and accounting arguments against expanding the
compensation package, but weightier arguments based on the
concepts of fairness, compassion and morality have also been
presented with many of them being provided by the victims
themselves. These arguments led to expanding the compensation
package for victims of tainted blood. We on this side of the
House are pleased to finally see some small movement in this
direction by the government.
The principal objective of the official opposition in this whole
exercise, and it is reflected in the NDP motion before the House,
is simply to get fair compensation for all those who contracted
hepatitis C as a result of defects in the federally regulated
blood system. The objective is not to drag the government down
and thereby score political points. The objective is to simply
do the right, fair and compassionate thing for the victims of
this tainted blood tragedy.
Daniel Johnson, the former Liberal leader in Quebec, is to be
commended for his initiative in raising this issue in a new way
in the Quebec legislature. Premier Harris of Ontario is to be
particularly commended for his leadership in this matter. Not
only has Premier Harris declared that the compensation package
should be renegotiated but he has also agreed to bring more money
to the table.
We feel therefore that the time has come for the federal
government, in particular the Prime Minister himself, to start
showing some real leadership on this issue and to drive it to a
fair and compassionate resolution. In our opinion the exercise
of this leadership involves three things.
First it involves the Prime Minister himself convening a
national federal-provincial meeting in order to resolve this
injustice. We agree that the victims of tainted blood themselves
should have input to this meeting, which is the thrust of the
motion before us. We also believe that this meeting should be
convened by the Prime Minister because the federal health
minister has lost all credibility on this issue. To coin a
phrase, he has hit rock bottom.
Second, federal leadership on this matter should involve
directing the Minister of Finance, who has been strangely silent
throughout all of this, to develop a plan for financing the
federal portion of an expanded compensation package by
reallocating funds within the existing federal budget.
Third, in order for the federal-provincial meeting alluded to by
this resolution to be successful, the federal government must
clearly and publicly abandon three arguments which the health
minister and the Prime Minister have been using over the past few
months to fight any expansion of the compensation package. These
arguments need to be identified and abandoned now because if the
government continues to maintain and advocate them, the
federal-provincial meeting envisioned by this resolution will not
be successful. Let me be specific.
First, the Prime Minister must fully and frankly abandon the
argument that there was no test available prior to 1986 to detect
hepatitis C in the blood supply. This is a false argument.
Justice Krever said clearly that such tests were available. My
colleague has already referred to Dr. Moore of the Canadian Red
Cross national reference laboratory proposing a test to help
screen donors for non-A and non-B hepatitis as early as May 1981
and the New York Blood Centre was testing for hepatitis C in
1982.
The government must acknowledge that its 1986 line in the sand
was drawn there primarily for political reasons which are simply
not acceptable to the Canadian people.
1255
Second, the government must abandon the argument that
compensating all victims of hepatitis C who contracted the
disease through tainted blood will somehow open the floodgates to
compensate everyone and anyone who becomes ill for whatever
reason. This too is a fallacious argument.
No one is asking the government to compensate everyone who
becomes ill regardless of the circumstances or the causes. What
we are requesting is that the government compensate people who
became ill as a result of proven government negligence,
negligence established as a result of a thorough, objective,
scientific and judicial inquiry by the Krever commission.
Third, the government must abandon the argument that somehow
compensating all victims who contracted hepatitis C from tainted
blood will be fiscally irresponsible. The official opposition
finds this argument both hypocritical and false.
It is hypocritical coming from Liberals who normally have no
hesitancy about spending public money on anything, particularly
when it is other people's money. It is also false because there
is a way to increase the federal compensation for victims of
tainted blood in a fiscally responsible manner. There is a way
to increase the federal compensation for victims of tainted blood
without increasing total federal spending, or taxation, or
unbalancing the budget.
The finance minister should be directed to find the money, not
through any spending or taxation increases but by reallocating
resources within the existing spending limits. Possible sources
of funding include the $7 billion in savings proposed by Reform
to the finance committee during the budget, debate and the
finance minister's so-called $3 billion contingency fund.
In other words, the federal government should approach the
funding of this expanded compensation package in exactly the same
way that a Canadian family faced with an unanticipated family
crisis would face the problem. If the family had no additional
sources of revenue, the only way to cope with a crisis like this
would be to reallocate funds, to take money from some other
purpose and apply it to dealing with the crisis.
This is precisely what the federal government should do in this
case. If it needs help in applying the novel concept of fiscal
responsibility within existing spending limits to this situation,
the official opposition would be more than happy to offer that
help.
In conclusion, I want to pay tribute to all the victims of
hepatitis C who have persisted in presenting their case. They
have persisted in the face of intransigence from the leader of
our country, and the Minister of Health who is supposed to be the
guardian of the health care system, and the intransigence of the
government itself. These people are persistent despite their
illness and lack of resources.
This resolution before us today acknowledges their persistence
and gives them standing at the federal-provincial meeting. May I
suggest that the greatest tribute we can pay to these people is
not through resolutions, through speeches or through press
releases but by simply doing the right thing. In this case doing
the right thing involves providing just and compassionate
compensation for the effects which this terrible tragedy has had,
is having and will continue to have on their lives and on their
families.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one in this House has anything
against acting to do the right thing. I want to remind the
Leader of the Opposition about what the right thing and the
responsible thing is and what this government has done.
Over the course of the last almost five years that he has been
in this House, the Leader of the Opposition has had the
opportunity to press the last government and the current
government to act on this issue. I remind him and other members
in this place that his voice was remarkably silent.
Notwithstanding his silence, the Government of Canada through its
health ministers acted swiftly on the recommendations of Krever.
1300
Indeed, the current Minister of Health moved that his colleagues
at the provincial and territorial levels recognize the ongoing
issue needed to have their energies for a quick resolution.
But he suggested it be done within the environment of parameters
that all can accept, and the Leader of the Opposition says we
have to do this on the basis of some fault or guilt we can find
and it has to be done through an appropriate system, à la Krever.
I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition is aware that what he
is telling all Canadians is that the judicial process which has
worked in this country for so many decades is the exact process
he is suggesting we use, and that he is not talking about
compassion, he is talking about justice. Will he decide for once
to tell us exactly whether he is talking about compassion or
whether he is talking about justice and fairness?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a
pretty short memory, or perhaps we should say a selective memory.
He might recall that during the period the Krever commission was
carrying on it was the government that attempted to stonewall
that commission. It particularly endeavoured to prevent that
commission from getting cabinet documents that might have
implicated Liberal cabinet ministers.
The period Krever was talking about, 1981 when the test was
available, was when there was a Liberal government in power. I
suggest the official opposition has pressed this point during the
Krever inquiry. It was the government that resisted our
inquiries.
In our view the government has not done the right thing in
response to the member's question and no amount of apologizing
after the fact, no amount of legal gobbledegook from either the
minister or other members, no amount of spinning the story, no
amount of trying to now appear to be on the side of the premiers
when the government a week ago was castigating them in this very
House as being opportunistic, callous and cynical; no amount of
that type of thing will remove from the government's record the
fact that it acted in this case not with compassion and not with
justice but it acted in precisely the opposite fashion.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader
of the Opposition a very simple question. Out of respect for his
position as Leader of the Opposition of Her Royal
Majesty and at the same time out of humility, can the Leader of
the Opposition acknowledge once and for all and say the right
thing, that it was this Minister of Health who advanced
this issue of compensation for the victims of hepatitis C in
Canada by convening the ministers of health across the country to
the table?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, to set the member
straight on that question, it was the victims of hepatitis C
themselves who advanced the case. They did a far more effective
job of it, far earlier than any politician on either side of the
House.
It was Justice Krever who advanced this case to the point where
it simply could not be ignored by the government or stuffed under
the table.
The role that has been played by the Minister of Health in this
issue has been that of a lawyer arguing the government's side of
the case, not of a health minister whose primary concern is the
health of Canadians.
There were arguments on one side of the issue. There were
arguments on the other side of the issue. The health minister,
this lawyer in health minister's clothing, took the arguments on
one side of the issue and consistently presented them in this
House until he was knocked off that position by the provinces,
the victims and the official opposition.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to extend the time to ask the Leader of the Opposition a
question.
I notice that a good number of members were rising to ask the
Leader of the Opposition questions and I would ask that the time
be extended.
1305
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the hon. member for Halton.
May I thank the hon. member for Palliser for introducing a
constructive and helpful motion in a non-adversarial spirit. I
think the ultimate solutions to this issue will come in a spirit
of co-operation that will include all members of the House. I
will have something to say on the content of the resolution
shortly, but let me simply say in historical retrospect a good
deal of present problems stem from the way in which this issue
was first handled.
I have consistently in the past as an expert witness on
constitutional affairs before numbers of federal parliamentary
commissions and others argued against the use, even the abusive
use, of royal commissions of inquiry on issues that properly can
be handled by parliament and should be handled by parliament.
It is the Mackenzie King ploy which is peculiar to Canada among
all the common law countries that if you have a difficult problem
you postpone the decision by setting up a royal commission,
knowing that it will take a long time. This is I think one of
the problems. When the Mulroney government made the decision to
go to a royal commission I think it had enough facts to make a
decision at that time. All the social problems were known and I
think it could have been handled.
Instead we, in a very delayed way, handled in a forum not
conducive to broader community solutions a problem that could
have been handled otherwise. As the United States supreme court
has said, only limited aspects of social and community problems
are seen through the narrow windows of litigation and legal
processes. I think this has been one of the problems in dealing
with the hepatitis C crisis.
It is, however, one of the interesting paradoxes that the
gentleman whose name has been so often cited on both sides of the
House, with the impression in my mind that very few members have
consulted his report and those who have may have been lost for
the large continuing truths in the thicket of information that
goes through so many volumes, is somewhat opposed to legalistic
solutions.
He was a student of our greatest torts and delicts lawyers and
Dean Cecil Wright of the University of Toronto. Wright's basic
solution for problems of this sort was to take it away from
lawyers, take it away from legal processes, get into the larger
area of community compensation in relation to social problems.
It is interesting that the first direct application of that
thinking was in automobile insurance, take it away from the torts
lawyers. You get a different aspect and a different approach.
Horace Krever who was my colleague for four or five years has
essentially reflected that approach.
A very perceptive editorial in the Globe and Mail today
makes this comment, that he does come out in a way with a
non-legal solution. He looks at the issue and wants a solution
that sees a problem as a community problem, not a one shot
solution as such, but what do you do with people whose lives have
been potentially shattered and in certain cases actually
shattered. Is it not part of the community problem solving
approach, the social security network, to be able to handle
medical emergencies that arise, that have arisen in the past and
that will surely arise again in the future in this period of new
patent medicines so suddenly without full tests? Is it not better
to handle it in that larger context?
I think the answer to that is yes, it is better handled in that
context. I rather regret that the Mulroney government did not 10
or 12 years ago bring the parliamentary standing committee on
health into the act.
1310
The health committee in this parliament is one of our best
committees. We know its members work hard, are dedicated and do
not travel much. They do their work, and why not in this
particular context.
One of the problems, however, in the interpretation of the
Krever commission report as it has emerged has been to confine
and fetter the solutions into the context of a lawyer's package,
a financial legal settlement. When the issues are before the
courts, a great deal of this goes toward lawyer fees. However,
even outside the context of a legal settlement by lawyers before
the courts, I think some questions are relevant.
It is generally assumed, by the way, that somebody is liable in
this case. I am not sure as a lawyer whether this is true other
than the Red Cross, but I think this is the approach that
distorts a solution along the broader lines I have suggested.
The arbitrary figure that has emerged of $60,000 per person is
apparently, on the statistical evidence, unnecessary in a third
of the cases, somewhat arbitrary in another third but totally
inadequate, clearly, in at least a third of the cases we have
been seeing. It will not meet more than a fraction of the burden,
the disruption and destruction of the total life picture.
I think what we are looking for is a solution within the
existing social security network. People on this side of the
House take great pride in it but we can recognize also the
contribution from a provincial political leader of the hon.
member for Palliser's party, the contribution made to a
comprehensive social security network which not only includes
health, medicare and pharmacare but family and disability
insurance. The basis for a proper solution is available within
the existing governmental services.
I think the motion from the hon. member for Palliser is
constructive because in a certain way I do not think we have
really heard what the hepatitis C victims really want in this
particular issue. We have been told that this is the solution
asked for but I would have rather thought that we would get a
more nuanced approach such as I have suggested if they were
consulted.
Bringing the representatives into the health ministers' meeting
is not for the federal government alone to make the decision.
However, I am sure the other governments would agree that
bringing them in is a way to enlightenment of how the problem is
viewed and to producing a compensation that is not going to be
lawyers' compensation but may go well beyond that in the sense
that it is really making sure the victims can live out their
lives decently with their families and dependants. We can bring
it to a solution in this particular way.
I look forward to the meeting taking place on this basis and to
the responses made in that context.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems that a prerequisite of the government's having
any credibility whatsoever in attending a conference of health
ministers is that the government has to accept the principle that
all individuals who contracted hepatitis C as a result of the
blood system should be compensated and should have access to
compensation.
I would like to ask the member if he agrees now, in light of the
fact that his minister has agreed to attend a meeting, that all
victims ought to be compensated.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the hon. member. The problem here I think is the meaning of
the term compensation. I spent a good deal of my time making the
distinction between a lawyer's one shot compensation and a
compensation within the larger community, social security
network. This would cover not merely victims of hepatitis C but
all victims of unattended, unexpected medical disasters. We have
had them before with thalidomide and we are going to get them
again in the future.
In that context, I believe the minister would be in agreement
with him.
1315
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member from
Vancouver Quadra, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. He made some very thoughtful and insightful
comments and observations.
I wonder if he could answer this question. I was particularly
interested in his comment that the solution is in the existing
social security network. I wonder if he could go on and
elaborate more about that in terms of what we as a government and
indeed all Canadians should be looking for with respect to the
solution being, in part, in the social security network.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for that very thoughtful question.
It has always seemed to me that the solution is not limited to
medical treatment, or hospitalization, or pharmacare, or in-house
treatment, which I would regard as necessary parts of the
package. When I spoke of the larger social security network I
meant members of victims' families and their dependants. Their
lifestyle is dramatically changed, just as it is for those who
have contracted the disease. The fear is there.
We are getting into the area of human resources. Part of a
comprehensive solution must involve the ministry of Human
Resources Development. It must involve an expanded and an
accelerated view of disability pensions. It might involve an
ombudsman being appointed to accelerate these cases and to get
them through.
We need that sort of comprehensiveness. It is in the social
security network. It may need extra shortfall funds in
particular cases. It certainly is not going to get into the $3
billion expenditure that some people feared when the original
announcements were made.
If we can get into that larger perspective we have a better
solution than what has emerged so far in the debates in the
House.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this debate is
taking place in the light of a change of mind or a change of
heart by the province of Ontario. According to news reports it
has changed its mind three times in the last four or five days.
I would caution all members of this House that the changing of
the mind of one province does not an agreement make. The NDP
Government of British Columbia has been steadfast in refusing to
budge on this issue. At this date we do not know what the
chairman of the committee of ministers, the minister of health
for Saskatchewan, is going to say in response to that change of
mind by the province of Ontario.
Our minister, in response to Ontario's change, has agreed to
meet once again. There are some very good reasons for that. The
fact is that the decision which was brought to this House was the
decision of 13 provincial and territorial governments. That
message has got to be made very clearly. When our Minister of
Health was standing to defend that decision, he defended an
agreement of 13 territorial and provincial governments.
During the last five weeks there has been a disease in this
House. It is a disease called political opportunism. That
disease has some symptoms that are clear. The first one is
selective memory loss. You forget part of the story and only
tell half the story, and that becomes the case. The second
symptom is failure to recognize where responsibility really lies.
The third is, in many cases, a complete reversal of party
policies in order to exploit this tragedy.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that had it not been for the
Minister of Health this issue would never have reached the table.
The previous—
1320
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the Liberal
member opposite was delivering his speech he made an accusatory
statement against the Reform Party in which he said that we were
exploiting the victims of hepatitis C—
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member is engaging
in debate. I did not hear the hon. member make any reference to
any particular party.
My recollection is that he was referring to the debate in the
House in general. I did not hear an accusation and I certainly
suggest the hon. member is raising a point of debate.
Mr. Julian Reed: I am sorry my hon. friend feels so
sensitive about it.
Mr. Dick Harris: When you lie you really take offence to
it.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley knows that he should be prudent in his
choice of words. I know he is not making an accusation, but I
invite him to think about his comments and avoid that kind of
comment in the House.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have been called worse by
better.
I point out that my minister brought this issue to the table
when the previous government wanted to cover it up. It did not
want him to do anything because it knew it would be contentious.
At first the provinces and territories would not engage in a
dialogue on any kind of compensation. Finally the minister got
them together and they agreed on the package that he came back to
the House with, which he has defended.
I would suggest that the Minister of Health who has been
castigated in this place for the last five weeks is a hero for
doing that. He is a hero for taking a position of leadership
that previous governments would not take.
The selective memory loss of the opposition is simply a refusal
to acknowledge that there were other governments involved in the
agreement. There were 13 provinces and territories involved in
those decisions. When governments began to hang the minister out
to dry, starting with the premier of the province of Quebec and
spreading from there, it was—I wonder why I stop speaking when
the hon. member interjects. I really should keep going.
Mr. John Solomon: I would be lost for words defending
Rock too.
Mr. Julian Reed: I will never be lost for words defending
someone who has shown the courage that the minister has shown
over the last five weeks defending the government against the
disease of political opportunism.
I spoke about the reversal of policy. The Reform Party must
bear the brunt of responsibility for its reversal of policy. The
Reform Party uses this issue to try to look good on health care
because it knows that the Reform approach to Canada's health care
system is not popular. It is strange to see the Reform Party
suddenly talking about compassion when the sum total of its
policy over the years has been anything but compassion.
Where was the compassion when the Reform Party said it would cut
$3.5 billion from social assistance programs? Where was the
compassion when it said it would cut $3 billion from old age
security and $5 billion from the employment insurance program?
Where was the compassion when it said it would cut $3 billion
from equalization payments to Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba?
Where was the compassion when it said it would dismantle the
Canada pension plan and eliminate benefits for both disabled and
pregnant women on maternity leave? I point out that the
maintenance of the Canada pension plan—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member should be careful if
he is rising on a point of order. I think I heard words that
were quite unparliamentary from him. Maybe he is raising a point
of order about his own comments. I invite him to be very careful
in his choice of language.
1325
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
your warning and your advice. I will follow that advice, but I
want the record to show that I find it very offensive for this
member to put out the words that he is putting out which are so
far from the truth they cannot be accepted.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I think the hon.
member is engaging in debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary
is stating his view. I know members may disagree with the view,
but I think it is a matter of debate and not a point of order.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the
maintenance of the Canada pension plan will be one of the means
by which people who are too ill to work, who are totally
incapacitated, will be assisted. The Canada pension plan is
there for those people. As modest as it is, it is there for
those people at any age.
The Reform Party wanted to dismantle the Canada pension plan.
We all know that. Today the Canada pension plan is there for
those victims of hepatitis C who have lost their ability to work.
It is there as a backstop for all of them. Reformers wanted to do
away with it.
We will be voting for the NDP motion this afternoon. We support
it. The vote is certainly free, as far as I am concerned,
because I am perfectly content to vote for the motion.
I hope and pray there is a change taking place in the minds of
the provincial and territorial governments. The responsibility
rests with them to get together and to come to some decisions
that will allow us to move forward on this issue.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to the member who has just
spoken that we appreciate further indication of Liberal support
for our motion today.
I want to raise with the member his comments about the concerns
many on this side of the House have raised about the health
minister and his actions over the past five weeks.
I want the member to know that we are not singling out the
health minister's actions over the past five weeks as shameful.
We have said shame on all members who voted against a policy last
week calling for fair and full compensation. We have said shame
on government policy that actually set up a two tier system of
benefits for hepatitis C victims.
We have said shame on a government that has failed to recognize
responsibility for regulatory failure, as happened in the past
when it came to thalidomide and HIV.
I would like to ask the member if he and his colleagues are now
prepared to take Justice Krever's recommendation seriously and
take to the next federal, provincial and territorial ministers'
meeting a proposal whereby they accept full responsibility for
the failure of the blood system and look at the option presented
by Justice Krever in terms of no fault insurance.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows
the blood system and the processing of blood was in the hands of
the provinces and the Red Cross. There was responsibility there.
In order to come to a successful conclusion on this issue every
province and territory had to be included. They are part of the
answer and their unanimity is absolutely necessary.
I share the feeling of concern for all victims. There is not a
member of this House who does not.
1330
The fact is if we are going to come to some successful agreement
and conclusion on it, it has to involve not just the federal
government by itself but also all of the provinces and
territories. Quite frankly in this case there is no other
choice.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is quite a chore to sit and listen to the hon.
member across deliver, and I am trying to think of the word for
it but I guess it was a diatribe on how the Liberal government
and particularly his hero the Minister of Health were the ones
that were the leaders in getting compensation for the hep C
victims.
The member forgot that the Minister of Health only obtained
compensation for half of them. What about the other half? That
has been the question in this House for the last two or three
weeks. What about the ones that were so conveniently forgotten
by this disgraced Liberal health minister and his colleagues? We
watched the Minister of Health sink deeper and deeper into the
pit of disgrace and we wondered whether he would have the courage
to show his head again.
Just the other day when the provincial governments were talking
about how they wanted to take a second look at the forgotten hep
C victims, the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister had the
audacity to condemn the provincial health ministers for the
compassion they were showing to the forgotten hep C victims. That
was disgraceful. The Minister of Health had the gall to label
their compassion as the lowest form of cynicism. The actions by
the Minister of Health and the Liberal Party toward these hep C
victims is, in a word, reprehensible. They should be ashamed of
themselves.
Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Speaker, we have just seen an
example of the disease of selective memory.
About three minutes ago I finished an exchange with a member of
the NDP and pointed out that there were 13 governments involved,
the provinces and territories. The Reform Party would dearly
love to load all the responsibility on to a minister who
courageously got the provinces and the territories together to
work out some sort of agreement. They came to an agreement and
the minister defended that agreement.
There have been some changes made in the minds of some of the
provinces. That has opened a window of opportunity.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate. The hon. member for
Surrey Central.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I heard the speech from
the member from the other side. He was talking about where the
compassion was. He was asking a question of the official
opposition during his speech. I would like to ask the hon.
member—
The Deputy Speaker: You are on debate.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not on a speech.
I would like to ask a question of the hon. member.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the time for questions
and comments has expired. We are at the point of resuming
debate.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I assume I have 20 minutes to speak, if I could just
confirm that.
An hon. member: As long as you are not sharing your time
with another member of your party.
Mr. John Nunziata: I do not have another independent
member to share it with so I will use the 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for a reality check. The
previous Liberal speaker was accusing opposition parties of a
reversal of policy. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use the words
hypocrite or hypocrisy because I know it might offend your
parliamentary sensibilities, but we are talking about a party
that has mastered the art of reversing its policies.
1335
All I need mention is the GST. It was a party that fought
against the GST and a party that embraced it once it came to
power. It was a party that fought against free trade and then
embraced it once it came to power. Now it is a party that
claimed the file was closed and barely 24 hours after making that
assertion, all of a sudden the file is open. When one speaks of
a reversal of policy and when one is making that statement from
the government benches, one ought to be looking in the mirror.
The member went on to refer to the health minister as his hero.
I am sure he ought to be aware of the phrase worshipping false
idols. He said he was courageous and had it not been for the
Minister of Health, there would not have been any compensation
whatsoever, suggesting that the provincial health ministers had
to be browbeaten into accepting the fact that $1.1 billion ought
to be put on the table.
The reality is that the Government of Canada through the health
minister recognized legal liability. What the Minister of Health
was agreeing to was not compassionate compensation; he was
agreeing to damages. He was accepting liability. That was the
major thrust of his submissions in the House week after week. He
was saying that there was liability, culpability between 1986 and
1990 and for that reason he was making available damages or
money.
To suggest that it was the Minister of Health who led the way to
provide compensation is pure nonsense. He was simply recognizing
that in a court of law the Government of Canada would have been
found grossly negligent if not criminally negligent as a result
of the tainted blood system.
I think it is time the Liberal backbenchers stopped
regurgitating the talking points that have been provided to them
by the Prime Minister's office and started using their own
judgment and intelligence in making their arguments.
The fact is that the right and just thing would have been to
compensate or to provide compensation, to make it available to
all those innocent victims who suffered as a result of tainted
blood.
The member refers to a reversal of policy. I would suggest that
the spectacle we saw last week was a reversal of principle of the
Liberal Party of Canada. It is a party that has prided itself
over the years as the party of justice, a party of fair play, a
party of equity, a party that goes to bat for the disabled, the
disadvantaged in our society, a party that goes to bat for the
unemployed, goes to bat for the sick. What we saw last week was
a party that abandoned the sick and the dying in this country.
Had it not been for the premier of the province of Ontario, had
it not been for Mike Harris, the file would still be closed. Now
the government and its members want to take credit for the fact
that compensation will inevitably be made available to all who
suffered as a result of the tainted blood system in this country.
To this moment I have yet to hear a government member or the
minister admit or accept the principle that all victims ought to
be compensated. We are still hearing this notion of culpability
and fault. They still have not accepted the fact that what is
right and just is to make compensation available to all victims.
It seems to me if the government has any credibility at all it
must accept as a prerequisite into walking into that meeting the
principle that all victims ought to be compensated, that a
compensation package should be made available for all victims.
Unless and until the discredited Minister of Health or the
discredited Prime Minister make that admission, the exercise they
are about to embark upon will be nothing but a farce.
1340
All the arguments put forward by the government and the health
minister as a basis for their position are now suspect. How can
the government pretend to have any credibility whatsoever? After
weeks and weeks of questioning, the minister has maintained that
if compensation were available to all innocent victims it would
bankrupt the health system in Canada. They either believe it or
they do not. Yesterday they seemed to be embracing the opening
made by the premier of Ontario. In effect Premier Harris was
saying that all victims ought to be compensated. All of a sudden
they have abandoned the argument that the health care system will
be bankrupt as a result.
The government and the health minister put forward another major
argument, that if they compensate hepatitis C victims it would
open the floodgates to all other individuals who become sick as a
result of the health care system. Once again that argument has
been totally abandoned. It seems that their credibility has been
abandoned as well.
It is critical that the meeting which is about to take place be
an open meeting so Canadians can hear and see the arguments being
put forward by the Government of Canada and the governments of
each of the provinces and the territories. For 10 men and women
to lock themselves in the privacy of a room is undemocratic.
There is no accountability. That meeting of health ministers
ought to be open in order to ensure there is integrity to the
process. Canadians want to be able to see and hear the arguments
being put forward by the federal health minister and the
provincial health ministers.
It seems that the motion put forward by the NDP will carry this
afternoon and that the Hepatitis C Society of Canada will be
present. Not only should the Hepatitis C Society of Canada be
permitted to attend the meeting, but all Canadians should have an
opportunity to see what goes on at the meeting.
With respect to the level of compensation, I would hope this
government is not about to take away something that has already
been provided to the victims between 1986 and 1990 in order to
compensate those who contracted hepatitis C before 1986. To this
day we do not know how the arbitrary figure of $1.1 billion was
arrived at. That dollar amount is on the table. We do not know
whether that amount is too generous or whether it is not enough.
We do not know the arguments that led to the figure of $1.1
billion.
If we accept the position of the Government of Canada that there
are an additional 40,000 to 60,000 victims who contracted
hepatitis C prior to 1986, it seems that the entire package has
to be improved threefold in order for it to be just and fair
using the same principles or arguments that were used in coming
up with the $1.1 billion figure. If instead of 20,000 victims we
now have 60,000 victims, then the compensation package ought to
be $3.3 billion to be shared. The lion's share ought to be borne
by the Government of Canada because it was clearly the most
responsible and the most negligent with respect to this matter.
I hope when question period begins in a few minutes that the
Minister of Health will agree that the figure that ought to be
the starting point for negotiation ought to be $3.3 billion.
Anything less than that will result in compensation dollars being
taken away from those victims between 1986 and 1990.
If they accept the principle that all victims should be treated
equally, it seems to me that should be the starting point.
1345
I have another submission to make. In listening to provincial
premiers, provincial health ministers, the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Health, it is almost as if there were two different
sets of taxpayers in the country, provincial taxpayers and
federal taxpayers. There is only one taxpayer that pays both to
the federal government and to the provincial government. Canadian
taxpayers have said in overwhelming numbers that they support
fair and just compensation to all victims.
Instead of fighting interprovincial turf battles between the
federal and provincial governments, surely both the federal and
provincial governments ought to keep in mind that there is only
one taxpayer and that taxpayers are prepared to compensate
victims just as they were prepared, and rightly so, to compensate
victims of the floods in Manitoba and the ice storms in Quebec
and Ontario.
That is the Canadian way. It is the right, just and
compassionate thing to do. It was not based on any negligence or
any potential lawsuits with the Government of Canada named as a
defendant. It is because as Canadians we have earned an
international reputation of being a compassionate people. For
that reason we send billions of dollars in foreign aid overseas
to help others in the world who are destitute and hungry. It is
the right thing to do and the Canadian thing to do.
The Liberal government was prepared to abandon its fellow
Canadians, Canadians who are suffering terribly as a result of
being poisoned by the blood system, Canadians who through no
fault of their own will lead very difficult lives.
Let us put the matter in context. I do not believe Canadians
have yet to comprehend the magnitude of this tragedy. Not only
are we talking about tens of thousands of our fellow Canadians.
The numbers range up to 60,000. We are also dealing with their
families and the devastation that this has caused to their loved
ones, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles. When
we think of the magnitude of the tragedy, one in five will die as
a result of being poisoned by the system.
Hundreds of young Canadian children with lukemia went into
hospitals and had their lukemia cured, only to find that they
were poisoned by the blood system. Their lives were put at risk
because of a blood system that they trusted.
This is a matter to be dealt with by the first ministers, the
Prime Minister, the premiers and the leaders of the territories.
This is an issue that is grave enough to be determined. In terms
of the health ministers, beginning with the Minister of Health in
Ottawa and their credibility, Canadians do not trust them. They
do not believe them in terms of the positions they have taken,
the arguments they have put forward and the rhetoric they have
used.
This file ought to be taken over by the Prime Minister and the
premiers to show the same leadership that Mike Harris has shown
in Ontario, a man who is often vilified by Liberals opposite as a
man lacking in compassion and understanding for disadvantaged
people in society. If only the Prime Minister and the Liberals
opposite could show half the compassion and understanding that
premier showed just a few days ago.
I would conclude by saying that this meeting is about to take
place. It ought to be an open meeting so that we can see and
hear firsthand the arguments being put forward by various levels
of government.
As a starting point the participants at this meeting have to
agree that the compensation package on the table ought to be
tripled to ensure the same level of compensation is available to
all innocent victims.
1350
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for my hon. friend. It seems to me the Prime Minister
has made two remarkable decisions in the last few weeks. One was
a remarkably callous decision based on legal doublespeak, and
false legal doublespeak at that, not to compensate all hepatitis
C victims but only the ones after 1986. The second was a
remarkably stubborn decision. He was unable to admit that he was
wrong in the decision on compensation, forcing his Liberal caucus
to vote against their will in many cases against the Reform
motion last week, to the extent that Gordon Gibson, who once
worked in Mr. Trudeau's office and who is a long time Liberal, in
his editorial this week spoke about the Prime Minister and his
entourage and encapsulated them in one sentence: “Little men,
mean horizons. But by God, they're in charge”.
Does my hon. friend not agree that what has happened is that the
Liberals are now forced to wear this stinking carcass of this
terrible decision? They want to avoid the smell. They are
trying to get away from it. Does he not agree that what is going
on now is an exercise in damage control?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, regardless of what has
happened and what may happen, one thing appears to be certain.
Either as a result of being shamed into making the right decision
or as a result of certain provincial governments recognizing that
they were wrong at the outset, I believe we are on the path to a
right and just decision with respect to this matter.
A number of other concerns have been raised as a result of this
issue. In the 14 years I have been in parliament no other issue
has torn members apart as this issue.
It ought not to have been a confidence vote. That is quite
clear. It was not a vote of confidence. No one ever believed it
to be a vote of confidence. It was deemed to be a vote of
confidence, only as a mechanism to coerce Liberal backbenchers
into supporting the motion. Could we imagine for a moment that,
had the Reform motion carried, the Prime Minister would have
walked down to visit the governor general to dissolve parliament?
They would have gone into an election campaign and the theme
would have been “We have abandoned the sick and the dying. The
country is strong. Vote for us”.
That is pure nonsense and everyone in the House knows it. I
hope that one of the other results of this debate is an
accelerated push for parliamentary reform and more free votes in
the House so that all members of parliament, especially when it
comes to matters of conscience, are free to vote their conscience
and not forced into toeing the party line.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with close attention to the hon. member's speech. There is one
thing though that I would like to ask him about.
There is in fact, as far as I can tell, no evidence of how many
real victims there are in this hepatitis C case. We have numbers
all the way from 6,000 to 60,000. The government will choose to
use the higher number to try to build an argument against it
because of high cost.
The numbers may in fact be a lot lower. I was wondering whether
the hon. member would care to comment on this point. Perhaps,
instead of talking about absolute numbers in terms of how much
budgetary money should be available, we should simply set a
principle that all should be treated equally and then find out
how many there actually are.
Mr. John Nunziata: I suspect the government deliberately
exaggerated the numbers to bolster its argument that the health
care system would be bankrupt.
In conversation with Jeremy Beaty, head of the Hepatitis C
Society of Canada, he too agrees that the numbers have been
exaggerated.
He believes the total number could be as low as 25,000 to 30,000
Canadians.
1355
It seems to me the government has not been forthright. The
government has not been honest with regard to the numbers because
it simply wanted to, as I indicated, bolster its argument.
Having made the argument now that 60,000 people were infected by
the blood system, it seems to me that the level of compensation
should be based on that number. They came up with the figure of
$1.1 billion and presumably the health minister agreed that was a
fair amount. I do not know how they picked that amount, not
knowing the exact numbers and how they assessed every case.
As a lawyer, the Minister of Health ought to know that each case
might in fact be treated differently in a court of law, depending
on the extent of injury or harm caused to the individual. We
know that hepatitis C will affect people in different ways. We
know a certain percentage will die. Others will lead relatively
normal lives. Fatigue may set in, extreme fatigue.
A court when considering these matters and in setting the
quantum of damages will determine the extent to which the
individuals have been harmed as the result of negligence.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want
to ask the member what moral and intellectual leadership the
present Minister of Health can bring to the table if and when the
health ministers meet. I think they have some positions which
are completely untenable. He has made some outrageous statements
in the House, for example stating that the package could not be
reopened because if it was it would bankrupt our treasuries. In
other words it would jeopardize health care in the country
because we simply could not afford that package.
Given that point of view, and the minister continues to support
that point of view, what could constructively happen out of the
meeting that is planned for the health ministers in the near
future?
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I submit that it would be
very difficult for the health minister to have any credibility
whatsoever in attending these meetings.
He has stated that the file is closed. He has repeated day
after day the arguments that the floodgates would open and that
it would bankrupt the health care system in the country. How
could he conceivably attend a meeting of first ministers and have
any credibility whatsoever after having stated those positions
not only in the House of Commons but across the country?
If there is to be any integrity to the process that is about to
take place, first the process should be open so that all
Canadians can see what is happening and, second, the current
health minister ought not to be a participant at those hearings.
The Speaker: As it is almost 2 p.m. we will now proceed
to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
JUDGE LEE GRAYSON
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Hamilton Niagara citizenship court judge, Lee Grayson, who has
had a tremendous positive impact on the Niagara community,
completed her term of office in 1997.
Judge Grayson approached her duties relating to new Canadians
with the same high degree of interest and enthusiasm as our new
citizens expressed in their new home. In countless ceremonies
she presided over she welcomed each new Canadian with a degree of
honesty and sincerity that came from her love of her work.
Judge Grayson has talked with hundreds of new Canadians about
Canada, their place in our great country and how they can
contribute to our society.
Having attended several ceremonies as a federal representative,
I have seen firsthand that this fine individual is a
compassionate and dedicated Canadian who has served her country
with competence and with pride. She has greeted our new citizens
with the warmth and friendship they deserve.
I also enjoyed the reaffirmation of citizenship ceremonies she
will conduct from time to time for all Canadians, especially on
July 1, Canada Day. The public record will show that she was one
of the best.
On behalf of myself, my staff and Erie—Lincoln residents I wish
Judge Lee Grayson every success in her future challenges.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's Merchant Navy of World War II suffered losses many times
more than the other three services at war.
1400
They braved the enemy's sea
To supply Allied war need.
Cold lonely duty, constant targets of an unseen foe
No buglers to hail the oncoming enemy blow.
Simply, the sudden shudder of a ship as torpedoes explode
Is the only notice of impending doom for the lucky.
Lucky because being alive, there is still hope
For others, the shudder ushers death.
When the war did end, all were veterans but them.
Fifty years have slipped by, yet they still question why
They are not veterans in life, but will be in death.
The world owes a great debt to Canada's Merchant Navy.
Best we not forget.
* * *
[Translation]
MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1976,
Jean-Claude Babain, Robert “Bob” Meunier, Jean Duplessis, Yvon
Rioux and myself applied to the Quebec major junior hockey
league for a franchise for Val-d'Or.
The dinosaurs of the league kept on turning us down, from 1976
to 1992, but we finally got our franchise in 1992, and in 1993
were officially admitted to the Quebec major junior hockey
league.
Today, thanks to their courage and determination, Les Foreurs de
Val-d'Or are the new Quebec and eastern Canadian major junior
hockey league champions.
After only five years of existence, Les Foreurs de Val-d'Or will
be representing eastern Canada at the Memorial Cup junior hockey
series to be held in Spokane, Washington.
Hats off to the volunteers and the directors of Les Foreurs de
Val-d'Or, their fans, and the people of Abitibi. The efforts of
these young players have brought them to an extraordinary
victory.
They all deserve our congratulations.
* * *
[English]
ELIZABETH FRY WEEK
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, May 4 to 10 is national Elizabeth Fry week. The purpose
of national Elizabeth Fry week is to promote public awareness and
education regarding the circumstances of women involved in the
criminal justice system.
This year's theme focuses on alternatives to incarceration.
Across Canada Elizabeth Fry societies have organized public
events in their communities to encourage all Canadians to examine
productive and responsible alternatives to costly incarceration.
The incarceration of women has great consequences not only on
the women themselves but on their children, their families and on
society as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to join with the society to bring greater
public awareness to this issue.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the $350 million community based healing strategy,
announced in “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action
Plan”, was formally launched by the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and the federal interlocutor for Metis
and non-status Indians. The foundation is a non-profit
organization that will be set up and run by aboriginal people to
work with those who tolerated abuse in the residential school
system.
The next few years will be an important time for teamwork
between both the federal government and community groups. As the
member of parliament for Nunavut, I ask for co-operation for all
concerned as we take these important first steps in recovering
the past so that we may move successfully into the future.
This is our chance to truly create the new partnership the
federal government promised in its response to the RCAP.
I also take this opportunity to wish the chair of the
foundation, Mr. George Erasmus, and other members like Inuit
Tapirisat of Canada every success as they begin to implement this
important initiative.
* * *
FAMILIES
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as elected representatives, all of us in this House are
aware of the increasing stress on our families. This stress
takes many forms.
Families are stretched to the limit worrying about their jobs or
in some cases worrying about trying to find a job. They are
worrying about caring for their families, their children,
sometimes aged parents and looking after their homes. Many have
money problems. Some are deeply in debt. All of them are
stretched to the limit.
It is because this government has an insatiable appetite for
more and more revenue from hardworking Canadians.
Reform has proposed a solution to this stress on families. It
is to increase significantly the basic personal exemption, the
spousal exemption, to index again to inflation the earnings of
Canadians and the tax levels of Canadians so that they will not
be eaten away by stealth taxes. Also, to extend the—
1405
The Speaker: The hon. member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.
* * *
YOUTH
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to address the House on the importance
of youth week, a celebration to which we should give the highest
priority as Canadians.
We must invest in our young people if our society is to
prosper. The best investment we can make as a government and as
a society is in learning.
The Government of Canada believes that we must not only build a
country on opportunity, jobs and growth but we must make sure we
are building a society where every Canadian has equal access to
those opportunities.
That is why the government introduced the youth opportunity
employment strategy which helps Canada's young people make the
transition from school to work, to getting that first job.
The important question of access was also behind the Prime
Minister's announcement last fall of the Canadian Millennium
Scholarship Foundation.
Through these measures, we are ensuring that Canada's young
people have the opportunities to benefit from the great
opportunity facing Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 22,
the plenary session of the Council of Europe adopted the highly
regrettable recommendation that asbestos be banned.
Canada did not do enough to convince the European
parliamentarians that crysotile asbestos can be used in a
controlled manner. Canadian parliamentarians were, in fact,
absent when the report was adopted on January 7, 1998 at the
commission on social affairs, the family and health.
It is important that energetic efforts continue in order to
allay the fears of the European parliamentarians concerning
asbestos.
This fibre, which is responsible for the economic health of an
entire region of Quebec, is completely safe when used in
accordance with the appropriate rules.
It is high time for the Canadian government to finally shoulder
its responsibilities by filing an official complaint with the
WTO.
* * *
[English]
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as this is emergency preparedness week, it is a perfect
opportunity for Canadians nationwide to increase awareness and to
learn best how to plan and prepare for the risks they may face in
their community.
Recent history has shown us that disasters can happen to anyone,
anywhere, any time, the ice storm being the latest example.
I am pleased to note the presence in the gallery today of the
provincial and territorial winners of the 1997 emergency
preparedness week drawing contest.
Over 1,000 students across Canada between the ages of 9 and 13
entered the drawing contest. The students were asked to
illustrate what they perceived as the dangers in their community.
I know my colleagues join me in congratulating and commending
these young Canadians for their excellent work. They set an
example for us all.
* * *
CANADIAN HOCKEY TEAMS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
our Canadian NHL teams face economic disadvantages when competing
with American teams because their cities and states give them
huge subsidies, allowing them to pay huge salaries to the
league's biggest stars. There is certainly no disadvantage on
the ice. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Contracts, tax breaks and subsidies are a problem for our teams
but those are superseded by grit, determination and heart,
demonstrated by our teams in the first round of the playoffs.
There were countless heroes but none more important than the fans
who provided the enthusiasm and passion driving our teams to play
as champions and upset the American titans.
On behalf of the official opposition and all Canadians I want to
congratulate the Edmonton Oilers, the Montreal Canadiens and the
Ottawa Senators. As these David and Goliath battles proceed,
Reform will even be rooting for that team called the Senators.
* * *
MENTAL HEALTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
May 4 to 10 is Canadian mental health week, during which a number
of special events will be held to promote public awareness and
education about mental health.
One of these events involves two young Canadian women who are
challenging the waters of Ontario this summer by canoe.
Erin McKnight of Mississauga and Marie Roberts from Kingston
have teamed up to paddle for mental health. On April 25 they
launched their trip from Lachine, Quebec, and made their way
along the St. Lawrence, arriving in Ottawa on May 1. Their
voyage will reach The Pas, Manitoba and on to Hudson's Bay in
August and next spring they will continue on to Tuktoyaktuk,
Northwest Territories on the Beaufort Sea.
Both Erin and Marie are here with us today in the gallery. On
behalf of all hon. members, permit me to extend our sincere
congratulations and best wishes for a safe and successful voyage
to promote mental health awareness.
1410
The are a tribute to Canada's youth and we salute them for their
important health initiative.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the millennium
scholarship fund is a flagrant example of the federal
government's obsessive attempts to interfere in areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
In 1953, the Liberal Prime Minister, Louis Saint-Laurent, tried
to subsidize Canadian universities. Quebec blocked the proposal
and, in 1957, got the support of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
In 1964, Lester B. Pearson proposed offering loans to students
and paying the interest.
Jean Lesage was opposed, because the repayment of interest
became a sort of direct federal subsidy of education.
The third try was by the current government. After cutting $3
billion from education in Quebec, the Liberals are creating a
private foundation to serve their purposes.
This time around, Quebeckers with a single voice are demanding
the federal government return the amount in question so the
Government of Quebec can manage it according to its priorities.
* * *
[English]
FRESH WATER
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario
government has recently indicated that it supports a private
company's application to sell Ontario fresh water for export to
Asia.
This is the beginning of a host of private entrepreneurs
applying to export and sell fresh Canadian water in bulk. They
view water as a commodity to be exported just like oil or timber.
Fresh water is different. It is the nation's lifeblood. It is
part of life itself. Proponents of bulk water exports view
Canada as having a fresh water surplus. This is simply not so.
Water plays a crucial role in our nation's ecosystems and is
there for a reason. It is not a surplus commodity to be sold to
the highest bidder.
NAFTA poses a threat to our ability to stop this sale. A good
first step would be for Canada's Minister for International Trade
to say simply no to any future bulk sale of Canada's fresh water.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE ROBERT DE COSTER
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were sad
to learn of the death April 30 of Robert De Coster, following a
long illness.
Mr. De Coster was a high ranking and respected official in the
Quebec public service in the 1960s. Among other things, he was
the deputy minister of industry and trade in the 1970s and
responsible for setting up the Quebec Régie des rentes and the
Régie de l'assurance-automobile.
More recently, Mr. De Coster had the job of analyzing the work
of the Montreal urban community police and of Urgences santé as
a consequence of the tragic events at the École Polytechnique in
Montreal.
He served as chairman of Sidbec-Dosco and honourary chairman of
the board of the Laval University hospital.
An accountant by training, he also served as vice-president of
the Caisse de dépôt et placement and he will leave his mark in
the annals of Quebec public administration.
We extend our condolences to his family, his relatives and his
friends.
* * *
[English]
FINANCE
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
week the auditor general released his latest report on the
government's financial statements and the finance minister and
this government received a failing grade from the auditor general
for the third year in a row.
Why? Because for the last three years the finance minister has
cooked the books by retroactively allocating funds from the
previous fiscal year to pay for upcoming spending programs. First
came the HST buyout, then the innovation foundation and now the
millennium scholarship foundation.
What is the reason for this shoddy bookkeeping? To keep
Canadians from seeing a surplus.
The fact is the finance minister is afraid to show Canadians a
surplus and afraid to show his own government members a surplus.
He is conveniently delaying this debate of what to do with the
surplus when he should be giving Canadians what they deserve now,
fair compensation for all hepatitis C victims and a millennium
tax break now, in 1998.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN UNITY
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1867, the
two linguistic communities, the anglophones and the
francophones, decided to unite to form a confederation whose
existence is now firmly established and must continue to exist.
Other communities also made an essential contribution to our
development and helped Canada become what it is today, that is a
country which is the envy of the world.
Canadian unity is our strength and our pride. It is also a
guarantee of stability and of a better future for all Canadians.
As a member representing an anglophone riding in the heart of
southwestern Ontario, I want to say that my Canada includes
Quebec.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, under pressure from the premiers, the health
minister finally started to change his position toward the
victims of hepatitis C. After weeks of belligerence and excuses
the minister has finally started to sound a bit conciliatory.
But he still did not answer one critical question, so I would
like to put that question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister now agree that all those who contracted
hepatitis C through government negligence should be compensated?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the hon. member talks about negligence that is
where the responsibility lies. The provincial ministers and the
federal ministers chose the date of January 1986 because,
according to scientific data, it was at that time that the
government of the day could have started to do more.
If the question is in relation to responsibility, that was
exactly what the package was all about. What the Leader of the
Opposition is talking about are those victims who were infected
when there was no legal responsibility for any of the
governments.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still a big part of a problem.
Federal-provincial negotiations on this subject are going to get
nowhere unless the Prime Minister accepts this principle. The
principle is that all victims of hepatitis C who contracted that
disease through government negligence should be compensated.
Can we get a straight answer from the Prime Minister? Does he
or does he not accept that principle?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about negligence.
This is when you come to the conclusion that it started in 1986.
Before that, if he claims there was negligence, that is fine.
Let us find out when the negligence occurred. According to what
we know at this time, and in the view of all the ministers around
the table at the time of the agreement, negligence started in
1986.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we have had a whole judicial inquiry into this and
Justice Krever answered this question by saying that there was a
way to detect this disease in the blood supply as early as 1981
and that these people became ill because of government
negligence.
The victims, the premiers, the Prime Minister's own backbenchers
are asking him to accept this principle. I ask him one more
time, does he accept the principle that all the victims of
hepatitis C who contracted it through government negligence
should be compensated?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition can establish clearly
when negligence started, he knows that we would take
responsibility. We said that we were responsible from 1986
because we could have tested for the hepatitis C virus at that
time. But the government of the day did not use the tests that
were available in 1986. Apparently before 1986 there was no
negligence because there was no way for the government to find
out.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this sounds
like some kind of courtroom argument. This is the way the
government has taken this from day one.
This question is not that tough for the Prime Minister. It is
not tough at all. I think we will ask it until he answers it
directly. Does he agree with the principle, yes or no, that all
victims of hepatitis C from tainted blood should be compensated?
That is the question. Yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that the critic should talk to his leader,
because the leader was asking us about negligence. We said that
when there is negligence there is responsibility. All the
governments have agreed that negligence started in 1986, not
before that.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think any of them have read the Krever report. The minister
himself said there were four volumes and there are only three.
In the Krever report it says that the screening test was
available to Canadian regulators as early as 1981. What did they
do with it? They ignored the test.
I will ask again, does the Prime Minister agree with the
principle that every one of these victims who got hepatitis C
from tainted blood should be compensated, yes or no?
1420
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is not sticking to his own position. He is now
saying that fault began in 1981, so compensation should start
then. In essence he is agreeing with us, he is just drawing the
line at a different place. The member is saying that only after
1981 victims should be compensated. What about victims before
1981? Is the hon. member suggesting a two tier system for
victims?
The member is caught in the falsity of his own arguments.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over the last
four years, federal transfer payments have been cut by 35% and
frozen at $12.5 billion, and this does not take into account the
additional $1.6 billion cost of paying for the treatment of
hepatitis C victims.
Will the Prime Minister admit that no additional amount has been
proposed to help share the costs of caring for hepatitis C
victims, costs that the provinces will have to shoulder alone,
and that the government is a bit quick to wash its hands of the
matter?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government's responsibility with respect to transfer
payments to the provinces is that programs for health,
university and welfare are funded through the annual payments
sent to them by the federal government.
When the member says that the provinces are footing the whole
bill, this is not the case, because the federal government is
paying a very large portion of this amount through transfer
payments we make to them for this purpose, in addition to
equalization payments.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, hepatitis C is
a very special problem that requires a special solution.
The costs of compensation were shared because there is a shared
responsibility. When it comes to care, the provinces are on
their own.
Is the federal government not also responsible for sharing the
costs of providing health care to hepatitis C victims? The
federal government is getting off with a bill for only 30% of
the costs.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
health care for those suffering from this blood problem has been
in existence for a long time. From the time they were infected,
these people have been receiving treatment from the provincial
governments, and in all cases the federal government is paying
its traditional share, as I explained earlier.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
Justice Krever, Ottawa bears the bulk of the responsibility in
the hepatitis C affair.
The federal government has the necessary funds for righting this
wrong, because it has cut transfer payments to the provinces and
is, when it comes down to it, footing only 30% of the bill.
How can the federal government continue to play this cat and
mouse game with the provinces, when it is largely responsible
for the problem, has the means to solve it, and is being called
upon to do so by almost everyone?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, as the Prime Minister has said, through the transfer
payments we share in the costs of the health care system.
Second, and a very important point, the hon. member needs to
keep in mind that Justice Krever recommended that a victim
compensation system be set up by the provinces.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the
Liberal MPs are looking for ways to spend the unexpected $4
billion surplus, is it not obscene that the Minister of Health
wants to add to the provinces' burden, when they are having a
hard time maintaining the quality of health care, precisely
because of federal cuts?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the
Prime Minister has already said, every year we transfer $12.5
billion to the provinces, Quebec included, and one of the things
this is for is the health care system.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
encouraging to see that the ministers of health will sit down
with representatives of the victims of hepatitis C.
It is also encouraging to see that the provinces will contribute
to the compensation of all the victims. However, to ensure that
all the governments take part, the next move is up to the
federal government.
Is the government prepared to assume the lion's share of the
compensation of those excluded?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
we have said, we had a very firm agreement with the provinces,
which we honoured.
At least one province has decided to break the agreement and so
we will have to sit down again to see what sort of consensus we
can reach, because, for a health system to work in Canada, the
same services must be available to all citizens in all
provinces.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
upcoming health ministers' meetings with hepatitis C victims will
only be a success if the federal government is prepared to put
more money on the table. Otherwise we will have two classes of
victims and an unacceptable Balkanization of compensation, as the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health admitted
earlier today in debate.
Is the Prime Minister now prepared to put new cash on the table
to extend fair compensation to all victims of hepatitis C?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will stick with the provinces. The leader of the
Reform Party introduced a notion of responsibility when he talked
about negligence. Did negligence start in 1986 or in 1981? What
about the victims before that? That would be a third category.
It is very important for the ministers to meet as soon as
possible. I think there will be a meeting next week to look at
all aspects. In order to have a good system in Canada we have to
work to find a consensus between the provincial governments and
the federal government. It is exactly what happened with the
accord we have—
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, given the
outrageous and extreme positions taken by the health minister—
and I guess we know what those are—unless he is willing to
swallow himself whole, what moral and intellectual leadership can
the minister possibly bring to the table when he convenes with
the health ministers from across this country to re-examine the
hepatitis C issue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I guess the best way of responding to that kind of question is to
remind the member and the opposition parties that had it not been
for this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister,
there would not be a single victim with compensation of any kind.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Health said yesterday in an interview, and I quote “We must now
consider what is in the public interest”. I wonder whose
interest he was considering last week. We do appreciate,
however, that he is prepared to take part in a special meeting
with the provinces.
A number of provinces have in fact promised to ensure that the
compensation program is open to all victims of hepatitis C.
Could the minister in turn confirm that he will be attending the
meeting with the commitment of the federal government to settle
once and for all the fate of all the victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
intend to meet my counterparts to discover if the various
governments can reach a consensus. We had one.
Yesterday, Ontario shifted. It changed position. It is now
vital that the governments look for a new consensus, which is
the aim of the upcoming meeting.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for a solid month now this health minister has dismissed the
claims of hep C victims as trivial.
It became clear that ordinary Canadians from coast to coast were
not buying the government's excuses and the provincial
governments right now are reconsidering. They are very concerned
about it.
I ask the Prime Minister today, is this file closed or not?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made a deal with the provincial governments.
Last Friday they all said they were sticking to the deal.
All the ministers were on the phone with the minister of health
of Saskatchewan. After that, through a press release, the
minister from Ontario said she was not speaking on behalf of the
province because the premier of Ontario pulled the rug from under
her. That is one provincial government that decided it would not
respect the deal. That is why we are calling another meeting to
develop a new consensus.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the provincial government in Ontario offered a couple hundred
million dollars. I think that is pretty substantial.
The health minister has said that abandoning victims was the
right thing to do. He felt that for a solid month. He put every
single obstacle imaginable in front of these victims.
As recently as last night the health minister said “the file was
closed, honest to God” it was closed. He closed his mind, he
closed his heart and the victims know it. They do not trust him.
1430
Will the Prime Minister today close the file on this health
minister once and for all?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they can ask questions today because it was our Minister
of Health who advocated finding a solution. The minister of
health for Ontario did not want to do anything. Reform wants to
cut all social programs but they are bleeding hearts on this one.
Only 10% of Canadians think the Reform Party members are doing
this because they are compassionate but 75% of Canadians think
they are doing it for politics only.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM BUG
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Treasury Board recently published the Braiter-Westcott report
on the conditions to be met in order to deal with the so-called
millennium bug. According to senior officials, there will have
to be a considerable reduction in legislative and regulatory
initiatives between now and the year 2000 if readiness is to be
achieved.
Are we to understand that, according to this report, the
government should go into neutral so it can deal with the
millennium bug and that there will be no more major legislation
between now and the year 2000?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague mentions an important problem, and we have given
thought to how the government can most thoroughly ensure that
the millennium bug will be properly dealt with.
We have warned departments to be careful not to add new
electronic systems relying on year 2000 information so as to
ensure that the system is not overloaded.
This is just a precaution so that we can ensure that the
millennium bug has been properly dealt with.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mercier.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the report
says, however, and I quote “[Contemplated] legislative,
regulatory or administrative changes should be examined for
their impact on solving the Year 2000 problem prior to
proceeding”.
Will the minister level with us and admit that government
priorities between now and the turn of the century will be
driven not by poverty, unemployment or health, but by the
millennium bug, if the government wants to be ready in time?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is normal
for a government to have to face a great variety of
difficulties. One of these difficulties, and there is no
denying its magnitude, is the millennium bug.
The Treasury Board is ensuring that too onerous a burden of
administrative pre-requirements is not being introduced, because
it is important that we deal with the millennium bug. There is
no doubt that our legislative agenda will continue to include
the government's priorities.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would really like to know to whom the Prime Minister has been
talking. I do not think it has been hepatitis C victims. The
Prime Minister has not been clear. Either he is for full
compensation or he is not. Either he will commit funding or he
will not. Enough excuses. Enough hiding from the victims.
Enough insulting the provinces. What exactly does the Prime
Minister believe in today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should have prepared his question on the
day of this question period rather than the day before. At this
moment everybody knows that the Minister of Health has asked to
meet with all the ministers of health of Canada next week. In
terms of money, we have put $800 million on the table while the
provincial governments have put only $300 million on the table.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister seems able to spend money on polls to tell us
the truth but he does not seem to want to tell us what money he
has for victims. Is this file open to compensation for all hep C
victims or not?
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): The
member should consult with his own leader. His leader wants to
pay them when there was negligence so we will have to find out
when the negligence started.
* * *
[Translation]
ASSISTANCE TO ICE STORM VICTIMS
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
learned that there are no more funds in the federal program to
assist maple syrup producers restore their operations following
the ice storm. This will force the closure of a number of work
sites and the layoff of 300 workers.
However, three weeks ago, the Minister of Human Resources
Development announced an additional $5 million to help victims,
which we have yet to see.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm this
information and tell us where he put the extra $5 million, whose
whereabouts remain a secret?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for giving me another opportunity to tell
this House how quickly we acted in response to the ice storm.
By January 20, we had announced $40 million in addition to
employment insurance and an extra $5 million. The other $5
million was used to set up regular teams across the area
affected in Quebec, while $5 million was used to buy equipment
so others could do their job properly. And we have heard
nothing but favourable comments from the people of
Saint-Hyacinthe.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
impression is that we were not in the same place on the weekend,
because no one has seen any sign of the additional $5 million.
I would ask the minister what he will do with the 250 maple
syrup producers who have been promised help until November to
clean up their maple operations, who are facing the fact no
money is left and who are being left to their own devices?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to interpret the words of
the member for Saint-Hyacinthe as thanks for the $45 million
already spent, particularly in his riding.
I think our department and our government provided a lot of help
to the maple syrup producers who were affected. I made a quick
trip to the region. The people there are quite happy.
The other $5 million was to go for equipment and to provide
easier access for workers not eligible for employment insurance.
If the member for Saint-Hyacinthe did not understand that, then
he has not yet grasped how the system works.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the finance minister. Recently in Canadian
Business magazine there is a report which points out that this
finance minister continues to discriminate against single income
two parent families. They pay 20% more in taxes. They have 6%
less they can contribute to their RRSP. There is no recognition
of the value of their parental care.
Why will the minister not stop his discriminatory practices to
these Canadian families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that there is a spousal
credit already built into the system. There are benefits
provided through the income tax system for families where only
one parent is working. At the same time, my colleague the
Minister of Human Resources Development put a second $850 million
into the child tax benefit. The purpose of that is to help those
families with low incomes and children at home.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the last budget we saw a 35% increase go to those who choose
institutionalized child care and nothing to stay at home parents.
I ask the minister, and it is the same as my question before.
Why will he not answer and why will he not treat these Canadian
families fairly?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just have. What I basically said to the hon. member
was that in the same budget he is referring to, the child tax
benefit was doubled. Another $850 million is going directly to
families with low incomes and children. That is the kind of
thing we are going to continue to do.
* * *
[Translation]
ASSISTANCE TO ICE STORM VICTIMS
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with much fanfare,
the Secretary of State for Economic Development for the Regions
of Quebec announced a $100 million program to assist businesses
affected by last January's ice storm.
Since the program terminates on June 30, could the minister make
a commitment to provide a weekly report from now on, indicating
which companies have benefited from the program and what amounts
they received?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can understand the frustration of the official opposition,
when the Government of Quebec has refused to work with the
Government of Canada to help small and medium size businesses.
If the Bloc Quebecois were following the program, it would know
that, when I made a presentation before the Standing Committee
on Industry, I had the opportunity to provide a rather detailed
progress report on the program.
1440
It would also know that, at the time of that presentation before
the committee, we also announced a loosening up of the criteria
in order to include professionals.
This good news is proof that the government is attuned to the
public and wishes to serve its interests.
* * *
[English]
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
skilled workers such as electricians tell us that Americans are
entering the country as technical experts under NAFTA and are in
fact doing their work. Can the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration tell us what her department is doing to try to stop
such abuses and keep jobs in Canada for Canadians?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, NAFTA permits certain
business persons from Canada, United States and Mexico to have
access to each country to conduct some types of activity and
under specific conditions. If a person does not respect these
conditions, the immigration department is able to take some
enforcement action. I would encourage any member who is aware of
a situation like that to refer it to my department.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance minister is intentionally twisting our
questions.
We are asking about single income families, not low income
families. In the finance minister's recent budget he increased
the child care credit by $2,000. However it does not allow
parents who stay at home to take care of their children to claim
this credit. When is this grossly unfair system of taxation
going to change?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I did answer the question in terms of the
spousal credit which of course is available to single income
families. The real problem is why would I ever think the Reform
Party would have any interest in asking a question about low
income families?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let me try again.
The minister is in charge of this nation's finances. He is in
charge and he can change it but his last budget is discriminatory
and he has increased that discrimination by 35%.
Research shows that his tax policies are harmful to families. I
will ask the question again. When is he going to change his mind
and change the tax act to treat all families equally and fairly?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, does the hon. member think that the 83% of Canadians,
those earning below $50,000 who had their income tax reduced, are
not Canadian families? The 400,000 Canadians struck from the tax
rolls, are they not Canadian families? The volume of residential
building permits increased in March, up 12%. Are they not houses
that are being built for families? Mortgage rates are down. Does
that not benefit families? Everything this government does has
benefited Canadian families. That is why there is so much
optimism.
* * *
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Finance. Today in the
Globe and Mail the minister finally recognized what we have
been telling him for months when he stated concern that bank
mergers would hurt jobs, small communities and small business in
this country.
Meanwhile, while the minister fiddles, thousands of bank
employees are fearing for their jobs and bank presidents are
making millions on their stock options. In light of that, will
the minister finally lay down his fiddle, do the right thing and
stop these mergers right here and now?
1445
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what does the hon. member have against a parliamentary
hearing so that Canadians can participate in the discussion? What
does the hon. member have against waiting for the MacKay task
force, the most fundamental and comprehensive report that has
ever been done?
What the hon. member is asking for is no public debate, no
enlightenment and no giving to Canadians an opportunity to
pronounce on the most important financial resectoring in the
country. What they simply want to do is envelope themselves in
the cocoon they have been in since the 1930s.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will take the minister up on his offer.
Last week, less than a month after mergers were announced by
banks in the United States, the banking committee of Congress
started public hearings quickly. Meanwhile in this country the
minister is hiding behind an unelected task force that has no
mandate to look into these specific mergers or the 30,000 jobs
that are to be lost.
In light of that, will the minister at least agree to an
immediate all party committee hearing on the issue, or will he
continue to play off the public interest against his own
leadership ambitions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is any political party that needs the MacKay
task force it will obviously be the NDP for these public
hearings.
I would like to take advantage of the hon. member's question to
thank the Liberal Party caucus task force, all of whom are
elected, all of whom have gone across the country and have met
with all segments of society.
There is no doubt that when the debate takes place in the months
of September, October and November, Liberal Party members of
parliament will be the best prepared of any in the House.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the men
and women of the merchant navy who risked their lives supplying
our troops on the frontline during World War II held a rally in
front of the Peace Tower today. They were protesting the
inequalities and benefits that have existed between them and
other veterans for the last 50-plus years.
I wrote to the Minister of Veterans Affairs giving him a list of
the 40 inequalities. What I would like to know today is whether
he address these inequalities and when these veterans can expect
to see corrective legislation to make them equal with all the
other vets in Canada.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member and I believe the House know, the
current merchant navy legislation was passed in 1992. With the
passage of the legislation it extended to merchant navy veterans
all the same rights and benefits as those in uniform enjoy.
Finally, they were recognized for the tremendous key
contribution they made to the freedom and peace that we enjoy
today and that I celebrated with them in Halifax this past
weekend.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I know
that is the standard answer from the minister, but all he has to
do is ask those veterans, look at the list of 40 inequalities,
the list that I gave to him, and address them.
I want to raise the issue of money with the minister. Bill
C-84, the legislation that was to make merchant veterans equal
with the other veterans, originally had a budget of $100 million.
It was lowered to $88 million. According to the Merchant Navy
Association it estimates only $7 million to $8 million were
spent.
Will the minister tell the House if he is able to account for
the rest of the money. If not, why not and where did it go?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member and the House
that three members of the Liberal Party caused this initiative to
be taken, joined later by a member of the NDP.
If she wants to know where the money went, why does she not ask
her own people who were forming the government of the day.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Rail line transportation remains an integral feature of
agriculture in western Canada. What is the minister doing to
ensure that abandonment of rail lines or the transfer of short
line operators will serve the interests of all parties in western
Canada?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is a burning issue in
western Canada, especially among farm groups. For that reason
the government has decided to provide facilitation services
between community groups and the railways so that short lines are
being used for purposes grain farmers would like them used to
haul those commodities.
1450
We think this will result in a more equitable situation for all
farmers in western Canada. The government is pleased to do its
part in helping this along.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a constituent named Julie Hubbard has written to me to
describe her situation. Julie is a single working mother of two.
She has a total income of just over $20,000, placing her well
below the poverty line.
The tax code forces her to add her child tax benefit money and
the GST credit to her gross income. Now she finds herself owing
another $186 to Revenue Canada.
With tax codes like this, will the finance minister acknowledge
that his tax code is creating child poverty, not solving it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last budget 400,000 Canadians were taken off the
tax rolls. The person who was just referred to will have
received a substantial decrease in her income taxes. At the same
time, if she chooses to go back to school she will find a $3,000
government grant which will help her to do so.
In fact we have brought in a balanced approach precisely to help
people like the young women to whom he referred.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
because of its approach to young offenders, the federal
government is clearly in favour of incarceration, according to
the federal Deputy Minister of Justice.
Does the minister agree with her deputy minister that, if the
Government of Quebec wants to withdraw its fair share of funds
intended for young offenders, it must change its approach and
favour incarceration, because, according to the deputy minister,
funds are granted only on this basis?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made it very plain in
the House over many weeks that we in the government do not take a
simplistic approach to youth crime. We want to renew the entire
youth justice system. That involves not only the protection of
society but crime prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration of
young offenders.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The average student debt has doubled to a record $25,000 since
the Liberals came to power. Who benefits from these huge debts?
The banks.
Very deep in the budget legislation is a clause giving banks a
bigger say in who gets a student loan. The Liberals are making
banks the gatekeepers of our children's future and that is wrong.
Will the minister reverse the privatization of student loans and
ensure that education is a public trust rather than a revenue
generator for the big banks?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to take this occasion to remind the House
about seven measures which were in the budget in terms of student
debt.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for the millennium
scholarship foundation and the $3,000 a year for over 100,000
Canadian students. In the same budget there is a $3,000 grant to
single parents who want to go back to school. In the same budget
there is a 17% tax credit for those who have student debts. In
the same budget there is a series of measures to allow for either
reduction in debt, forgiveness of interest or a reduction in
principal.
In fact I would like—
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Shore.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government has yet to announce a post-TAGS program. It still has
not informed the House on an active licence buyback program to
reduce effort and retire senior fishers.
Will the minister inform the House of the proposals before the
special cabinet committee? Thousands of families are waiting his
reply.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can inform the member and
every member in the House that we are working very hard on the
post-TAGS environment.
We have done a lot of consultation through the Harrigan report.
We have done evaluations of the TAGS program. We are determined
to do the best we can for the individuals and the communities.
We will be working in partnership with the provinces in coming
weeks and months to make sure that individuals can meet the
post-TAGS environment in the best possible way.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians support the government's initiative to stop the
illicit traffic of small arms. In fact Canadian NGOs met today
to call for more action.
1455
Will the minister take up this issue of trade in small arms at
the G-8 meeting in London next week?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to tell the House that in fact it
was a Canadian issue that had the question of small arms
trafficking put on the agenda of the G-8 meeting and the foreign
ministers meeting.
We are looking particularly at the question of a code of conduct
that could be established which would govern the use of weapons
and the illicit trafficking as it now represents one of the most
oppressive threats to civil peace around the world. We hope at
the G-8 meeting we can get the agreement of those leaders to
pursue the matter in a very positive way.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, after that staged fluff question permitted from the
government backbench I have a real accountability question.
It has been 736 days since the victims bill of rights
disappeared into the black hole of a committee. It has been 329
days since the justice minister promised to reform the Young
Offenders Act. A timely fashion is not 736 days for victims and
329 for young offenders.
When will the justice minister exercise some leadership in
cabinet and actually do something instead of lecturing us about
how complicated these things are?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon.
member that we will be tabling the government's response to the
standing committee report very soon.
Let me say, as it relates to victims, the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights is in fact holding a national forum in
June. I have written to the committee. I have asked it to
consider some of the ideas I have in relation to victims. I look
forward to hearing what members of the opposition have to say on
this important issue.
* * *
[Translation]
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade.
On the subject of asbestos, the government is delaying lodging a
complaint against France before the WTO. However, in less than
a week, two new meetings with the French government have
produced nothing.
When will the government finally admit it is high time it
officially lodged a complaint before the WTO in the matter of
asbestos?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the asbestos file the
government has always had the possibility and option of a WTO
file on the table. We also said, which has been concurred by
many stakeholders from the province of Quebec, that we wanted to
pursue the matter with elements of the French government.
We had the visit last month of Professor Got who will be
submitting a report hopefully based on science. Yesterday and
today we had the minister of state for health, Professor Kouchner
who is meeting with our Prime Minister and our ministers.
We are doing everything we can in order to facilitate—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The minister
expressed concern yesterday about the issuing of an environmental
permit by the Government of Ontario to a firm called Nova for the
export of water to Asia.
Could the minister, having now had more time to consider the
matter, tell the House what the government intends to do to
prevent this precedent setting export of Canadian water?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was in contact this morning with the minister of
the environment in the Government of Ontario. We talked about
the various options. They will be in Ottawa tomorrow to meet
directly with me about the matter. At that time we will take
what we hope will be a joint action to deal with this issue.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
private woodlot owners need to be able to amortize profit to
accommodate sustainable forest management. Is the minister
willing to change forestry taxation and capital gains regulations
to ensure continued and sustainable fibre production on Canadian
private woodlots?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer to that question has not changed since I
responded to his colleague about a month ago. The fact is that
woodlot owners who are in normal business have all the rights of
normal business people and can obviously take those kinds of
deductions and amortizations provided they are in business.
* * *
1500
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
couple of new immigrants came to my office last week. They are
highly respected physicians. They were invited by this
government to come to practise medicine in Canada but lo and
behold, the professional organizations have refused to allow them
to work.
My question is for the minister of immigration. Why is the
government misleading immigrants? Why promise and not deliver?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, when we meet people
abroad who want to immigrate here, we are very specific about
our laws and about legislation governing access to the
professions within each of the provinces.
That said, I would hope that now, with the federal-provincial
committee on access to the professions, we will make progress in
this area and will give more immigrants opportunity to practice
certain professions in Canada in the near future.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a point of order with regard to an
incident that occurred today at the Standing Committee on Health.
The standing committee adopted a motion restricting members from
introducing motions in the official language of choice contrary
to the rules of this House and the Official Languages Act. While
I voluntarily agreed to submit a motion with the committee in
both languages, I am concerned with the committee formalizing
this as a requirement in its procedures.
1505
Standing Order 65 outlines the procedure for moving motions. It
states:
All motions shall be in writing...before being debated or put
from the Chair....it shall be read in English and in French by
the Speaker, if he or she be familiar with both languages; if
not, the Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct
the Clerk of the Table to read it in the other—
Standing Order 116 states that in a standing committee the
standing orders shall apply. Standing Order 116 lists some
exceptions such as the election of the Speaker, seconding of
motions and times of speaking. However moving motions in the
official language of choice is not an exception. Moving motions
in either official language is a right granted to members by the
authority of this House and by law.
Subsection 4(1) of the Official Languages Act reads as follows:
English and French are the official languages of Parliament, and
everyone has the right to use either of those languages in any
debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
This subsection defines the rights of members of parliament to
speak and submit documents in their language of choice in
parliamentary proceedings.
The Commissioner of Official Languages in his report to
parliament in 1996 recommended that “the Speaker of the House
advise committee chairs, referring particularly to subsection
4(1) of the Official Languages Act, that language should not be
an obstacle to members of Parliament in the performance of their
duties”.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you of two important rulings
with regard to committees and the standing orders of the House.
On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996 the Speaker ruled:
While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters
of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which
go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.
In closing, the committee by adopting a procedure restricting
members from introducing a motion in the official language of
their choice has established a procedure which goes beyond the
powers conferred upon it by the House. This committee is in
breach of the standing orders and the law.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to comment on a similar complaint that was referred
to the Commissioner of Official Languages in February 1996 on
this issue.
In that case a joint chairman of the Standing Committee on
Official Languages refused to accept a motion that was introduced
in English only. The chair based his ruling on a resolution
adopted by the committee requiring documents distributed to
committee members be in both languages. The member complaining
argued that this should not apply to motions. The Commissioner of
Official Languages studied this case and concluded:
We find that by citing language as the only reason for not
considering the complainant's motions, the joint chair's decision
limited the complainant's right to perform his parliamentary
duties in his own language and consequently was contrary to
subsection 4(1) of the act.
It is my understanding that this very thing happened today in
the Standing Committee on Health. The committee made a decision
that limited a member's right to perform his parliamentary duties
in his own language.
The Commissioner of Official Languages established members rights
under the law. I want to ensure that members rights are also
protected under the law of parliament.
1510
I would argue that this grievance may go beyond a simple point
of order and may very well be a breach of the member's
parliamentary privilege in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to do as the Commissioner of
Official Languages has done and lay down the law to all committee
chairmen on this issue in the House. Language should not be an
obstacle to members of parliament in the performance of their
duties. They should have the right to speak, the right to submit
their documents in the language of their choice in parliamentary
proceedings.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened attentively to the arguments presented by my colleagues
in the Reform Party and I must say that they seem to be right,
at first glance. Language must indeed not be an obstacle to
performing one's duties as a parliamentarian. Language must
never constitute an obstacle.
That said, however, certain practices have been established in
certain committees and, according to what I have been told, the
Standing Committee on Health has adopted a procedure which
requires motions to be tabled a minimum of 48 hours in advance,
precisely in order for them to be presented to the committee
members in both official languages.
My understanding of the facts is, therefore, the following: MPs
who are on the membership of this committee are not in any way
limited in their ability to perform their duties within the
committee, because they may submit a motion in their language of
choice. They merely need to do so in sufficient time to enable
all members of the committee to also perform their duties within
the committee in a fully informed manner, by having the motion
to be examined available to them in their language.
Once again, I respectfully submit that my interpretation is that
the rights of MPs on this committee have not in any way been
restricted by the procedure adopted by the committee, since any
MP on the committee may indeed present a motion in his or her
language of choice, but must do so in sufficient time to enable
all members of the committee to also perform their duties within
the committee in a fully informed manner, by having the motion
to be examined available to them in their language also.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make what I
think is an important point.
The House leader of the official opposition tells us that the
presentation of documents from a third party should be handled
in the same way as a motion from a member. I think that there
have traditionally been differences in the way the two are
handled.
I recognize the point made by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan
de Fuca, who said earlier that he wanted to present a motion in
the language of his choice. That is his own very particular
issue. But I do not think it is the same as presenting briefs
from witnesses.
If I draw a comparison with the House of Commons, a
parliamentarian may present a motion in the language of his
choice but, when he tables a document, the House equivalent of a
brief, he may of course only do so if it is in both languages.
My preliminary observation, therefore, is that the two
situations are different. One is regularly permitted in the
House, and the other is not. The Chair might perhaps wish to
apply the practice in the House to parliamentary committees.
That is what I wished to add.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just
to clarify. Looking at the House leader's notes, he specifically
talked about the decision of the official languages commissioner
talking specifically about motions. I believe the House leader
on the government side is correct.
1515
There is a difference between the submission of documents, which
I would not argue about when there is adequate time to prepare
them and to have them translated, and what we are dealing with
today, which is the ability to place a motion. A motion comes
during the give and take of debate which is what we are
specifically referring to today. Specifically what the official
languages commissioner was referring to is the ability to put
forward motions. I would not disagree with documents and so on,
but because motions are usually given verbally, if you are
unilingual you have no choice but to deliver the motion in either
French or English, in the language you are accustomed to.
The Speaker: First, we are talking about motions, not
briefs. Generally speaking, we would like the committees to
solve their own problems.
Second, it goes without saying that members of this House are
free to operate in either of the official languages.
I wish to apprise myself of a little more information on this
subject before I make a decision. I will do that and then come
back to the House with a decision on this matter.
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my point of order relates to a response the Prime
Minister gave in question period today to a question from the
Reform Party. In his response the Prime Minister referred to a
poll which showed that 75% of Canadians thought the Reform Party
was acting out of partisan motives rather than compassion.
I would ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which
he was quoting those specific poll results. Mr. Speaker, as you
know, ministers who quote from documents are obligated to table
them for public consumption.
The Speaker: I did not hear the Prime Minister say that
he was quoting from a particular document. I do not know where
he got the information. Perhaps we can look at the blues. This
statement could have been just a point of debate, as opposed to a
specific document. I did not hear the Right Hon. Prime Minister
refer to a document.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, then what did he quote from?
The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure you will find that the standing orders state that if a
minister responds to a question by using a document, that
document should be tabled in the House. The Prime Minister did
refer to a document, a poll, and we request that the poll be
tabled in the House of Commons.
The Speaker: I will refer to the blues, but I do not
recall the Right Hon. Prime Minister referring to or quoting from
a specific document. He made a statement which was in the course
of debate. I do not know where he got the information, but there
were no documents—
An hon. member: He made it up.
The Speaker: I did not say that. I will review the blues
and the tapes, but I do not recall him reading from a document in
the course of question period.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—HEPATITIS C
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech
just before question period. I know he was a member of the
Liberal government at one point. He has a great insight into the
dealings and happenings in caucus. Could he elaborate in the
short time he has on what he thinks the answer would be to the
hep C situation we find ourselves in and the government not
compensating all victims?
1520
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
it would be inappropriate to talk about what happens in caucus.
However, in view of the fact that I am no longer in that caucus,
I would be more than happy to suggest what took place. This is
information that is filtered out to the media and others.
Certainly there were members who were led to believe that the
compensation package would be extended to all those who
contracted hepatitis C as a result of the blood system. On that
basis they voted with the government. They toed the party line
and did as they were told. However, much to their chagrin, 24
hours later the Minister of Health declared that the file was
closed. Yesterday he declared, honest to God, the file is
closed. What an awful, callous, cold-hearted way of dealing with
innocent victims who are sick and dying.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to share my time with my colleague from
Wentworth—Burlington.
I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the member for
Palliser which invites representatives from the Hepatitis C
Society of Canada to the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial
and territorial ministers of health regarding the question of
compensation for victims of tainted blood.
Beyond the debates and the motions there exists a fundamental
reality, which is for us all to find solutions, solutions which
are sustainable, which are just and fair, and which take into
account all the circumstances and constraints of the particular
case.
Beyond the arguments on this issue, which have gone on now for
many days, and beyond the debates, we must look positively at the
latest developments which offer a real possibility of a new
consensus emerging which might rally not only the governments
involved, provincial, territorial and federal, but especially the
people who are members of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada.
[Translation]
From my volunteer involvement over a number of years with the
developmentally disabled, I have gained a strong belief that the
very cornerstone of any community, of society as a whole, is the
volunteer movement, for they know better than anyone else
everything there is to know about their own cause, the cause of
the people they represent, the needy, the disabled or hepatitis
C victims.
Looking at society as a whole, the volunteer groups, whether
involved with health, with the environment or with culture, are
its very backbone.
[English]
This is why this motion is of the utmost importance. Of course
it is easy for us to play the role of partisans, to blame this
person and that person, and to have very strong partisan debates
on an issue which involves people and victims.
This motion gives us an opportunity to look above and beyond, to
rally around the possibility that a consensus might emerge which
might provide solutions and broaden the existing consensus. In
that sense we must look positively at the approach of the
premier of Ontario who, in reversing his previous stance, has
decided to put up to $200 million into the fund.
That in itself has provoked the idea of a new meeting of the
federal, provincial and territorial ministers.
1525
In that sense we think the motion put forward by the member for
Palliser is extremely important in that it will enable the
representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to be an
integral part of any debate and discussion which might lead to
further consensus.
That is why we on this side of the House accept this motion. We
find it to be constructive and beneficial to all. We will be
happy to support it and to vote for it because it is in the light
of this motion that the people involved will have a chance to say
their peace, will have a chance to be part of a new consensus
which we hope will lead to a solution which will be beneficial to
all victims involved in this issue.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the debate today and
to question period and I have yet to hear from any government
member or from the minister whether they accept the fact that all
those who contracted hepatitis C because of the blood system will
be compensated.
If that is not the position of the Government of Canada, and it
seems to me that it ought to be a prerequisite to attending any
meeting of ministers, then why is it attending the meeting? Why
is the Minister of Health agreeing to go to the meeting? Does he
intend to go to the meeting with cap in hand?
Mike Harris, the premier of the province of Ontario, was
challenged to put up or shut up. He put up, up to $200 million.
I suppose it is now up to the Prime Minister to put up or shut
up. How much more money is the Government of Canada prepared to
put into the package?
It keeps boasting about the $800 million that it has already put
into the package. We all know the reason the federal government
agreed to pony up $800 million. It is not because of a sense of
compassion for the victims, it is because of legal liability.
That was very clear listening to the Minister of Health, given
his Bay Street background. He was not writing the cheque because
of compassion, he was writing the cheque because he knew that if
the money was not put on the table the courts would have found in
favour of the plaintiffs and the government would have been
required to put up the money.
Would the hon. member, for whom I have considerable respect,
agree that the time has come to accept the principle that all
those who contracted hepatitis C because of the blood system,
through no fault of their own, ought to be compensated?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Health have made the position of the
government extremely clear.
They have said that a new development has occurred. A
provincial premier has changed the whole nature of the previous
agreement by saying now that his province, Ontario, a large
province, is prepared to contribute as much as $200 million
toward seeking a new solution.
The Minister of Health has confirmed that since this has
happened a new reality has emerged which will lead to a new
meeting of the ministers of health to look at a different
consensus. If a broader consensus emerges, especially in the
light of the motion from the member for Palliser, which includes
representatives from the Hepatitis C Society of Canada, all the
better.
1530
It seems to me that the idea is to have this meeting and have a
new discussion. The very fact of the meeting opens up the
possibility of a positive approach from all parties that will go
there with open minds, eyes and ears. If a broader consensus
emerges, all the better for all of us.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it has
been brought to my attention today that there are victims who
became infected after 1990 as well. The government has said yes
to those between 1986 and 1990. It was not until today that I
was informed from Ontario that there are those infected after
1990.
Prior to 1986 no one in Canada was allowed to bank their blood
for their use. They had no option at all. They had to take what
the government gave them.
I pray the government is going to look after all victims prior
to 1986 and after 1990. I pray that is going to be addressed.
Is that correct?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I
said before. The government is looking at this motion today in a
very positive way. The fact that the federal Minister of Health
has suggested a meeting of the ministers to look for a new
consensus in light of the development in Ontario bodes well for
the future. The future will tell.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak after the interim leader of the
Conservative party. My remarks will address some of the concerns
she raised.
I read a letter that appeared in the Globe and Mail last
Saturday which is relevant to this debate. The headline is “Why
the hepatitis C decision is correct”:
Those who continue to argue for financial compensation for those
who acquired hepatitis C through blood transfusions prior to 1986
are advocating government compensation for what was at that time
a known but unpreventable risk. This is without precedent and
could lead to endless requests for compensation from individuals
who have experienced a wide variety of adverse effects of medical
treatments for which there were no risk free alternatives.
The fact is that prior to 1986, the risk of post-transfusion
non-A, non-B hepatitis was well established, but there was no
way to reduce that risk.
Screening for hepatitis B had been in place since the early
1970s, but post-transfusion hepatitis continued to occur. This
entity was called non-A, non-B hepatitis until 1989 when
hepatitis C was first described.
This part of the letter is especially important:
In 1986 the United States and some European countries introduced
surrogate testing of donated blood, whereby blood was tested for
antibody to hepatitis B core antigen. Donated blood with the
presence of antibody to hepatitis B core antigen was not used.
We now know that the use of surrogate tests would have prevented
70 per cent of cases of transfusional hepatitis C. It is for
this reason that the federal and provincial governments are
offering financial compensation for those infected from blood
products between 1986 and 1990.
We must not loose site of the fact that blood transfusion is
often a life saving treatment and that many of those who acquired
hepatitis C from transfusions prior to 1986 are alive today only
because they received this blood. Furthermore, the majority of
individuals with chronic hepatitis C are asymptomatic and over
two-thirds will never develop serious liver disease.
Public policy must be based on sound underlying principles.
Compensation for preventable harm is a given, but financial
compensation from the public purse for a known but unpreventable
complication of medical treatment for one particular illness sets
a dangerous precedent.
We must not allow our genuine concern for those who acquired
hepatitis C from blood transfusions to obscure rational public
policy.
1535
This letter was signed by Stephen D. Shafran, MD, division of
infectious diseases, department of medicine, University of
Alberta.
There are a number of things that deserve our attention in this
letter, not the least of them being that Dr. Shafran points out
that between 1986 and 1990 there was good reason why the
government should be held accountable. It did not apply a
screening process that was in use in the United States and in
Europe. After 1990 obviously it applied it.
It is very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition today
starts talking in question period about compensating for
negligence. Until now the debate has been about compensating all
victims regardless of government negligence, all victims who got
hepatitis C from the blood supply regardless of whether the
screening test was in place or whether it could have been in
place.
I think we are all quite agreed that compensation would be
proper as long as there is recognized liability on the part of
the government. If that recognized liability goes back to 1981
and it is agreed that it should go back to 1981 then it would be
appropriate to compensate those people.
However, I suggest that regardless of the meeting that is going
to occur a little later this week it may be very difficult to
argue that blood supply officials were negligent if they did not
introduce a screening process not in use in the United States or
in Europe until 1986.
In other words, there is the dilemma. Is a medical agency
negligent if it does not introduce a test as soon as it is
available anywhere in the world? I suggest there may be a
problem there.
The interim leader of the Conservative Party expressed concern
about the people who acquired hepatitis C after 1990. As she can
see from this letter clearly, even with the test in place, it was
not 100% successful. Thirty per cent of the people who took
blood products from the blood supply system, even after the test
was in place, acquired hepatitis C.
There was a risk that existed and that risk was not as a result
of negligence on the part of any government official. The
question then becomes is it then good public policy to award a
cash payout. It is not compensation if there is no negligence. Is
it good public policy to award a cash payout to anyone who gets
sick as a result of some form of medical treatment?
A very dangerous precedent is in the process of being set if we
decide to compensate those after 1990. I note that the Leader of
the Opposition did not suggest that. He has changed his tune.
He has recognized that negligence is the only justifiable reason
for compensation. He has avoided the whole issue of post-1990
sufferers of hepatitis C.
If we give money to people who become injured as a result of an
unpreventable risk in the health system, where will it end?
Hospitals now have the occurrence of super bugs. Despite every
effort on the part of hospitals, occasionally patients come into
the hospital and get sick by infections that are basically hard
to detect and difficult to control.
What if a surgeon who is expert in his field, who is extremely
competent and who has all the support imaginable, slips and a
person gets injured, sick or even dies as a result of a
non-negligence occurrence in the hospital?
We are in danger of setting a very dangerous precedent. The
letter I read is from a person who is not a politician but an
expert in the field of medicine and certainly should be accepted
for knowing what he is talking about.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments and I
have some concerns and questions. I am very concerned that we
are engaging in false debate on the issue of compensation for all
victims.
I would hope that on a day like today we could put to rest this
notion that we are setting a dangerous precedent.
1540
I call on the member to clearly distinguish between medical
mishap and regulatory failure as is the case with hepatitis C and
was the case with thalidomide and HIV for which the federal
government took responsibility. We are simply asking the
government to do what is right and just and required under law.
It is very important for the member to acknowledge that we are
not talking about a test that was suddenly being used in 1986 or
only available in 1986. Justice Krever is very clear about this
test, surrogate test, the ALT test, being available well before
1986. He mentions in his report that in 1982 the New York Blood
Centre began routine ALT testing of all donations. The head of
the New York blood program actually said it is the only thing we
have to identify donors who are at high risk of transmitting this
type of disease.
The evidence is clear. Testing was available. It was a
question of our regulatory authority, the federal minister and
the department, applying the law and ensuring that a test was put
in place. They failed to do so, thereby putting the health and
lives of many Canadians at risk.
Is the member now prepared to look at the evidence at hand and
recognize that it is a false argument to refer to the period of
1986 to 1990 as the period of liability and to look at the
negligence of the federal government for this whole issue because
of the failure to carry out its responsibilities?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously agrees
entirely with the letter and my comments because she concurs that
this is an issue of mishap. If a mishap is deemed to have
occurred even prior to 1986 then compensation is in order.
However, there is considerable debate, as we see from the letter
writer, whether an agency—
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member is clearly misrepresenting what I had just
said.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, that
is not a point of order but a point of debate.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I think the member was
concerned that my reply was so excellent that she felt she had to
interrupt it because she did not have a rebuttal.
There is considerable debate about whether an agency can be held
as committing a mishap or having been negligent if a process
appears in the medical community at a certain time and that
agency does not implement it until other countries got involved.
There is no doubt that after 1986 we should have done it. Before
1986 there is a doubt and if it is deemed by the appropriate
authorities that a mishap has occurred before 1986, I think
compensation is 100% in order.
What about after 1990 as raised by the interim leader of the
Conservative Party? Is she proposing that because there is no
mishap after 1990 there should be no cash payout for any of those
who acquired hepatitis C after 1990 and 30% of those who received
the blood transfusions and were exposed to hepatitis C did
acquire it?
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Wentworth—Burlington will know that I have a fair bit
of respect for him and for his work as a member of parliament.
When Canadians go to a hospital and receive medical treatment
they put a lot of faith and trust in the system, and the system
failed them. It is clear the system failed as early as 1981. The
blood system failed Canadians. I have not had the misfortune of
having to be operated on and in need of a blood transfusion. I
would be horrified to think that might have happened to me or to
somebody in my family.
Does the hon. member not agree that the blood system really let
Canadians down and they ought to be compensated going back to
when that happened in 1981?
1545
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, it is simply between a
mishap due to negligence or a mishap due to an act of God if you
will. If negligence can be proven prior to 1986 there is no
doubt that compensation is in order.
I submit to the hon. member that what we want to avoid is the
type of situation which occurs in the United States where people
sue a doctor or a hospital regardless of negligence. As soon as
the mishap occurs a lawsuit occurs. We do not want that to
happen in our system. After all, our system cannot be risk free.
If we go to the hospital for any cure, we are going to run a
certain amount of risk.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to say a few words on this and share my time with a member from
New Brunswick, if I may.
I am pleased to see the government announce earlier today that
it would be supporting this opposition day motion. Indeed it is
rare in the House of Commons to have the government stand up and
vote in favour of a motion of an opposition party.
I am pleased we made some progress and that the government wants
to at least bring to the table the representatives of the
Hepatitis C Society when the minister meets with his provincial
counterparts later on this week. I maintain that is a step in a
positive direction.
We all remember last week after the vote took place in the House
the minister went out and faced the television cameras. He
looked the camera lens in the eye and he said “The file is
closed”. Thanks to the Canadian people, the file is not closed.
The file is open and I think we are going to see several changes
made in the original position of the federal minister and his
provincial counterparts. That is a good thing.
I want to applaud public reaction, public pressure and public
opinion for forcing the government to reopen the file. It shows
that the democratic system can work when there is concerted
public pressure and public opinion. When there is people power
it can force a majority government to reopen the file and do
something one day it said it was not going to do the previous
week. That is a very good and positive thing about how this
institution sometimes can work on behalf of ordinary people.
The logjam was broken when the premier of Ontario, Mike Harris,
announced yesterday that his government would compensate all
sufferers of hepatitis C in terms of the provincial amount of
that compensation.
It is very important that we do not have two tiers of
settlements and two tiers of health care in this country. It is
important that the federal minister take the leadership now,
reopen the package and make sure that all people who suffer from
hepatitis C are compensated in a fair, compassionate and just
way.
That should be done for a number of reasons. First of all the
Canadian people have asked that we do it. They have shown
compassion. There are past precedents for doing this.
[Translation]
The situation in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean two years ago comes to
mind. There was a great flood in this part of the province of
Quebec. The federal government provided support for the people
of Lac-Saint-Jean. The same was true in the case of the people of
southern Manitoba. I refer to the Red River, which flooded last
year as well.
The same was true for last January's ice storm, in which the
provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario, and the Ottawa
region in particular, were hard hit.
The federal government was compassionate and provided assistance
to the disaster victims, as it has done on a number of occasions
in this country.
[English]
There was also the compensation for the victims of thalidomide
and victims of HIV. The thalidomide case took a long time before
it wound through the courts, but again there was compensation for
all the victims.
What I am saying here is that once again we have had a
regulatory failure and the federal government should be willing
to take the leadership in making sure that there is fair
compensation.
I want to make one other point before I sit down and I think it
is the most important one of all. The federal government has the
obligation to provide the lion's share of the compensation. I
say that for a couple of reasons.
There have been massive cutbacks in social programs in terms of
cutbacks from the federal government to the provinces in the last
few years. Last year there was a cutback of $6.5 billion in
transfers from the federal government to the provinces.
That cutback is in effect this year and next year, $6.5 billion
each and every year. That is less money for the provinces for
health care and education and welfare programs that would have
been there had it not been for the Minister of Finance cutting
back in a cold and callous way in his budget a year or so ago.
1550
Because of that the federal government has an obligation to fund
the lion's share. I am sure the hon. member from Mississauga
would agree with that, to fund the lion's share of the
compensation for hepatitis C victims.
Because of these cutbacks, the federal government has a surplus
of several billion dollars this year. The federal government can
afford to compensate the victims of hepatitis C. It has that
surplus because it has been cutting back in transfers to the
provinces, cutting back in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Atlantic
provinces, Quebec, all the provinces. I maintain the government
has an obligation to provide the funding for the compensation of
the other victims.
[Translation]
I agree with the Government of Quebec, which said so last week.
As did British Columbia and Ontario, before it changed its
position and decided to compensate the victims in its own
province.
[English]
The money is there for the victims of hepatitis C and the
federal government should lead the way.
In terms of funding, when medicare first became a reality in
this country in 1967, there was an agreement that the federal
government would fund 50% of the cost of health care in this
country, 50 cents on the dollar. What is it today? Today the
federal government pays not 50 cents on the dollar, but 13 cents
on the dollar. It has gone from 50 cents on the dollar to 13.
That is a shameful record for the Liberal Party of Canada that
once prided itself as being progressive and compassionate and
forward thinking.
In fact the father of the current Minister of Finance was the
Minister of Health back in the 1960s when national medicare
became a reality in this country after the provincial leadership
of the CCF in Saskatchewan with Tommy Douglas and Premier Woodrow
Lloyd.
I say that is a shameful record and it is no wonder the member
from Mississauga is now hanging his head in shame over that
legacy of the Liberal Party. The Liberals are much more
conservative than Brian Mulroney and the Tories and the hon.
member for Mississauga knows that. That is why he is hanging his
head in shame. He does not dare get to his feet and respond to
an argument of that sort because the figures speak for
themselves: 1967, 50 cents on the dollar; 1997, 30 years later,
13 cents on the dollar. Mulroney would not have even dreamed of
doing that, and that is exactly the legacy the Liberal Party has
left Canadians.
If the sufferers of hepatitis C want to see who the culprits
are, they should look in the eyeballs of the Minister of Finance,
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health. Those are the
people who refuse to provide adequate funding to people who are
suffering from a disease through no fault of their own, suffering
from a disease because of the fault of regulators who allowed
contaminated blood to go out into the system.
Mr. Speaker, I make that appeal through you to the minister and
the government across the way, that they start once again
adequately funding the health care system in this country. What
a better place to start than to pay the lion's share, the
overwhelming share of the cost to compensate these victims who
are suffering from a disease through no fault of their own.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, does the hon. member agree that this meeting of the
health ministers that is about to take place ought to take place
in a public fashion as opposed to the health ministers getting
together behind closed doors? Does he not agree that Canadians
and in particular victims of hepatitis C have a right to see who
is showing true leadership, who in fact has genuine compassion
when it comes to assisting those that are sick and disabled?
I am pleased that it appears the motion put forward by his
colleague will carry later on this afternoon. It appears that
the Liberal government will be supporting the motion. Would the
hon. member go one step further and agree that the meeting should
be open to the media so that all Canadians can see exactly what
is happening?
Can the hon. member explain how in the first place $1.1 billion
was put on the table?
What mathematical calculation was used? How was $1.1 billion
arrived at? Is it simply that amount divided by 22,000 or can he
explain? Is there any explanation as to how that amount was
arrived at in the first place?
1555
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to
the second question is that there was a lot of guesswork in
coming to the $1.1 billion. I do not think they know for sure
how many victims they are going to compensate with that $1.1
billion.
The member knows the federal government is to pay $800 million
of that and the provinces $300 million of that, and that division
came of course because of negotiations. But the $1.1 billion is
just a guess, I assume, from what I have heard and may or may not
be accurate. Indeed that money will now have to be increased to
compensate all victims.
I also want to comment on the first part of what the member
said. I am pleased the House is going to support the motion
today. I think the House should also be saying to the ministers
of health, let us televise those hearings. Let us have those
hearings in public. We did that in some of the constitutional
process which led to Charlottetown, the member may recall.
There is no reason the hearings cannot be televised. The
victims of hepatitis C could see exactly where every minister
stands, where every province stands, where the federal government
stands. Just as important, the Canadian people could see the
response of their governments. Let us negotiate in public. Let
us have a transparent process. Let us open up the democratic
process in this country so we have more accountability and more
visibility.
I would certainly favour any motion anyone puts to that effect
in the House.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague the member for
Qu'Appelle for his very important comments on this issue.
In particular he clarified our position in light of the comments
by the previous Liberal speaker, the member for
Wentworth—Burlington, who has tried to blur the lines on this
issue and to engage in false debate.
I am pleased the member for Qu'Appelle was clear about the fact
that we are talking about federal regulatory failure for which
this government has absolute responsibility, and medical mishap
for which we have other processes in place to respond. I
appreciate the fact that he clarified that in our estimation
blood injury as we are dealing with now is an injury arising from
dereliction of duty of a very specific and unique nature
pertaining very much to the federal government's role as
regulator.
I want to ask the member if it is not the case that the Food and
Drugs Act was set up to provide minute to minute control of
emergency health hazards. Is it not the case that the federal
government as regulator was and is the only body, the only
organization in the blood system that could single-handedly cause
a safety feature like the hepatitis C testing to be implemented
in response to the very serious issues we are dealing with?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The
buck stops where the buck stops. According to the law in this
country it stops with the federal regulators. I think the member
for Winnipeg North Centre has summed it up very well.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to address this topic today.
As a new member of Parliament, I learn something new every day.
Some days are very sad, when we see how the government treats
people afflicted with hepatitis C.
I never thought that we would be debating for days and months
simply to bring justice to people across the country who are
sick. We really have to ask ourselves where this country is at.
We cannot always say we are proud of our country, because so
long as we have governments like this one, there will be days we
are ashamed of what it does.
1600
As a member, I am embarrassed to admit my association with the
House. Canadians often do not make a distinction and lump us
all together. But I think it important today to clear that up
and try to explain to those listening who the people are that
are prepared to make this country's citizens suffer. Obviously
we are talking about the Liberals. They are the ones who have
made things difficult and are refusing to recognize that there
are indeed people who are very ill and that some have even died.
They refuse to accept that they have a responsibility.
Yet clearly they do. That is why we are introducing another
motion today to continue debate on this topic, in an attempt to
obtain justice.
Often, those watching us on television wonder, during the
debate, what the topic is. For their benefit, I am going to
read the motion:
That this House urge the government to press for the invitation
of representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to the
upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Health
Ministers in order to provide advice on how to address the
financial needs of all those who contracted Hepatitis C from the
federally regulated blood system.
I think that the important thing to remember is that it was
federally regulated.
This means that the government has a very great responsibility
in this matter. We are facing a crisis today. It is a crisis
for those who are ill, for families who have lost loved ones,
for children who are suffering. We are here, in good health,
debating on their behalf, but imagine the situation in which
they find themselves today.
Why are we introducing this motion today? Because the initial
agreement satisfied no one. The victims were not at the
bargaining table to present their arguments and set the record
straight. Nobody knows better than those living with hepatitis
C what the illness is like. Even those of us taking part in the
debate today to obtain justice for them cannot put ourselves in
their shoes. We can only imagine what it is like, but it is
very difficult.
As we saw this week, some provinces—Quebec, Ontario, British
Columbia and even Manitoba—found their heart at one point. We
must remember that, at one point, neither the provinces nor the
federal government had a heart. They had only wallets. They
had lost their hearts and were not looking beyond their
billfolds. At some point it is time to put away the wallet and
see that justice is done.
That is the problem in this country at the moment. The federal
government often has heart when issues concern the country's
multimillionaires and the banks. In such cases, the Minister of
Finance has a heart, which goes out to the major corporations.
I think it is time the Minister of Finance put his two feet flat
on the ground and began to think about reality and the type of
country he is creating today. He is building a country we are
not proud of, and it is time he stopped.
It is time the people in this country—it is the voters who will
do it—put a stop to current policies, whereby the rich get
richer and the poor get poorer.
We are in opposition and we are doing the best we can. We have
not done too badly in the past month, either. If we look how
far we have come in this matter, we may be proud of ourselves.
However, a number of Liberals must surely be hanging their heads
pretty low, especially those who were elected on principles of
defending the public and working on behalf of the poor. These
same people support the government one vote at a time. Then
they try to convince us that they voted according to their
conscience. It frightens me even more when I hear them say they
voted according to their conscience.
1605
Last week, I brought some students down with me, and when they
saw what was going on last week, when the government forced all
its MPs to vote the same way, they said that the one thing they
had learned during the week was that there is no democracy in
this country. It is sad to see 16 or 17 year olds with such an
attitude.
What is even sadder is that they are right to think this way.
The federal government is the main regulatory authority where
blood and blood products are concerned. It is, in large part,
the one at fault.
The provinces are already assuming the health care costs of all
victims, regardless of the date they received the tainted blood,
at an estimated $80,000 each.
With all the cuts the provinces have suffered at the hands of
the federal government, $3.5 billion, they are still going to
give money to the victims. They have already given $300
million, or $85,000 per victim, and some provinces are already
prepared to do more than that.
Our government often claims it has no money for this country's
sick, elderly and poor, and that we ought to be finally
understanding this, since the situation has gone on for a number
of years. On the other hand, the auditor general discovered a
surplus of $2.5 billion, which was kept from the hepatitis C
victims. This is a sad state of affairs.
In closing, I would like to say that today, at last, the
government has decided to support our motion.
I trust it will support it with its heart and is not just trying
to redeem itself a bit in the eyes of the MPs it forced to vote
against last week's motion. I trust that they will support the
motion with their heart and not for political reasons, for I see
a big difference between the two.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
has been consultation between the parties and I think you will
find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, in relation to its study of aboriginal economic
development, 10 members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to travel to
Kuujjuaq, Iqualit and Chibougamau during the period of May 19 to
22, 1998 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
parliamentary secretary indicated that consultations have taken
place. This is the first I am hearing about it. On that basis
at this moment I am not prepared to give my consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are a little
ahead of ourselves as I did not ask for consent yet. If the hon.
parliamentary secretary captures the mood of the House perhaps we
could delay presenting the question until further consultation
has taken place.
[Translation]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
very difficult question for the member from New Brunswick.
I agree with her statement, but I want to ask a question that I
think is very important for those of us in small provinces like
Saskatchewan or Manitoba. The federal government cut social
programs by $6.5 billion last year. I am thinking of health and
education, among others.
The member comes from a small province, New Brunswick, with an
unemployment rate, if memory serves, of close to 13% or 14% and
budget problems up until last year, or the year before that.
Are annual cuts of $6.5 billion a big problem for a small
province like New Brunswick?
Is it a problem for her province's health system?
1610
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
It is indeed difficult for a province like New Brunswick, which
has a high rate of unemployment. If we look at my riding alone,
an unemployment rate of 14% would be good, but it is more like
16%, 17% or 18%, and it keeps going up, while cuts to health
care programs continue unabated.
Of course, the federal government cannot expect New Brunswick to
come up with millions and millions of dollars. It is just not
going to happen. That is why the responsibility must lie with
the federal government.
It is a federally regulated system and the federal government
must assume its responsibilities and not shift the bulk of the
responsibility onto the backs of the provinces.
When the federal minister sits down with all provincial health
ministers, he will have to take the situation of the rich
provinces and the poor provinces into consideration, because not
everyone has $200 million to throw into the pot.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague for her comments. I re-emphasize what the
member for Qu'Appelle mentioned regarding whether the province of
New Brunswick would be able to come across with additional moneys
if the federal government fails in its responsibility to
compensate the victims.
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I
said. If the government is expecting New Brunswick to find $200
million overnight, it will not happen. I have no doubt. I know
what kind of situation we are living in. We must not forget that
we have a Liberal government in New Brunswick which is doing as
much damage as the federal government is doing. It is not a nice
scenario. I do not see any improvement until at least the next
provincial election.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians still do not understand how the federal
government and the provincial governments arrived at $1.1.
billion. There is a huge discrepancy in terms of the actual
numbers of victims. Somehow the federal government ended up
putting $800 million on the table and the provinces $300 million.
We do not know on what basis that formula was arrived at. I
remind the House that there is only one taxpayer in this country,
Canadians from coast to coast. They pay their taxes both to the
provincial government and the federal government. Canadians have
made it clear they want all victims compensated.
In light of the significant development yesterday where the
premier of Ontario agreed to inject an additional $200 million
into the compensation package, would the hon. member agree that
in order to maintain any semblance of credibility the federal
government has to come to the meeting not just with an open mind,
not just with an open heart but also with an open wallet given
the excellent fiscal situation the federal government finds
itself in? It tends to boast every day about how well—
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. If the
Minister of Health did not get the okay from the Minister of
Finance there would be no need to sit down at the table. We know
he is the one running the show in this country. There is money
on the table from some provinces, at least one province. I hope
if he is going there to find a settlement for the neglected sick
affected by hepatitis C, I suggest he just sit at home. There is
a need for money. This is not a meeting where we will sit down
and look at each other. There has to be a serious discussion and
a package out of this at the end.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon.
member for Mississauga West.
1615
I have sat here day after day listening to attempts to make it
seem like our government is working according to a purely legal
approach, that it is just tossing people out on the street with
nowhere to go for medical help.
I have observed that we have one of the very best health care
systems in the world. I am sick and tired of partisan
opportunists trying to make it appear as though our government
has no social safety net, like we are an uncaring society.
It is especially galling coming from the opposition party whose
bluebook advocates the gutting of the Canadian medicare system.
Also galling is the myth that they have helped propagate, that
Canada is behind other countries in terms of how we are dealing
with hepatitis C.
I stand here today to ensure that the truth is not hidden within
the lines of political rhetoric and partisan excess. Of course
we have all heard of Ireland's approach to its own particular
circumstances. For partisan critics Ireland's program is the one
they highlight, the one against which all comparisons are made.
However this single example is not one which can really be
compared to our own. This is a different society with different
structures, processes and pressures.
Ireland created a social program. While I do not know the
extent to which it underwent consultation and consideration in
that country, I do know that the full implications have not been
fully discussed in our country.
How else do we compare ourselves to Ireland? Is its society so
similar to our own? Is it the same size? Does it have the same
democratic structure? Does it have the same history? Does our
supreme court refer to Ireland to see what it has done on issues
of law? The answer is a definite no.
When do we copy other countries' policies? Should we adopt, for
instance, the U.S. style of health care as advocated by the
opposition parties? Do we follow the human rights practices of
other countries?
The answer to all of those questions is no. At the same time we
should look to see where practices that do fit our own
circumstances might exist.
If we have to consider other countries then I suggest we should
take a look at what other major industrial countries have done.
By that I mean the G-7 or the G-8 as we now include Russia. Among
these countries nobody has followed Ireland's approach, nobody.
Let us look at Italy which has only given some very limited help
to hemophiliacs. It has excluded everybody else. Can we really
say the people abroad get the same kind of care we get here in
Canada? That is really where it ends. Nobody else has even come
close to providing the compensation offer that we are providing
in Canada.
I think we should now make it a matter of record perhaps to
compare it to some other countries. What has Russia done?
Nothing that we know of. What has the United Kingdom done? It
has defended itself in court and it is defending itself in court
without acknowledging any type of responsibility outside that
court. The same goes for France, Japan and Germany. Germany is
conducting all legal claims through the court system.
Then there is the United States where we understand there are
very few lawsuits. Why is that? That is because in 1986 it used
surrogate testing on a national basis and we did not.
Today Canada has acted in a reasonable, responsible and clear
way that even brought people into the picture who did not have
lawsuits. We did so because that fits our rationale. Is that a
purely legalistic approach? Has anybody else in the G-8 done
this? No.
Let us go beyond those nations for the moment. Let us go beyond
those countries against which Canada is most frequently compared
and look at New Zealand. New Zealand does not compensate those
with hepatitis C. It used to but only through its no fault
system for accidents.
1620
Now a large number of people have been left out by changes made
in 1992. Why did they make changes that restrict access to this
deteriorating program? They made them because New Zealand's no
fault system is hurting as is its health care system. Is this an
example we really want to follow?
People with hepatitis C are now left out of that system. They
are suing their government. Should we be following the path of a
nation that might eventually be following ours? Its newspapers
report that Canada's approach might provide direction as to how
it will deal with this problem. We should not be copying New
Zealand. We should be learning from its experience.
Finally, there is Australia. Australia has settled its
litigation out of court. We do not know exactly what has
happened because there the agreement is secret. What we do know
is that it settled cases that came about because it failed to use
surrogate tests. This does sound awfully familiar.
We know it settled its cases without the Australian public
knowing the conditions of the settlement. We also know it did
not include people who had no court claim. It hedged its bets.
Its rationale was purely legal. That is the approach that fits
its public environment, culture and history. It suited its
particular circumstances.
We have gone beyond that. Nobody can say that we took this
legal approach because, as I said, our national approach to
hepatitis C includes people who although they did not file a
court case were affected at the same time as the rest. They were
affected during a time when Canada's blood system should have
performed better.
No other comparable country has included so many people as this
country has. No other country has been as responsible as we
have. That is the international record on this matter. Canada
is a leader in its approach. It is not a blind follower.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it does not
matter what Canada has done. Even though we are a leader it
still is not enough.
There has not been much mention about the territories and the
the vastness of the space there. There are a lot of people in
both Yukon and Northwest Territories who have been affected by
hepatitis C. In Yukon there is one hospital and health care cuts
have really hurt. People who need to get from Old Crow into
Whitehorse have to pay a $1,000 plane fare or try to find an ice
road in the winter to get to the hospital. If they need
treatment that cannot be done in Yukon; they have to be flown to
Vancouver.
One of my constituents who has hepatitis C is not being
compensated and is still struggling to work. It cost her $15,000
in lost wages to be able to go to Vancouver, which is a three day
drive from Yukon.
Our health minister is saying that if we have a solid health
care system in place these people will be taken care of. They
will not be taken care of because our health care has been
dismantled by the Liberal Party. The individuals who are sick
and are struggling to keep working will not get the care they
need.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, the hon. opposition
member describes the situation in the territories that exists
with regard to all people there who are ill.
The geography of the territories is such, and I know full well
having visited there, that it is very difficult for anyone who is
ill to cope with distance, time and conditions. This does not
change under this set of circumstances but is in play day in day
out and a part of the geography and difficulties of that land.
There has been a need to reduce transfer payments. While that
was done it was stopped at $11.2 billion and restored to $12
billion. There are many different causes for the changes that
have come about, many by the provincial and territorial decisions
that have been made when addressing their systems of delivery.
There are choices in that regard in addition to coping with all
we have had to do to put our books in order.
I do not see anything particularly different in this set of
circumstances other than what exists when relating to health care
delivery in the territories.
1625
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with incredulity to the hon. member comparing Canada to other
countries. Naturally she did not want to be compared to Ireland
but she did want Canada to be compared to Russia.
Since we are talking about being compared to other countries,
does the hon. member agree the actions the Prime Minister took in
forcing his backbenchers to vote with the government, making this
a confidence motion, which was a sham to begin with, and forcing
the backbench to vote with the government undermined what little
faith Canadians had in the House?
It has been laid bare for all to see. There is no real
democracy in this place. There is no real opportunity. These
debates do not mean very much when at the end of the day the
Prime Minister will crack the whip and tell his backbench how to
vote. They will jump and dance to his tune. I would like the
hon. member to respond to that.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the
opposition member's inquiry with regard to the workings of
government in Canada.
It is frequently a difficult and onerous task to decision make.
It falls upon the shoulders of government to do so. That
essentially is the difference between governing and sitting on
the opposition side of the House. We exhibit courage. Many
times we have to make decisions that are difficult to make.
We do so knowing that we were chosen by the people of Canada to
undertake that role, to be their government and to stand up for
what we have to under extreme conditions. That is why we have
members across the House who are free to shoot from every
conceivable corner on every different item from which they wish
to shoot, having no responsibility whatsoever for their partisan
excess. That is the difference with governing.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Hepatitis C; the hon.
member for Charlotte, Hepatitis C; the hon. member for Halifax
West, Multilateral Agreement on Investment; the hon. member for
Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Multilateral Agreement on Investment;
the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, BC Mine in Black Lake.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I too am happy to have the opportunity to put some comments on
the record to perhaps challenge some of the misinformation and
myths that have been coming from the opposite side.
I want to start by saying that I came to a revelation this
morning when I picked up the Toronto Star and read an
article by Thomas Walkom. Thomas is an editorial writer, an
opinion writer for the Star. I worked across the hall from
him when I was at Queen's Park.
I generally find him to be philosophically on the side of the
left wing in the entire country, certainly provincially. While I
very seldom agreed with Mr. Walkom, I always respected his
writing ability and his ability to see through what the issue was
all about.
I want to share some thoughts. We talk about the victims, the
deal, that it is not good enough, that we should spend more and
if we spend too much it will hurt health care. We talk about all
these different issues on all sides of the House.
However I think Thomas Walkom really summed up what this debate
and this issue are all about aside from crass politics and
manipulation of some tragic victims. He says “Most of all, it
is about what societies are willing to do for all of those, not
just hepatitis C victims, who suffer crippling illnesses”. He
goes on to say “If negligence alone is to be the criterion then
federal health minister Allan Rock was on solid ground when he
talked of limiting compensation to those victims infected between
1986 and 1990”.
1630
The theory, Thomas says, albeit it developed with the advantages
of 20:20 hindsight, was that Canada erred in not following the
U.S. lead, which I hear my U.S. supportive friends in the Reform
Party talking about all the time. He goes on to say that once
Canada did start to test the liability ended.
I think this is really the debate that has to happen. Thomas
Walkom says that what we should be talking about is a
comprehensive public, no-fault, universal disability insurance
helping those who for whatever reason find themselves levelled by
any debilitating illness.
That does not necessarily mean that we would simply support
that. If we think about the debate of that issue I suggest the
costs of a complete no-fault health insurance disability plan
would be quite astronomical, but we should debate it. It should
be a public debate, no question. I hear members opposite saying
that the negotiations that are about to take place over this
issue should be held in public. The member for York—South
Weston says we should have it with the public. That is a
terrific idea because then we would know what people agreed to.
This motion by the NDP is a good motion and. It says that the
House urge the government to press for the invitation of
representatives of the hepatitis C society to be a part of the
negotiations. They would be witnesses. That would be
interesting if we had impartial witnesses at the last round of
negotiations. We would know what the Minister of Health for the
province of Quebec said at the table. We would know what the
minister of health, the Hon. Elizabeth Witmer, said. I have
great respect for her. I worked closely with her in the Ontario
legislature. We were both critics of the NDP government which
was a rather easy job to do. I got to know Elizabeth and I have
great respect for her.
If it was on television, all the better. We would know what was
being said. What do we have here? We have a deal that would
never have surfaced if not for the leadership of the federal
Minister of Health. The former minister of health for the
province of Ontario, the hon. Jim Wilson, said see you in court.
That was his response.
What do members think Reform Party members would offer in terms
of compensation? Imagine their bleeding hearts? I do not even
know if they would go so far as to say see you in court. They
would say let 'em eat cake. That is exactly what they would say.
We know what Reformers would offer as compassion if they had the
responsibility to government this place. It would be nothing.
The hypocrisy that we have seen over this issue has no bounds.
It is absolutely astounding.
We hear from members opposite that we should listen to the
people. I have talked to residents. I have had a couple of
calls. I had about 400 calls on the seal hunt issue, but I have
had a couple of calls on this issue from very seriously concerned
people, some of them ill, some of them family members of people
who are ill, some of them just trying to understand. When I
return those calls they do understand the impact of a universal
no-fault health care plan that would simply provide compensation
for all victims.
I made a statement in the House a few months ago about Kyle
Martin. Kyle Martin was a five year old boy whose father took
him to the emergency at Credit Valley hospital. Kyle had a
fever. He was very uncomfortable. They spent several hours in
emergency until finally a doctor got around to seeing them.
1635
Members opposite would just blame the federal government for
something like that, but in our province they have made choices.
In fact, they have just recognized that they had made damaging
choices because they poured more money back into the health care
system for emergencies.
If we want a universal health care system, let me tell members
what would happen. Kyle was diagnosed. Once they got to look at
him after several hours, they realized they had a serious crisis
on their hands. They ordered a helicopter to take him to the
sick children's hospital. Twenty-four hours later Kyle Martin
was dead.
I talked to his father. Some members in this House, and I thank
them publicly, have contributed to the Kyle Martin fund to help a
doctor at the sick children's hospital in his research into
streptococcus and what causes it and how it can be treated.
Here is the message to the Martin family. What do you say to a
mother and father who have lost their five year old son? Do we
turn around and simply say federal taxpayers are going to
compensate them for that loss? Or do we say they have access to
the courts, a right to sue and should sue the hospital and the
attending physician and whomever their lawyers advise them to
sue? A court case will occur, a decision will be rendered, and if
they win there is insurance in place to cover that kind of thing.
What we want to do is wipe out the court system entirely in this
country and go to a broad based no-fault system. I do not know
who is going to pay for that. I do not know how we are going to
fund it and make it sustainable.
I think this motion should be supported and nobody needed to
whip me to vote for the Minister of Health. Let me say that to
the member for York South—Weston. I wish I had another 10
minutes to talk about that particular problem and how he likes to
play politics with victims and games he plays like this.
The fact is nobody needed to whip me. I support the Minister of
Health in this. He is the only politician who has shown true
leadership from the start in this country. Now that the
provinces have come to their senses, we will go back and cut a
deal that will be fair for all concerned.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.):
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but
chuckle when the hon. member puffed out his chest and said he was
not whipped, he did the right thing. Let him go back to his
constituency in Ontario and I will challenge him to a public
debate in his riding.
Who was he representing when he stood up and he turned
his back on the sick and the dying in this country? Who
was he representing? The reality is he was just propping up his
Minister of Health.
He stands up and says that had it not been for the Minister of
Health, earlier referred to by one of his colleagues as his hero,
there would not have been money on the table. He knows that the
only reason the federal government ponied up money was the
Minister of Health had a legal opinion that said if we do not
compensate those victims between 1986 and 1990, we will be forced
to do so by the courts.
That is the reality and I wish the hon. member would stop
talking from his talking points and start looking at the reality.
He knows the reality is that the only reason the money was there
was legal liability. It was not compensation based on
compassion. The minister was looking at legal liability and
damages and what he tried to do was contain the damage. But
having said that, he inflicted political damage on himself.
Only because the Conservative premier in the province of Ontario
has agreed to come forward with an additional $200 million, now
the minister and the member have had to swallow themselves whole.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon.
member that this young lady happened to be delivering the talking
points. I did not even have them when I spoke. I was not
referring to them. I was speaking from here.
It is interesting. Every time somebody gets up and says
something the hon. member from York South—Weston does not agree
with, he rises with his chest puffed out, or maybe that is the
normal size of it. He rises in this place and challenges
everyone in the House to a debate.
I suspect it is because he has nothing else to do, being the
leader, caucus, cabinet and entire representative of a party of
one. We do not need lectures from that member. To use the
analogy of a hockey team, he is one who would play on our hockey
team and consistently shoot the puck into our own net. How long
would he be kept on the ice? How long would he even be allowed
to sit on the bench? He would be booted off and told to go have
a nice day.
1640
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask a question of the hon. member across the way
with his hockey analogies and what not.
We have really sunk low in the House when the Liberals are
comparing our economic situation and our health system to that of
Russia, a country that has gone through an economic and political
meltdown.
The Liberals say we have the best health care system in the
world. Who are they kidding when they dare to compare it to
Russia? They say that our compensation on hep C is better than
what the Russian people are getting. What type of comparison is
that? That is stooping as low as they can go to draw an analogy
between what Russia has done for hep C victims and what Canada
can do for hep C victims. The difference is we have not had an
economic and political meltdown. We have a budget surplus. These
are things Russia could only dream of in decades.
As well, they had the audacity to talk about this not being a
solution that the lawyers came up with.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Reform Party
is about one speaker too late. I think the hon member was
referring to a former speaker's remarks. I did not make any
comment with regard to Russia. But let me make a comment with
regard to the Reform Party, the oh so pompous men and women of
compassion who are going to solve all the problems.
Where was the same Reform compassion when its members said they
would cut $3.5 billion from social assistance, $3 billion from
old age security and $5 billion from the employment insurance
program? Where was their compassion when they said they would
cut $3 billion from provincial equalization payments and where
was their compassion when they said they would dismantle the
Canada pension plan and ignore the future of Canadians? That is
not a party of compassion. That is a party that is misleading
the Canadian people on this issue and many—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. members for Mississauga West and
Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford who were referring to people in the
opposition as opportunists. Actually we are fighting for those
people who we feel within our hearts should be treated equally.
Because we stand in the House and fight for those people who are
not being treated equally I cannot believe anyone would say that
all those who do that are opportunists. Not in this case.
As the hon. member from the Reform Party just stated, some
compared Canada with Russia or Germany. I do not know if the
hon. member has been to Germany, but I have been to Germany. I
was invited there by the German government to look at
unification. I was asked to go to Romania as well. Canada is
known to be the best country in the world in which to live. All
those countries look to us and they would expect Canada to take a
leadership role in treating our people equally. They would not
expect to ever see Canada have a two tier system for people with
hepatitis C.
I can imagine that around the world people have been watching us
and wondering what has happened to us. Talk about opportunists,
when the Liberals were in opposition they fought the GST.
They fought the free trade agreement. They signed the NAFTA
agreement so fast after they got elected that we could not even
blink. Talk about opportunists. The opportunists are over there
on the government side.
1645
I do not believe there is anyone in this House who has not made
some mistake in their life. Once a person admits that they have
made a mistake and correct it, they become much taller and more
respected. None of us is perfect. The Liberals have made a
mistake. The Minister of Health has made a mistake.
The Prime Minister told the provinces to put their money where
their mouth is. One province has already said “ We are going to
put our money where our mouth is”, and that is the province of
Ontario. I want to thank the province of Ontario very much for
taking the leadership role. I give credit also to Mr. Johnson in
Quebec. At least he said that everyone should be equal. Now Mr.
Filmon is saying the same thing from out west. Everyone should
be equal. I know some of them will have a difficult time finding
the money at the provincial level, but somehow we have to come up
with a formula that is equal for everyone, not just for those
from 1986 to 1990.
I want to say to the member from the NDP who brought forward
this motion that, yes, we support the motion. We thank him for
the motion. We do feel that representatives of the Hepatitis C
Society of Canada should be at the meetings. They are the ones
who can discuss this and they are the ones who can bring forth
points. They can tell them it comes not just from the heart.
They are the ones who are suffering.
They should have been at the table the first round. That is
where they should have been. I think if they had been at that
table we would not be where we are at today. We would not be
having this kind of debate.
If the Minister of Health does have a heart—and sometimes I
question it in this House—how could he look at those people with
hepatitis C and say that we have a two tier system? “Sorry, you
got this in December 1985, but we are only going to look after
people beginning January 1986”.
I was pleased to see the actions taken by the Government of
Ontario yesterday which compelled the Minister of Health to
reopen the file. He said it was closed. You will recall, Mr.
Speaker, the minister did say “This file is closed. We're not
going to do another thing”.
All along, all we have wanted on this side of the House is for
him to do the right thing for the people who are sick through no
fault of their own. He refused, but he is saying now that he
will open the file. He will open the door, but we realize today
in listening to government members that he is just going to open
the door a crack. He is not opening the door all the way. I
cannot believe it. I am hearing members speak today and things
are not changing in their minds. One member got up and said it
should still be just for those from 1986 to 1990. The Liberals
are still saying the same thing.
We are going to continue to push the Minister of Health to start
showing some real responsibility on this issue by committing to a
deal that will include all of those innocent victims when he goes
into this meeting with the provincial ministers and their
territorial counterparts. There are, according to him, 20,000 to
40,000 Canadians left outside. But our critic, the member for
Charlotte, today said that no one knows the figure. Some people
say it is 6,000 people. Some people say it is 10,000. But the
minister keeps saying it is 40,000 and it could be 60,000. He
has absolutely no idea how many Canadians have been left outside
this compensation package, none whatsoever. The government does
not know how many.
My colleague, the member for Charlotte, pointed out a couple of
weeks ago that the Minister of Health admitted the government
does not know, yet the Minister of Health still refers to 40,000
to 60,000 people.
1650
Before 1986 a human being in Canada was not allowed to bank his
or her own blood for their own use. The government says it has
no responsibility, but the law of the land was that no one could
bank their own blood for their own use. People had to take
whatever was given to them. Therefore the government does have
a responsibility and a big one.
We on this side of the House, in my party, cannot support an
unjust policy that would leave these people out in the cold
because of reasons that do not hold up against the tests of
compassion, fairness and justice.
I do not sit in this seat and try to be an opportunist. I came
here to fight for what is right for all Canadians from coast to
coast and I will continue to do so. I will continue to get up
here, as will our critic and all of my colleagues in the PC
Party, to fight for these people who, unfortunately, through the
system we had in place became very ill.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues on the
government side and for a lot of other people, but I am surprised
to hear them try to portray the image that what they were doing
was right, fair and just. It was not just, but we are going to
fight to make sure that justice comes for all.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
out of all the members in this place, I want to say that the
member for Saint John is one whose opinion I respect. I believe
her when she says she is here to fight for the things that she
believes in. I do not doubt her sincerity whatsoever.
However, I would ask her if she would not mind making a call to
the leader of the Ontario Conservative Party to suggest that the
next time he makes a deal or sends his minister of health out to
make a deal that he try to live by the deal. Tell him that he
should not sign a deal if he is not happy with it. He should not
come on board one day and make a deal and then go to a press
conference and change everything. It is not fair to anybody
involved. I am sure the member agrees with that.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of
respect for the member for Mississauga West, as well. However,
he and I were not in that room. We did not hear what the
Minister of Health put on the table. We did not hear the
discussion that took place between the provincial and territorial
ministers of health and the federal Minister of Health.
I would be very surprised if they were not told by the federal
Minister of Health “This is the deal and this is the only deal
that the federal government is going to enter into, and there
will be no one compensated unless you enter into my deal”. That
is how I see the minister.
As far as I am concerned, it was wrong. If the premier of
Ontario had enough compassion to stand up and say “What I have
signed is wrong”, then I have to say he becomes the tallest
premier there is in all of Canada.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
first like to suggest that is one of the best political speeches
I have heard in the House of Commons in all my time here.
In response to the charges from the Liberal Party that we are
somehow in a cynical way using this issue to take political
advantage of the Liberals, I think it has been very clear from
the beginning that all the opposition parties gave the health
minister and the Prime Minister an opportunity to back down, to
back out, to change their position, to change their mind.
However, they chose to ignore that. They chose to draw a hard
line in the sand and say “No, this is the way it is going to
be”.
I would ask the hon. member, is it not playing crass politics to
start pointing fingers at the opposition now, saying that we are
somehow playing politics with this horrendous situation where
people trusted our blood supply and were poisoned as result? Is
this not crass politics on the part of the Liberal Party to be
pointing fingers at the opposition when in fact it has had every
opportunity to back down gracefully and it would not do so?
Would the hon. member respond to that?
1655
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the
hon. member. Certainly it is politics. Talk about calling us
opportunists. I would have to say the opportunists sit on the
government side.
It really bothers me. I do not think there has ever been a
subject in this House of Commons that has bothered me more than
this one. Our job here as the opposition is to bring in checks
and balances so that whatever is brought to the floor of the
House by the government is what is best for Canada.
In this case we are talking about people out there who are
hurting because they are ill due to no fault of their own; no
fault whatsoever. If that is the only reply the government can
give, pointing fingers at us and saying we are playing politics,
I say thank God we are speaking out and thank God we are doing
what is right.
It is because of what has been done here and what has been done
in Ontario that this will finally be corrected. It is because of
what we have done on this side of the House.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is most difficult to follow my illustrious leader in such a
passionate debate on an issue that certainly exudes much passion.
The member for Mississauga West I hope would also pay me as much
respect as he does my leader, for in fact the message that is
brought by our caucus and by our party is the same message, one
of fairness, equality and compassion for a group of individuals
who through no fault of their own have found themselves in a very
untenable situation.
The issue facing us is one of fairness and equality. These are
not faceless people who have been infected by hepatitis C. These
are our neighbours, our friends and, in some cases, our family.
They are people who we walk beside on the street, people we sit
beside in restaurants and people we work beside. These are
people who, through no fault of their own, received a tainted
blood transfusion which came from an organization and a
government that guaranteed the blood supply was safe. However,
that guarantee was not there and these people are suffering the
consequences.
I was at the gas pumps in my constituency just last week when an
individual walked up to me, knowing who I was, and introduced
himself, saying that he was one of the victims who was infected
by hepatitis C.
They come to us from all walks of life. They come to us to tell
us their stories, stories that wrench our hearts, if in fact
there is any compassion in our hearts. It has not been seen on
the other side of the House.
We have heard excuses. The Minister of Health has stood in this
House for the last five weeks and extolled the excuses of
government. The Minister of Health said “I am sorry, there will
be a cut-off date”, and that arbitrary cut-off date will be
January 1, 1986. Anybody before that arbitrary cut-off date is
going to be thrown out like bathwater.
What would happen if it were your family, Mr. Speaker, or your
friends who were infected in December 1985, one month prior to
this arbitrary cut-off date? Those individuals do not matter to
this government. Those individuals do no matter as Canadian
citizens because they did not fall within that magic timeframe
beginning January 1, 1986.
There are instances of tainted blood causing hepatitis C after
1990, but that does not matter because the arbitrary date of 1990
that has been developed by the Minister of Health is the date
that is going to stand for those individuals.
That arbitrary date was struck by the Minister of Health. Make
no mistake about that. His excuse is that there were tests that
could have been used between the years of 1986 and 1990. The
government's position is an excuse and that is all it is.
When the government sat down with the provinces to negotiate—and
I use that term very loosely—this federal-provincial deal an
arbitrary decision was made. The Minister of Health stood in the
House and said it was not about money.
He stood here and said that the issue of compensation is not
about money. I would suggest that probably is not the complete
truth. The minister also stood here and said that it would
bankrupt the health care system. We cannot have it both ways. It
is not about money. It is about compassion. It is about
fairness.
1700
As my leader indicated, when they negotiated, had we been flies
on the wall, I am sure the negotiation would have gone something
like this: “We will put in x dollars and the provinces
will put in x dollars. If you do not like the deal we will
remove our money from the federal side of the table”. That is
not negotiation, that is bullying. When the provinces are
bullied into signing a deal like that and then the government
stands in the House and gives another excuse that the agreement
was signed by all 10 provinces so it has to be a good deal, it
does not have to be a good deal. It was bullying on behalf of the
federal government because of money. Make no mistake about that.
Then there is the other excuse. There have only been a few of
them and they have been parroted here for the last five weeks.
The other excuse from the Minister of Health when he stood up was
that it would jeopardize the universality of medicare as we know
it in Canada. Not true. The universality of medicare in Canada
today as we know it, would continue even if and when a
compensation package is extended to cover those individuals not
covered under this particular package.
A precedent has already been set. It is the 1991 settlement to
victims who contracted HIV through the blood system. Those
individuals extended beyond that particular date. It extended to
anyone who was affected by HIV. The precedent is there and our
country's medicare system is still there and is still alive.
Those are the excuses. Let us talk about the real issues
concerning hepatitis C. The real issue is that the Minister of
Health fears class action suits, as well he should. There are
class action suits which are filed now by a number of
organizations. The Minister of Health, Minister of Justice and
the Minister of Finance will be hoisted by their own petards when
those class action suits get to the courts because of the
following reasons.
First, the compensation and the class action suit is medically
sound. It is medically sound because we know that these people
were infected by tainted blood. It is a legally compelling
argument. I defy the government to defend an arbitrary date of
January 1, 1986 from a class action suit. It is not going to
happen. We know full well that the class action suit is going to
be successful. We know that it is financially sound. The
Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance could get together
and put a fair compensation package together.
I should not do it but I will talk about some of those other
areas of waste by the government in its first and second terms. I
remember half a billion dollars at the stroke of a pen was wasted
when the government decided it was not going to go with the
EH-101s, but that was okay because that was political. This is
compassion. That is not okay.
Then there was the Pearson airport fiasco. Somewhere in the
area of $750 million was wasted by the government on that
particular political issue. But that was politics, that was
okay. When it comes to compassion, there is no $750 million for
the victims of hepatitis C.
I talked about it not being a precedent. This is not a
precedent. We have had it in the past with those infected with
HIV through the blood system.
Politically transparent. This is total transparent politically.
We have a government that bullied the provinces into making a
negotiated settlement. We have a government that forced its
members to vote against a motion that its members wanted to
support.
We see constantly day in and day out in this House a Minister of
Health who is unable to sell to his finance minister and his
cabinet a package that should be sold. He stands up and uses the
excuse that 10 provinces have signed it so it must be good. He
uses the excuse that the medicare system cannot support this type
of compensation package.
Politically unsound. We see the reports now on how the
government is being affected by this particular negotiated
settlement.
We see the transparency politically when now the provinces are
coming out and saying that it is not a good deal negotiated with
the federal government.
1705
We see the provinces. In the province of Ontario we talk about
Premier Harris walking tall. He does walk tall. Premier Filmon
walks tall. We see B.C. coming out now and saying that it is not
a good deal, that it wants fairness and equity for everybody.
How can the minister and the government keep the tenet that this
must be a good deal because 10 provinces have agreed to it? Ten
provinces did not agree to the government cutting transfer
payments to the provinces. Not one province said that it was
really happy to have its health care in transfer payments which
were cut by this government.
I did not see any member of the government front benches stand
and say that it cannot be a good deal because no province likes
it. They stood up and said that they were going to do it anyway.
They had the responsibility of leadership. They had the
responsibility to put in place a fair and equitable package for
everybody. They failed and they failed miserably. They failed
their leadership opportunity to stand up and do what was right.
Even the majority of backbenchers on the government side want
that fair package.
I would like to see the government support this motion to have
open negotiations with the provinces, to have the hepatitis C
victims available so that they can make sure that the right and
honourable decision is made at those reopened negotiations.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should not
forget is that the decision the government announced was the
collective view of all the health ministers of all political
colours. That fact cannot be escaped from.
From 1986 to 1990 it is my understanding that at the time, the
position taken by all the provinces including those headed by
Tory premiers was that throughout the compensation negotiations,
compensation should be open only to victims who became infected
through government inaction.
While the hon. member will be pleased to see progress, I should
remind him that the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul took up
this issue as early as in 1990. At the time the Tory government
did not move on the issue, although I must compliment it on the
HIV compensation, which I also presented to the then Minister of
Health in the Tory government.
We have to recognize that the current Minister of Health was the
first to advance the idea of compensation for patients with
hepatitis C from the system. He has succeeded certainly to a
great extent. Certainly we have to address those people who have
taken ill with hepatitis C even before 1986.
The ministers of health from across the country will be meeting.
Let us give them an opportunity to discuss the new plan.
Hopefully it will address the very issues we all would like to
have addressed, that is, to show that we look after those victims
in a compassionate fashion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments
of the member from Winnipeg. I understand that the member was
involved in 1993 on the health committee and in fact wrote a
minority report suggesting that there should be a review of the
blood supply. We have that review. We have the Krever report
and the Krever report is not being followed by the government.
The Krever report specifically said that there should be
compensation and it should be fair and equitable to all victims
of hepatitis C. You cannot have it both ways, one side of the
government saying we should have the review on the Krever report
and having another on the opposite side saying that it is the
responsibility of the provinces.
It is not the responsibility of the provinces. The
responsibility lies with the federal government and the Minister
of Health and no one else. The Minister of Health has every
right to provide leadership in this situation. He stands there
and hides behind the skirts of the provinces saying that when
there are 10 provinces and a federal government negotiating the
deal it has to be a good deal.
The Minister of Health and the government had every right and
every honourable requirement to go out and do the right thing, to
make this negotiated settlement fair for everybody. Do not hide
behind the provinces.
Now the provinces are finally coming forward after the bullying
tactics on a negotiated settlement and saying that what they have
done is wrong. If it is wrong, the government should live up to
that responsibility.
1710
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just
received an interesting letter. It is dated today and is from
the premier of Ontario. I would like to paraphrase a couple of
the comments.
Ontario is committed to treating pre 1986 victims on the same
basis as 1986 to 1990 victims. The premier says “I urge the
federal government to make the same commitment”. The letter is
addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. “The Prime
Minister's commitment will allow officials from both our
governments to determine not whether but how to get assistance
into the hands of Ontario victims as quickly as possible”. He
goes on to say that for the sake of the victims that is why the
province is doing this.
It is a very interesting and provocative letter. Does my
colleague from the Tory party agree with the very interesting
letter from the premier of Ontario?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I know that is a
rhetorical question but I will give an answer regardless.
Absolutely. And remember it is the premier of a Conservative
government in Ontario who in fact has shown that there is
compassion. I particularly like what Mr. Harris said with
respect to the same commitment prior to 1986, this arbitrary
line. Anybody pre 1986 will be treated in the same fashion as
anybody post 1986. This is only fair and compassionate. I
congratulate Premier Harris for writing the letter to the Prime
Minister. I just hope that the Prime Minister will listen.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in speaking in favour of the motion, if we get away from
all the finger pointing and where the blame lies and if we step
back and look at it, the process is working pretty well. It is
working well because there is supposed to be opposition input in
the process and we are having it. It is working well because
what happened in terms of the province of Ontario.
The whole thing would be a moot point if it was not for the
Minister of Health who brought the file forward. Whatever one
might believe about the Minister of Health, the fact is he took
the file forward, he got agreement with the provinces and now we
are into debate.
I met with victims of the hepatitis C group in my riding as
recently as last Friday. I have been having a number of meetings
with them. We actually observed what was happening. We were
talking about how the developments of the past week were going to
move the issue forward. I believe that is happening.
When one votes on a matter of confidence, one votes confidence
in one's government. Of course our parliamentary system
functions because there are votes of confidence.
One thing in the system and certainly on this side of the House
there is always the right of a member to try to change government
decisions and government policy. There are a fair number of
people in the caucus on this side of the House who are into it.
In all the discussions we have been having, I can only say that
the people with whom I have been meeting over the weeks as to
what we could be doing and should be doing, those people who are
suffering from hepatitis C are getting a better deal because of
what has transpired not just in this Chamber but what has also
transpired in the province of Ontario.
1715
I do not believe for a moment that compassion is the only
necessary motivation. All that aside, I believe that at the end
of the day we will end up with a better deal and a better public
policy because of the process we have undertaken. I support this
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Proctor
| Proud
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 234
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bigras
|
Bonin
| Caccia
| Charbonneau
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Duceppe
| Easter
| Guimond
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lebel
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pratt
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Steckle
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, last week there was a supply
day vote on this subject which—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
The House resumed from April 29 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, April
29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on Government Business No. 13.
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Eggleton
| Elley
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Lowther
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Manning
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Proctor
| Proud
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 202
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Brien
| Canuel
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| St - Hilaire
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Venne – 31
|
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bigras
|
Bonin
| Caccia
| Charbonneau
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Duceppe
| Easter
| Guimond
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lebel
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pratt
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Steckle
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have it
recorded that while I abstained from this vote, it is not a
statement that I do not support my colleagues—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from April 30 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the
agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December, 1982
relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish
stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and other international
fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-27.
1800
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that
you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the supply
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will cast my vote in
favour of the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 195
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
| Lowther
|
Manning
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Obhrai
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 40
|
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bigras
|
Bonin
| Caccia
| Charbonneau
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Duceppe
| Easter
| Guimond
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lebel
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pratt
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Steckle
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, during the concurrence
motion the member for Edmonton East abstained from the vote and I
would ask that he be included in future votes.
* * *
MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova
Scotia in relation to education, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The next deferred recorded division is on
the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-30.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, again I believe you
would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
the vote on second reading of Bill C-30.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it
clear. During the vote on the concurrence motion the members
that were cited in the original motion abstained from the vote,
which was only proper. I would just ask that they be included,
that the member for Elk Island, the member for Yellowhead and the
member for Edmonton East be tallied with the Reform Party in the
subsequent votes.
The Speaker: The point is made, taken and so ordered.
1805
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 136]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
On the votes that have just been taken, I believe the whip asked
that on Government Business No. 13, Bill C-27 and Bill C-30 the
vote from the supply motion apply. I did not understand that but
I was present and wanted to vote with the government on all three
items.
I stood to vote on Government Business No. 13, but the next two
votes were applied from the supply motion from which I had
abstained.
Could I have my vote count on Bill C-27 and Bill C-30 with the
government.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House consent to the
inclusion of the hon. member's vote as indicated?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among the parties and I think you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That in relation to its study of aboriginal economic development,
10 members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development be authorized to travel to Kuujjuaq, Iqaluit
and Chibougimau during the period of May 19 to 22, 1998, and that
the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to Private
Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADA STUDENT LOANS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should reverse
the privatization of Canada Student Loans, reject proposals for
income contingent loan repayment, and should instead implement a
federal student grant program and establish accessibility as a
new national standard for post-secondary education.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the
House to speak to private member's Motion No. 132 which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should reverse
the privatization of Canada Student Loans, reject proposals for
income contingent loan repayment, and should instead implement a
federal student grant program and establish accessibility as a
new national standard for post-secondary education.
The motion has been brought forward for debate because in the
last few months, certainly in the throne speech and in the
budget, we have seen the Liberal government call itself a
government for young people.
At the same time we have seen the government engage in a
deplorable strategy of gutting funding for post-secondary
education, privatizing the Canada student loans program and
forcing more and more students into severe debt.
1810
Despite what we heard in the throne speech and the budget about
increases in help for students, the stark reality for thousands
of students is very severe.
The motion attempts to rectify this injustice but also to
highlight Liberal hypocrisy and to make the link explicit between
the drive to privatize post-secondary education and the sense of
an increased hopelessness that there is among students who are
now graduating into unemployment and some even into poverty.
It should also be made clear that as the government retreats
from its commitment and public funding of post-secondary
education what is really going on in the country and what the
Liberal government has allowed to happen is that the banks are
moving in. More and more students are forced to borrow more and
more money directly from banks to fund their education.
We need to be clear that banks are not publicly accountable
organizations. They have as their main interest a maximization
of profit and certainly not the well-being of students. Yet
students are being left to the mercy of the big banks that are
now involved in the Canada student loan program.
The strategy on the part of the Liberals has eroded public
funding for post-secondary education to the point where it is now
completely within the private sector domain.
With the motion New Democrats are continuing to press the point
and to pressure the government for the Liberals to recognize the
extent and jeopardy students are now in with this debt crisis.
We want the government to listen to what students are saying. We
want members of the House to defend public education and to say
that we have to take much stronger measures to make sure there is
not the severe student debt that we have.
According to Human Resources Development Canada, 45% of new jobs
by the year 2000 will require post-secondary education. This
means that for many young people attending university or college
it is not an option if they want to find work. It is now simply
a fact of life that if they want to have a better chance at
finding employment they a need to have post-secondary education.
I do not think there is a member in the House who would disagree
with that reality. Despite this fact and that the Liberals say
they are committed to youth, the Liberal government is continuing
to throw barriers in the way of young people who are struggling
to develop the skills and talents necessary to get ahead in a
cut-throat global economy.
Since 1995 the Liberal government has cut $1.5 billion from
federal funding for post-secondary education in terms of
transfers to the provinces.
Over the last 10 years tuition fees have climbed by 240%, one of
of the steepest criteria increases in inflation. Last year alone
tuition fees rose by almost 12% nationally, increasing at a rate
seven times the rate of inflation.
Things are so severe in the country that it is probably shocking
for most Canadians to learn that tuition fees in Canada have
reached a national average of $3,100, which surpasses the average
tuition fees at publicly funded universities in the United
States.
In 1997 there are many surveys but the particular one done in
the maritimes, a survey of high school students asking them why
they were not going to university, indicated that 40% of the
students responding said they were not going on to post-secondary
education because they simply could not afford it.
The average student debt is now $25,000. That is up from
$13,000 in 1993 when the Liberals took power. Bankruptcies for
students trying to pay off their loans are also at record levels,
having increased by 700% since 1989.
Currently there are something like 130,000 who are in default,
not because those students want to be in default, not because
they do not want to pay back their Canada students loans but
simply because the cost of post-secondary education has become so
onerous and so severe, particularly for low income students, that
more of our students are falling into default and falling into
bankruptcy.
The number of bankrupt graduates is now estimated to be 37,000.
One missing payment determines default.
1815
We need to look at the background of how this incredible,
shocking situation has come about, particularly in light of what
we heard in the budget that everything is glowing and doing well
for students. As we can see the facts present a very different
kind of reality.
In 1995 the Liberal government gave financial institutions much
broader responsibility in the area of student financial
assistance. Before that time student loans, even though they were
assessed through banks, were fully guaranteed by the government.
But at that critical time in 1995 the federal government ceased
to guarantee students and, even worse, it paid
the bank a 5% risk premium on all loans to participating lenders.
It was the government's way of saying that students are not to be
trusted and it was the government's way of saying that the banks
can maximize their profits at the expense of students.
As a result there is wide scale evidence that some banks are
being incredibly over zealous in pursuing students who are either
late in paying or who are incapable of paying their loans because
they are on low income and they cannot find work.
As soon as the student defaults their file is deferred to a
collection agency which is charged with the task of harassing,
degrading and browbeating a young person into submission. That is
what our program has come to in terms of Canada student loans, a
program of harassment and degradation of students who are simply
trying to get through school.
Regrettably in this last budget the Liberal government announced
another giant leap toward privatization. Very deep within the
budget legislation currently in the committee is a clause which
would give banks more power to refuse Canada student loans to
individual students. The clause allows the cabinet outside of
the scrutiny of the House to determine which students do not
deserve access to loans. The implications of this are staggering.
Is this the first step toward giving banks total control over
eligibility guidelines? How far are we away from banks being
able to determine which areas of study have a better return than
others, that is, how profitable is an education in arts? I think
there is growing information from student organizations about
their concern around privatization and corporatization and this
move toward the banks influencing criteria and circumstances in
which students will now get loans is cause for great concern.
Student loans are not commercial loans, although
they are increasingly being treated as such. By handing student
loans over to the banks the loans become potential revenue
generators rather than social investments. It means that students
are forced to contend with very unreasonable rates. In many cases
there are students who are paying 11% to 12% interest on student
loans, far above the prime rate. Even though the banks will if
they are pushed lower the rates, students are not necessarily
informed of this.
This is a very serious part of the privatization in that it
forces individual students to deal with very bureaucratic banking
structures that have no interest of the student at heart and a
lot of students simply are not aware of their rights when they go
through the banking system to know what they can access.
There is also a problem with the inflexibility of renegotiation.
Many students who sincerely wish to repay their student loans are
forced to default because the banks refuse to renegotiate when
the borrower's financial situation changes.
The bottom line is that the banks are unaccountable to the
public. Banks and collection agencies can be very intimidating
and when they deal with an individual, that individual has no
sense of advocacy or resources to help them get through the
system. When students are faced with this they have nowhere to
turn.
I have many examples in my own riding and I know from having
spoken with other members in the House that there are many other
examples as well across Canada where students are actually
harassed and intimidated by collection agencies. I had one young
woman in my riding who was a student and had a loan.
For various circumstances, she had to go on social assistance.
She is now being harassed by a collection agency for the
repayment of her loan even though it is completely impractical
and impossible for her to do so.
1820
That is what the privatization of Canada's student loans has
meant in a very real sense. That is what it means when we have
turned the power over to the banks.
The issue of privatization goes even further. It is not just
Canada student loans. We are seeing increasingly a trend of CEOs
and shareholders of Canada's biggest banks who already sit on the
board of governors of many of Canada's universities and colleges.
Privatizing student loans furthers their influence in shaping
the direction of post-secondary education in this country. The
Canadian Federation of Students has done quite a lot of research
on this matter to unmask corporate rule on campuses across the
country.
Their document says that privatization is essentially the
retreat of public funding as well as public ownership, control
and regulation from the post-secondary education system to be
replaced by private dollars, private ownership, private controls
and no regulation of things such as tuition fees.
They go on to say that corporatization is a term used to
describe the influence of business interests in shaping many
aspects of post-secondary education systems, including the
setting of tuition fee levels, determining what gets taught in a
course and by whom, which supplies get used for a course or
program or which programs receive funding and which are cut.
We only have to look across Canada at post-secondary
institutions such as Simon Fraser University, the University of
Calgary, the University of Regina, the University of Toronto,
McGill University or Concordia University to see this growing
trend, a very alarming trend of increasing privatization and
corporatization and an influence of these unaccountable
organizations on the criteria, the courses the setting of fees in
post-secondary education.
There is no question that trend and alarming increase is
directly related to the retreat by the federal government of the
public funding of our universities and colleges.
In presenting this motion today, the NDP wants to be very clear
that we stand staunchly in defence of and to protect our public
education system. We believe as New Democrats that we are not
going to let the federal government forget about student debt and
the student debt crisis.
Instead of creating scholarship programs, the millennium fund,
which duplicate existing scholarship programs and do nothing to
help students in need, we have repeatedly and we will continue to
call on the federal government to take steps that would not defer
student debt but reduce student debt. We think the key way to do
that is by increasing funding to post-secondary education.
By the time the millennium fund begins in the year 2000, $3.1
billion will have been cut out from post-secondary education. The
amount of funds in the millennium fund at about $250 million a
year for 10 years will not even come close to compensating what
we have lost as a result of Liberal government policies.
In this motion today we are calling on the government to stand
up for public education, to restore the funding to this year's
cut of $550 million and, more than that, to follow the lead of a
province like British Columbia which has been working hard to
make post-secondary education more accessible by instituting a
freeze on tuition fees as a first step to making education
accessible.
We want this federal government to follow the lead of British
Columbia and to say that post-secondary education is a priority,
that it must be accessible and that education is not just a
privilege for those who can afford it. Post-secondary education
is a right that has to be accessible to all Canadians.
What we in the NDP are calling for is a national grant program
to assist first and second year students. This must be done in
consultation with the provinces.
I think we have had enough of the kind of unilateral actions we
have seen in this House around post-secondary education. The
millennium fund was introduced with absolutely no consultation
with stakeholders, with provinces or anyone who has an interest
in this matter.
It was an arbitrary measure that was taken by the government with
no consultation and no information provided.
1825
We believe that in establishing a national grant program it has
to be done as part of a new federalism where the provinces are
clearly involved in that. The federal government must take the
leadership to establish accessibility as a new national standard.
The issue of accessibility must be tied to the funding that comes
from the federal government and the funds that flow to provincial
governments. That is what needs to be done in Canada. That is
what needs to be done by the Liberal government.
As we have seen in this last budget, we are going in exactly the
opposite direction. We have seen a gutting of funds for
post-secondary education and we have seen more targeting toward
individual students based on some the government deems have needs
and others who are now left behind. This is completely the wrong
kind of approach. We need to restore confidence in the funding of
those institutions so that institutions are not forced to
increase tuition fees year after year and then we begin to see
student debt go up.
The other measure we are putting forward in terms of the
privatization of Canada student loans and what has taken place
since 1995 is to establish a program of real service to students.
In the human resource development committee we had
representatives of student organizations come before us. They
told us story after story. I know from my riding of Vancouver
East that students have no resources or information to help them
get through an incredible bureaucratic maze and through the banks
around Canada student loans.
If you live outside the Ottawa-Hull area and you have a problem
with a Canada student loan your only resource is to call long
distance to Hull, Quebec or go on the Internet. The availability
of local resources and local service to help students with their
individual cases is non-existent. That is something that must be
changed by stopping this privatization of Canada student loans
and ensuring there is direct service through Human Resources
Development Canada for Canada student loans.
There is no question that the millennium fund and the Canada
student loan program could be easily administered through Human
Resources Development Canada. There is absolutely no objective
reason why this program has to be privatized other than to
provide more gravy and more profits to the banks which are now
living off the misery of students in this country.
In the coming months the members of the New Democratic caucus
will continue to work very hard with other members of the House
and with student organizations and post-secondary education
organizations to make sure that young people from low and middle
income families do not have to mortgage their future to attend
university or college.
We are really fed up with the kind of hypocrisy that we have
heard in the House where we are told repeatedly that this
government is interested in the plight of young people, youth
unemployment and student debt while we have seen measures
introduced to increase the bankruptcy laws to make it more
difficult for students to declare bankruptcy. We are seeing the
eligibility criteria change and student debt continuing to rise.
We are committed to working against that and to bringing
accountability to the government to ensure that there is adequate
funding for post-secondary education.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to debate the motion brought forward by the hon.
member for Vancouver East.
Debate on the hon. member's motion is timely. Today the
Minister of Human Resources Development tabled the government's
response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities. The response is entitled “Ensuring Opportunities:
Access to Post-Secondary Education”. It is a comprehensive
document. It addresses among other things many of the
recommendations presented by the standing committee in its report
last December.
The standing committee's report provided the government with
very helpful advice.
I am pleased that many of the committee's recommendations were
incorporated and included in our February budget. We are now in
the process of working on their implementation.
1830
The Canada student loans program is a model of federal,
provincial and territorial partnership. We have been successful
in reaching a consensus on the Canada student loans program
policy through the diligent work of all stakeholders.
I have had personal experience since 1993 in helping many of the
officials, as well as successive ministers on this really
important issue, having travelled throughout the whole of Canada
to every province and territory to engage students and their
advocates, as well as some of their instructors and officials
from institutions of higher learning.
Last November the first ever national stakeholders working
session on student financial assistance brought together
representatives of student groups, educational institutions,
banks and credit unions, as well as representatives from the
provinces and territories. Working together we identified
priorities and followed up with changes in the February 1998
budget.
We are continuing the process of improving the Canada student
loans program by pursuing harmonization, which students,
financial institutions and provinces have told us is a priority
for them, working toward a single loan under the one
student/one loan concept. Under this concept a student would
receive one loan, rather than a separate loan from the federal
government and another from the provincial or territorial
government as the system stands now.
The discussions surrounding harmonization are continuing to
progress. The hon. member will be pleased to know that this
single loan proposal will improve access to the Canada student
loans program, provide better service to Canadian students,
simplify administration, make communication with borrowers more
effective and avoid duplication and overlap.
If the hon. member would like more details on this proposal I
would invite her to pick up a copy of Ensuring
Opportunities. In fact, I will deliver one to her.
In the meantime the February budget has enabled us to improve
the Canada student loans program so we can offer further help to
individuals who are encountering difficulties in repaying their
student loans.
It has become apparent through consultations that income
contingent repayment is not supported by most stakeholders. They
prefer other options to help students manage debt. Reforms to
the Canada student loans program include: tax relief for
interest on student loans, interest relief extended to more
graduates, an extended repayment period for those who need it, an
extended interest relief period for individuals who continue to
face financial difficulty, and a reduction in the loan principal
for individuals who still face financial difficulty.
Under the Canadian opportunities strategy we are expanding by 9%
family income thresholds that determine interest relief
eligibility. This will enable some 50,000 more borrowers to
become eligible for the program.
As well, we are making interest relief available for a maximum
of 30 months over the life of the loan, not just within the first
five years of repayment. Beginning in 1999 interest relief will
become graduated.
There is also our debt reduction and repayment initiative under
the Canadian opportunities strategy. Effective this year the
Government of Canada will, in some circumstances, reduce the
principal of a borrower's loan to make payments more affordable.
The principal will be reduced if the borrower's annual payments
exceed, on average, 15% of the individual's income.
With respect to the implementation of the federal student grant
program, the hon. member for Vancouver East proposes that the
government implement a federal student grant program. The Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation will be awarding 100,000
scholarships every year for 10 years beginning in the year 2000.
These scholarships will average $3,000 each and will help
hundreds of thousands of low to middle income students of all
ages. It is very comprehensive, very accessible and very
flexible. It reaches not just those in university, but also
those who wish to go to technical institutes or trade schools.
It also has a high mobility factor. Students do not have to
study in the province in which they reside. Students will be
able to study almost anywhere in Canada.
This is the way we engender and create a bit of tolerance and
understanding; an accepting of other cultures, geography and
other ways of life.
1835
Students studying full time or part time in publicly funded
colleges, universities, community colleges, vocational and
technical institutes, and CEGEPs will be eligible to apply. This
is not necessarily the case now.
Ensuring Opportunities reiterates the government's
commitment to grants as presented in the Canadian opportunities
strategy.
The government has responded to that recommendation through the
Canadian opportunities strategy. Beginning this August an annual
Canada study grant of up to $3,000 will be available to full and
part time Canada student loan program recipients with dependants.
The grant will provide non-repayable aid to over 25,000
high-need students with dependants. This is extremely important
as it will enable these individuals to continue their
post-secondary education.
We are now providing a Canada education savings grant. This
grant will give families an even greater incentive to save for
their children's education through registered education savings
plans. The grant will pay 20% on the first $2,000 in annual
contributions for children up to age 18.
The last part of the hon. member's motion calls for establishing
accessibility as a new national standard.
Accessibility is the fundamental principle of the Canada student
loans program. It is the driving force behind the program and
fundamental to the success of the Canada student loans program
since its inception in 1964. However, the standing committee
recommended that the government work with its provincial and
territorial partners to ensure access, fairness and
predictability in any upcoming changes.
The hon. member will be pleased to know that Ensuring
Opportunities states “Harmonization discussions with the
provinces will be based on a series of mutually agreed
principles, including those of access and fairness and, to the
extent possible, predictability”.
This is the direction in which we are moving. The legislative
authority already exists under section 18 of the Canada Student
Financial Assistance Act. It authorizes the minister, with the
approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements
with the provinces to harmonize student loans.
But to address any fears that the Government of Canada's
jurisdiction might be undermined, hon. members should note that,
other than fee for service arrangements, harmonization agreements
will not transfer responsibilities or resources to provincial or
territorial governments.
For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support the hon.
member's motion. I encourage her and other hon. members to read
Ensuring Opportunities. It is a well thought out response
to the recommendations of the standing committee. In
collaboration with our provincial and territorial partners we
will move forward to implement its provisions.
The Government of Canada's commitment to post-secondary
education and all its various provisions, grants and loan
programs is a very real one. We understand the plight of the
single mother with dependants who has taken on the opportunity of
furthering her education. We also understand the opportunities
for persons with disabilities who want to develop some labour
force attachment and higher education. We understand that.
We understand that it is not a one size fits all program that we
are proposing. What we are proposing is a program to deal with
the real world. There are many complications, many different
series of events and circumstances that have to be addressed and
we feel these measures have done that. In some way they have
reached those people who are most in need.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the
folks at home who may be watching this debate I will read once
again the motion that we are debating. The motion was brought
forward by one of my NDP colleagues and it reads: “That, in the
opinion of this House, the government should reverse the
privatization of Canada Student Loans, reject proposals for
income contingent loan repayment, and should instead implement a
federal student grant program and establish accessibility as a
new national standard for post secondary education”.
Let us address this motion section by section.
First, the motion is calling for us to reverse the privatization
of Canada student loans.
1840
In my assessment the government moved toward privatizing Canada
student loans because it had a bad track record on defaults.
In the period 1990-91, 25.78% of student loans had default
problems. In the 1991-92 fiscal year 27.23% of student loans had
default problems. In fiscal year 1992-93, 28.84% had default
problems. Notice that each year the figure is going up. In
1993-94, 29.79% of student loans had default problems. In fiscal
year 1994-95, 31.1% of student loans had default problems.
According to our numbers 1995 is the last year for which these
figures are available. The amount of student loans with default
problems crept up each year during the period 1990 to 1995.
There is a combination of problems. There is some form of
remission, or there is some form of granting, or there is some
form of actual bankruptcy, or there is some form of late payment.
There are probably other scenarios that wind up in a default
complication.
We are not talking pennies. They are pretty substantial sums of
money. Last year it was estimated that student loans in Canada
would cost about $643 million. That was the estimate, but the
government exceeded that. As a result more people qualified and
it wound up costing taxpayers $743 million. That is just for one
year.
As of last year there were outstanding loan guarantees of up to
$3.5 billion. We are talking about some pretty substantial assets.
If we are dealing with close to $4 billion in outstanding
assets on student loans we cannot treat this lightly. If the
government did not do a good job from 1990 to 1995 in terms of
the stats we have seen, maybe privatizing student loans is a
worthwhile option to explore.
The government has loaned this money and it has turned the loans
over to the private institutions, the banks, because it was not
doing a good job. Thirty per cent of the loans were going into
default with the government looking after them, so the government
finally got them out of its back pocket and gave them to the
banks to see if they could do a better job. In order for the
banks to pick up this responsibility they wanted a 5% premium.
The government gave out $743 million in loans last year. It was
projected that the premium would be $16 million. However,
because the government went way over budget with the loans, the
premium rose to $29.4 million. Last year the Government of
Canada paid the banks in Canada roughly $30 million to look after
Canada student loans. That is based on approximately $700
million that was given out in student loans.
The government is looking to loan this money out, but by paying
the premium to the banks it is hoping to have the banks pick up
the problems of chasing people who default on their loans.
That is one of the problems associated with post-secondary
education in this country.
Another problem underpins everything. It is one thing to have a
loan, but if the borrower cannot find a job when they graduate
they have a real problem.
I remember a party either in the 1993 or the 1997 election.
If I remember correctly it campaigned on jobs, jobs, jobs.
1845
Let me think now. It was the Liberals. That is who it was.
They campaigned on jobs, jobs, jobs. But those students who got
those loans, loans, loans came out of the universities and
post-secondary institutions and they could not find those jobs,
jobs, jobs. They had debt, debt, debt. As a result we have all
sorts of massive default, default, default. There is a serious
problem on our hands.
We could go ahead and as the NDP says allow the government to
take over the student loans programs again but that would not
solve the problem. The real underpinning problem is that there
is a lack of jobs for students when they come out of
post-secondary institutions. That is the real problem. There
has not been a delivery on the jobs front. That is why they are
having problems.
If students after their post-secondary education step into jobs,
they do not have problems repaying their student loans. As a
matter of fact, students in this country only pay a little over
10%, and one of the figures in a Diane Francis article is about
11% of their education. The government covers close to 80% of
their education costs and there is the private sector funding
which is arranged through alumni associations.
When everything is taken in, students are not paying that much.
They are paying around 15% at tops 20%, or a sixth of the cost of
their education. If they are able to get a subsidy of
five-sixths for their education, as long as they are able to find
a job, repaying the student loan is not a problem. The problem is
that there are no jobs for them.
The Liberals say they are going to promise jobs and it does not
happen. The NDP says we should have the government look after
student loans. Unfortunately the government has an abysmal
record on student loans. Students are therefore left between a
rock and a hard place. And there comes the Reform Party.
In the second aspect of Motion No. 132, the NDP wants to reject
proposals for income contingent loan repayment. Let me give a
thumbnail sketch for the folks at home and all those Liberals
across the way because I know they are paying attention.
Education is a big priority for all of them.
An income contingent loan would allow students when they come
out of an educational institution and if they get a job right
away, the ability to link their salary to their ability to repay
their student loan. If students find work when they graduate,
they repay the student loan. On the other hand if they cannot
find work, or they find only part time work, then they link the
amount of money they are making to the loan repayment. As a
result they may not be making full repayment, but they are making
a partial repayment. This is better than what we have right now.
Right now it is a simple on and off switch. If a student
graduates and is able to pay, they pay the full shot whether or
not it makes sense according to their budget. If they come out
and cannot afford the full amount but can afford a partial amount
of the student loan, rather than being able to pay that partial
amount, it automatically defaults because of the on and off
switch mechanism with regard to student loans. They do not pay
any of it. That is not fair to the taxpayer and it is not fair
to the students.
As a result, income contingent student loans would allow
students who have the ability to pay, to pay. Those who do not
have the ability to pay would be able to push repayment on to a
later period of time when they finally find work.
One of the ways to make sure the loan is repaid is to take the
income out of an income tax refund if they have one. I have
encountered examples of students who are not fairly reporting
their income to the financial institution holding the loan, or in
some way are trying to skirt the process. If it is linked to
their social insurance number, we get rid of the default problems
and make sure that the loans are being repaid. Therefore with
income contingent student loans we take care of both problems.
1850
If a student cannot find a job promised to them by the Liberals,
then they are not having to make full repayments. If defaults
are a problem, and the NDP is not going to be able to explain
that the government cannot do a decent job of collecting on
student loans that are legitimately owed by students to the
government or to the banks if they may be privatized, then a
system is set up where it is linked to social insurance numbers
and these things can actually be traced. There is less of a
problem for students who are honestly repaying their student
loans and we can actually get repayment from those who are
defaulting sometimes in spurious circumstances. That addresses
two of the big problems.
I would like to address the lack of spending priorities. You
will have to help me out again, Mr. Speaker. There was a party
which campaigned in 1993 and in 1997. It said it was the party
of health care and it said it was the party of education. Its
members said that those two things were fairly sacred social
institutions and we would have to almost torture them for them to
in any way impact the funding for programs in health care and
education.
I remember who it was. It was the Liberals. They said they
were not going to cut health care and education but they actually
did. It was massive amounts of money. In education alone it was
$1.5 billion. They cut huge amounts of money out of education.
What about the money we spend on foreign aid? Are students not
more important? What about subsidies to profitable corporations,
the CBC? I could go on, Mr. Speaker, you know I could.
In any event income contingent student loans are the way to go.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion by the
member for Vancouver East.
In my opinion, we are hearing a real heartfelt cry. This is
what people have come to recognize in Canada, in every
anglophone province, everywhere except Quebec, where the system
of loans was established in the 1960s and has remained
unchanged. In Quebec, we have established a recognized scheme
for providing students with financial assistance, which includes
loans and bursaries.
I think today's motion is well placed because for the past week
the Standing Committee on Finance has been hearing from people,
including representatives from Quebec, who report that the best
financial assistance system in Canada is the one set up by the
Government of Quebec.
It has been honed into the tool it is today, following action to
encourage the participation of students, administrators,
officials from educational institutions and representatives of
the unions, so that it is based on the student's financial need
and excludes the notion of merit, making it the envy of all of
Canada.
The member's cry may be summarized as follows: Is there no
way to change the way the system works in the rest of Canada to
permit it to become more effective?
This is quite understandable, since a student graduating in any
of the other nine provinces owes an average of $25,000, while
the figure for a Quebec graduate is $11,000.
Why is this so? Because we have a system of loans and of
bursaries, and if a student who already has loans receives a
bursary, this does not increase his debt load. As well, the
Government of Quebec has made a choice to keep university
tuition as low as possible. It has taken steps to invest in the
educational system so that people, regardless of their financial
situation, are able to gain access to it and to receive an
education.
It is my impression that this was more or less the objective of
the hon. member's motion.
Unfortunately, we cannot really support a motion like hers,
because there are some very concrete examples, in the Canadian
system, that show if we agreed to national standards across
Canada, there would be horror stories like the millennium
scholarships.
The decision was made to create a system of scholarships. There
are no grants or bursaries in the other provinces of Canada, so
we can see why this would make sense for them. But the decision
was made that these scholarships would be awarded on merit and
administered by a private foundation at arm's length from the
government.
1855
These scholarships will probably be awarded partially according
to financial need, but also on merit or other criteria which
the foundation will set and over which the government will have
no say.
This continues the trend of disengagement which has been going
on in the federal government for some years, setting up agencies
that are less and less under parliamentary control.
In the motion, where there is reference to accessibility as a
new national standard for post-secondary education, I believe
that where the problem lies with relation to student funding for
academic fees and living expenses has nothing to do with a
national standard.
The proof is that, since 1964, we have simultaneously developed
two different models corresponding to a certain extent, I
believe, to the kind of society that people wanted. Quebec's
model leaves students less indebted on completing their studies
than students in the rest of Canada.
A choice was made. As as people of my generation know, there
were several successive battles by students' federations, which
led strikes and protest movements to come up with the present
system.
The consensus in Quebec today is that the millennium
scholarships are unacceptable for Quebeckers.
I am not just talking about Quebeckers in the sovereignist
movement, but about the Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec,
the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Conférence des
recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec, the
Fédération des cégeps, the Fédération des commissions scolaires,
the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec, the Fédération
étudiante universitaire du Québec, the Fédération québécoise des
professeurs d'université and the Fédération des travailleurs et
travailleuses du Québec.
All the economic stakeholders who appeared before the committee
when we were looking at Bill C-36, which dealt with the
millennium scholarships, came to tell us that the model proposed
in Bill C-36 is not acceptable to Quebec.
We built a system, made sure it was effective, that the
framework and delivery systems were good, and suddenly someone
has installed a parallel system.
They tell us “If it was costing you 3% or 4% in administration
expenses, we don't care; we are going to introduce another
system that will cost the same”.
In a Canada that talks about eliminating overlap, building a
duplicate system is unacceptable. Things have been running fine
for several years and now there are two parallel models.
What the Government of Canada could have done was to amend the
legislation on loans and introduce financial assistance
legislation that would incorporate the concepts of loans and
scholarships and that would contain particular concepts
acceptable to Canada's nine provinces.
If it were to include the notion of merit, we could have put it
within this model. The other provinces of Canada so desiring
could make this choice.
However, Quebec came up with a different model. Student
associations told us that to include the notion of merit would
be to fly in the face of the studies done and various consensus
reached. We are not talking about consensus among student
associations, but one that included essentially all the members
of the current coalition.
So, although the motion is made in good faith and its objective
honourable, Quebeckers oppose the inclusion of a national
standard in this sector. The federal government is trying every
trick to get round the existing system.
To officially and formally include the concept of a national
standard would amount to delivering oneself bound and gagged to
the federal government.
It did not want to allow Quebec to exercise its right to opt out
and to be able to say, under current legislation, that the money
for the millennium scholarship would be paid to Quebec, which
would incorporate it in the system. To avoid that, rather than
amending the legislation on loans, the government decided to
create a whole structure, a separate foundation.
1900
According to the arguments raised, the foundation has nothing to
do with the jurisdiction over education. It will be
administered, not by government, but by a private foundation.
All manner of aberrations are therefore being created, which
will end up with a very negative outcome.
I can hardly wait to hear what the auditor general will have to
say about the federal government's decision to invest billions
in a foundation with which it will be at arm's length, and which
the auditor general cannot scrutinize in order to report to the
House that it is or is not being properly administered. No, a
foundation is being set up that will be fully autonomous and
independent, and yet will be funded with public money.
Quebec today finds itself faced with a lack of understanding
by a federal government that is unable to understand that Quebec
has developed a different system which must be respected, and
unable to understand that financial assistance to students is
part of our jurisdiction over education. Those who try to make
this a dichotomy, splitting financial aid away from education,
are out of touch with reality. When curricula and the workings
of an educational system are being determined, aspects such as
accessibility must also be addressed. Thus the funding of
institutions and of students—both living costs and tuition
fees—cannot be separated.
The hon. member does, I must admit, show good intentions. I
hope that the government will see reason and change the Canada
Loan system accordingly. There is, however, no way Quebec will
ever accept having the changes made at its expense.
There is no question of Quebec accepting any national
educational standards. This is one of the areas of jurisdiction
that is the most dear to us, and we will brook no interference
by the federal government in this area.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to support the motion. Education should be the foundation of our
country and of our future. Unfortunately that is not what is
happening and it is not what we are facing.
What I would like to contrast here is Yukon, which is not a rich
jurisdiction by any means. It is very poverty stricken in a lot
of instances and has boom and bust cycles. For decades it has
provided $5,000 a year for five years to any student who
graduates from a Yukon high school. They can use that money to
attend any institution as long it is accredited and as long as
they are accepted. It is a recognition of how valuable education
is and how we need to support it in our young so that they can
take their place in society.
I contrast that to the proposed millennium scholarship fund
which will not be available for another two years. It will
provide $3,000 a year for a very few number of students based on
merit. We do not know whom they will be. It will not be
administered by the government. We will not have any say in it.
I am glad there is some recognition and that some amount of money
will be there, but it does not form a foundation of an education
system, certainly not one for a country that wants to move into
the future with strength.
What we have seen happening is the gutting of our post-secondary
funding with a cut of $550 million. I know the only college in
Yukon is in Whitehorse and it has had to cut courses. HRDC is no
longer buying seats for people to be trained in so there is
another cut there, causing even more suffering and downgrading of
courses that are available to educated and trained students.
The Canada student loans have been privatized. Students are
graduating with huge debts and into unemployment with no hope of
paying off the debts they incurred for their education in order
to benefit not just themselves but their communities.
Where the government has moved out, the banks have moved in.
The difference is that the banks have no concern for the
education of our students or the development of our country.
They are not accountable to the public. They do not have to
report to us.
They are not concerned with educating our artists, our musicians,
our scientists, our economists, our carpenters, our electricians,
our humanitarians or our doctors.
1905
This Liberal agenda erodes and destroys publicly funded and
supported post-secondary education in more ways than one. By the
year 2000, 45% of new jobs will require a post-secondary
education, but at the same time in the past 10 years tuition has
gone up by 240%. Most people who do not go to university who
could, or do not go to college who could, do not do it because
they cannot afford it. They will never be able to afford it on a
minimum wage job.
Debt per student has risen from $13,000 in 1993 when the
Liberals came into power up to around $25,000. In the maritimes
I am told it is even more than that, well over $30,000 worth of
debt. With tuition that is $3,000 per year on average per
student, what kind of summer jobs will bring in enough money for
students to pay their tuition, pay their living, pay their books
and work to educate themselves? How do banks treat students who
have incurred this debt? One missed payment equals a default.
An elderly first nations man called my office in Yukon because
he cannot pay his debt. He has phoned every day. It is not that
he is trying to avoid paying his debt or trying to avoid work. He
takes any kind of work he can get, any little scrap of work he
can get to make a living. He is often forced on to welfare, of
which he is very ashamed. He bought one small filing cabinet and
was hounded. He got it at a garage sale and was hounded because
he bought it. He does not even have a bed. He sleeps on a
foamy.
He is afraid to answer his phone. He is driven to distraction,
and this is a man who was put through the residential school
system by this very same government. He pulled himself through
that. He educated himself. He wants to work and he does work
when he can, but he is hounded every day.
In 1995 the Liberals gave the banks responsibility for the
loans. Where they used to be fully guaranteed by the government
they no longer are. The last budget provides a clause giving
banks more power to refuse student loans. This clause goes on
outside the scrutiny of the House of Commons. Will the banks
determine who studies, what is profitable to study, and where
students buy their products from?
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member but the time for consideration of Private Members'
Business has expired. When this matter comes up for debate on
the next occasion the hon. member will have five minutes
remaining for her remarks.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to elaborate on the
question I raised in the House on April 29 pertaining to
hepatitis C.
I am particularly pleased that my comments follow what I would
consider to be an historic development in the House today.
Unanimous support for an opposition motion, as I understand, is
unprecedented. We are very pleased that we were able to play a
small part in achieving this consensus.
Today's development gives us all a second chance. It gives us
an opportunity to do the right thing, but I want to make clear
that we acknowledge our work is not over, that we need to be as
vigilant as ever and that this issue will not disappear off the
political agenda until justice is served.
Also today's developments remind us all that we have a great
responsibility to do the right thing. There is now the
possibility of breaking the impasse and creating hope for a new
approach that will lead us toward a solution that is grounded in
the values held dearly by Canadians right across the country.
1910
There is no doubt we have been through five very hard weeks.
What is clear from this past month and more is that there is no
consensus in the House, among provincial governments or in the
Canadian population as a whole, for a limited compensation
package that creates two classes of victims.
What is clear is that this deal has not withstood the test of
time. It is not in the tradition of how we solve problems. It
is not in keeping with our values as Canadians. It is not how we
respond individually or collectively when people in our midst are
in need. We know what will not work. That is clear now. We
have to look to the future.
I want to make four points to the federal government as it
begins this new phase in the history of the whole matter of blood
injured Canadians.
First, we urge that the federal government go to the table of
federal-provincial-territorial ministers prepared to show
leadership with the message that nothing short of compassionate
relief for all blood injured Canadians will do.
Second, we urge the federal government to go to the table
acknowledging its own federal responsibility, acknowledging that
blood injured Canadians have been the victims of a regulatory
failure. This is a unique situation requiring federal
responsibility and action.
Third, we must go to the table with additional funds and not
empty pockets. We must acknowledge that the lion's share of
responsibility for financial compensation rests on the shoulders
of the federal government. That should be clear more than ever
today.
Fourth, we must go with open minds and hearts prepared to listen
and hear the voices of those who have been affected so directly
and so deeply by this tragedy in our history.
Finally, I pay tribute to all victims of this devastating period
in our history, pay tribute to all representatives of the
hepatitis c society and the hemophilia society who have had the
courage and the persistence to keep these issues before us. They
have overcome great obstacles and much adversity to keep
reminding us about the very serious issues before us.
I remember how much hope they had after Krever tabled his report
and how much hurt they felt when the limited compensation package
was announced. They have found much inner strength to be able to
fight yet again for what only can be considered basic justice and
decency in society today.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite will
already acknowledge that the federal government has demonstrated
enormous leadership on this issue.
Had it not been for the leadership of the federal government and
the current minister, we would not even be discussing the package
that I know the member opposite accepts. She wants to extend it.
She accepts the package and she would give credit to the federal
Minister of Health and his leadership for bringing it about.
On the question of accepting responsibility for a regulatory
failure, she probably means that the system somehow collapsed.
She would probably want to acknowledge that this is a shared
responsibility, that the delivery of the blood supply system was
essentially a provincial matter as delegated through the Red
Cross.
We already know what has happened to the Red Cross. It exists
no more. It suffered for its responsibility. The provincial
governments have been brought to the table to acknowledge the
ramifications that flow from their own responsibility.
Regarding the question of increased funds, this again falls into
the area of shared responsibilities. As we speak today, the
situation is a little different from what it was yesterday or
when the member asked her question about a month ago.
The question of funds has always been mitigated by numbers that
people have accepted or not accepted. As I said before, the
leadership of the federal Minister of Health in this regard has
been exemplary.
It is because of the issues he put before us on the table in
parameters that all could understand and appreciate that we have
a package to serve the immediate and long term needs of a
substantial number of people.
Most important, he is dedicating federal resources and
scientific resources to solving the long term problems associated
with this terrible disease. I think for that he should be
complimented.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I want to
pick up where my counterpart from the NDP left off.
It is on the hepatitis C question. We have spent the day on this
issue and I think we will spend many more days on this issue
because it is not resolved satisfactorily in the eyes of the
Canadian people. Up to now it has not been resolved because we
do have a number of victims left outside the compensation
package. That is the point I am going to make tonight.
1915
Obviously what the government has done is come up with a
compensation package that covers only those victims within the
time frame of 1986 to 1990. That is a flawed position simply
because it leaves people outside the package. The question then
becomes what happens if someone was infected on December 31,
1985. They would be left out. But if it happens to be a day
later, January 1, 1986, they would be compensated under the plan
as it now exists. That is absolutely wrong. There is no logic
to it.
The government is telling us that a test did not exist. We have
heard that numerous times from the Minister of Health, from the
parliamentary secretary and from the Prime Minister. But that is
flawed logic. That is not the case. A test did exist and was
being exercised and conducted in the United States and Germany as
two examples of jurisdictions that did use the test which would
test for what is now known as hepatitis C. Let us not forget
that. That is the logic that the government falls back on. It
is flawed logic. A test did exist and we have said that over and
over in the House.
The Government of Canada did not ascribe to that test until
1986, but the test was available. The test was fairly accurate.
The test would have alleviated a lot of hardship on the part of a
lot of Canadians who are now infected by hepatitis C if the
government had used that test.
The other difficulty I have with the government's position, and
this again is flawed logic, is it is saying it cannot compensate
the victims outside of this package of 1986 to 1990 because there
are too many of them. The minister suggests that it would
actually bankrupt the Canada health system, the medicare system
as we now know it. In other words, the government could not
possibly pay for this many people.
In the Globe and Mail today a figure has been proposed, as
has been suggested by hepatitis C groups for a long time, that
the real numbers are not 60,000 victims but a mere 6,000 and
possibly 10,000.
The point is the government can afford to compensate all
victims.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we can talk about whether a test
existed. But there was no test that was generally accepted in any
jurisdiction. It was only when that test was generally accepted
and available in a jurisdiction like ours but was not applied
that governments failed in their responsibility.
On whether the government refused to do something, that
statement ignores the way the system worked. What the member
would do in his honesty is indicate that the Red Cross, the
distributor of blood and blood supplies, and the provinces which
had responsibility for the administration of the blood system
unfortunately recognized too late that their decisions not to
implement those tests were a cause of greater risk than the
benefit they had assumed.
1920
But the member also acknowledges in his argument that there is a
need for parameters in which to consider any kind of compensation
for damages incurred. Under those circumstances if what he is
saying to us is that the parameters he wants to put forward are
more legitimate than the procedures and parameters he refuses to
recognize, then I think the member should say what those
parameters might be.
When all is said and done I think the member opposite will
consider what has been accomplished by the federal government's
initiative in this regard. We have a package on the table that
brings together all the partners who were in a position where
they could have avoided a wrong. They are assuming responsibility
in the short term through a compensation package and in the long
term through a series of procedures put in place to address the
needs of victims who will live with this unfortunate and
regrettable tragedy forever.
If the member thinks about this for a moment then he will join
with me and others in complimenting the federal Minister of
Health for his foresight and his dynamic energy on this issue.
MULTINATIONAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
multinational agreement on investment is a bad deal for the
people in my riding of Halifax West and it is a bad deal for Nova
Scotians.
On February 13, I challenged both the Deputy Prime Minister and
the Minister of Industry about the impact of this mega deal.
Neither was willing to tell the real story to Canadians. This
deal has been cooked up by the cream of the financial elite, by
some super rich people and mega corporations, many making more in
a year than some entire third world countries. This agreement
would arm Goliath with missiles while handcuffing and
blindfolding David.
Mega corporations did not elect this government, people did. But
the MAI which this government is so keen on will protect those
mega corporations at the expense of the taxpayers who elected
this government. The MAI would tie the hands of our own
government. It would elevate the special status of investors at
the expense of our environment, labour standards and public
safety.
We should be taking the lead by working to forge international
agreements which include at their root the banning of child and
forced labour, the protection of our threatened environment for
our children, the banning of discrimination which hurts those who
have the most to lose and free collective bargaining with equal
footing for all partners.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement Ethyl Corporation
in the United States was enabled to sue the Canadian government
for $350 million for banning the dangerous and toxic substance
MMT from gasoline. Ethyl Corporation wants Canadian taxpayers to
foot the bill for over one third of a billion dollars simply
because we want to ban a toxic substance and the NAFTA paves the
way for this type of corporate rule over the voter.
If NAFTA is a leaky dory then the MAI is the Titanic going
down. NAFTA has provisions for six months notice of termination
while the MAI would bind Canadian parliaments for 20 years. If
the MAI were passed today it would tie the hands of this elected
government and the ones after that.
Voters would have as much chance of eluding the 20 year storm
clouds of the MAI as our Atlantic fisheries have of becoming
healthy again under this Liberal government. This agreement
would pave the way for huge multinational corporations to sue
Canadians through our government for doing no more wrong than
taking measures to protect ourselves. We could be prevented from
confronting threats to our children's health that we do not even
know of yet.
Corporations that are not elected would be able to use MAI
muscle to protect their short term profit margins by preventing
our elected governments from successfully taking legislative
steps to protect our health, culture, democracy and working
conditions.
Would my constituents be given similar rights to protect us from
the impact of the operation of these corporations? No. On one
hand, could the Sierra Club use provisions of the MAI to prevent
deadly chemicals from eating holes in the ozone? No. On the
other hand, could multinational corporations find ammunition with
the MAI to continue working to produce these chemicals? Yes.
This new corporate stealth rule is like creating a whole level
of super government without any voters and without any
accountability. The MAI is all about providing 20 years of
protection for this new corporate rule. Fortunately many
political leaders are now showing common sense.
In March of this year European parliamentarians from 15 nations
voted an overwhelming 437 to 8 against these undemocratic
negotiations.
Just last week the ministers of 29 OECD countries announced they
have decided not to sign or set a new deadline for this much
criticized agreement.
1925
Our Liberal government still seems to be deep in the pockets of
large corporations. We must remember that large corporations did
so much to bankroll the election of the Liberal government.
However, the government now has the choice of saying yes to the
people Halifax West and to Nova Scotians and no to the selfish
interests of the super rich.
I ask the government which choice it will make. The MAI is now
sleeping, thanks to the work of those who opposed it. Let us
ensure that the government does not wake it up.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my friend's
information base for the words he is using today is almost a year
old. It comes off a draft on the Internet last May. The
suppositions that arise from that draft have little relationship
to any proposed multilateral agreement on investment.
It is an agreement that Canada is pursuing vigorously because it
protects small and medium size business. That is the basic
reason. The concept of some megacorporations coming in with a
big foot and determining policy would have happened 30 years ago.
Canada now has 54 bilateral investment agreements around the
world. No one has taken us over. No one has interfered with our
health care system, our education system or the way we deal with
aboriginal people. Canada is the master of its own house. A
multilateral agreement on investment will simply enhance that in
years to come.
We want to protect our investors in other countries. They are
mostly small and medium size business. They cannot afford a
battery of lawyers to follow them around in litigation in the
jungle out there. We need rules. We accept rules. We try to
persuade other countries to go along with understandable rules so
that all of us can benefit from the commerce that results.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too rise on the question of the multilateral
investment agreement.
I agree with the member from Halifax that the agreement raises
important issues, but I certainly do not see them in the light
that he raised them. I agree with the parliamentary secretary
when he says he appears to be working somewhere about a year out
of date and with a lot of rhetoric that is not borne out.
We had a very interesting meeting in my riding recently in
conjunction with the member for St. Paul's. It brought a great
deal of intense discussion and a lot of interested citizens to
this issue because it raises very important issues of global
governance. I think these are issues that the government is
seeking to address in a way that is important. I think it
behoves us as members to look at it seriously. It raises very
important issues. That is why the constituents of my riding and
the member for St. Paul's riding came. We discussed this and
heard issues.
We have to bear in mind two points. The first is that the
minister addressed this issue when he asked the subcommittee of
the committee on trade to look at the issue. The committee on
trade came back to the minister and said that foreign investment
agreements could be very useful to Canada and Canadians because
they could further our investments abroad and at the same further
job creation here.
However they must be looked at in a certain light. It must be
guaranteed that we protect our culture. We must ensure that our
environment is protected, that measures are not to be restrained
in protecting our environment. We would like to see core ILO
labour standards inserted in such an agreement.
That makes a lot of sense. Here is an opportunity not to dump
on the agreement but an opportunity to make it better for
Canadians and to make it better for labour standards as well as
investment. What a wonderful opportunity. Let us not miss it.
The subcommittee also said health measures, educational and
social services clearly must be exempt from any such agreement
because they are not appropriate matters for foreign investment.
What did the minister do? He picked up this report by the
committee and subsequently filed in the House a response to the
report. In his response he states that specifically the
government's response addresses in detail each recommendation
made by the subcommittee and agrees with all of them.
The minister is to be congratulated. For the first time we saw
an international agreement being negotiated brought before a
parliamentary committee prior to the negotiations being
completed.
This was not for us to ratify after. This was something on which
members of Parliament from all parties, including the party of
the member for Halifax, had an opportunity to have some input, to
the point where the minister has gone to the meetings. We know
now from the newspaper reports what has taken place at those
meetings.
1930
Even Madam Barlow was quoted in the newspaper the other day as
saying she was pleased that this government had stood up to what
it said it would do. She was impressed by the fact that our
negotiators had stuck to the instructions which were given to
them to deal with this issue.
Given this and given the fact that this matter is now as we all
know pushed off until the fall, I wonder if the parliamentary
secretary could comment as to where he thinks it might go come
the fall. Is there any likelihood as has been suggested by some
that this might get involved in the discussions at the WTO as
well, so that we have a comprehensive approach to this very
important issue?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
commend my hon. colleague for the comments he has made about the
minister's response to the committee's work on MAI. I point out
that it has now been acknowledged by the Council of Canadians and
by the Canadian Council of the Arts as a matter of fact that our
minister has made the whole process transparent for the first
time.
Negotiations over the last 35 or 40 years were always conducted
very quietly. It was not because they were private, not because
they were close to the vest, but because nobody was really
interested in them, not until the Internet came along. Now the
Minister for International Trade has realized that the time has
come to open up these negotiations and make them painfully
transparent so that everybody can be bored by them as they go
along over the months and years. Some people are interested and
they deserve to know exactly what is happening.
I should point out that the minister has also made it clear that
there are reservations which are unassailable. The provisions on
the protection of culture, education, aboriginal concerns, our
health care, social system and so on, Canada will continue to be
master of its own house regardless of what happens.
Just briefly, I point out that because talks have now been set
back until October of this year, that does not mean that they are
finished or over. They will resume at that time and Canada will
continue to make vigorous representations.
[Translation]
BC MINE IN BLACK LAKE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
April 28, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a
question about employees of the BC mine in Black Lake.
According to the information we have obtained from the placement
committee, few or very few of these former employees are using
active measures, with the result that only a small portion of
the $3 million set aside for this envelope will apparently be
used.
What I am requesting, on behalf of these former employees,
several of whom are no longer receiving EI, is that the unused
portion be put into the pool created by LAB Chrysotile and the
Government of Quebec so that these employees, whose average age
is over 52, can retire.
Of course, the best way of saving our jobs in the asbestos
industry is to sell this product, which is unique in the world
and has exceptional qualities. Almost two years ago, France
announced its intention to ban asbestos on its territory. The
entire region foresaw a domino effect and to keep this move in
asbestos producing countries from having an effect in the
Thetford region, we unanimously requested that a complaint be
filed with the WTO against France, with respect to the
agreements signed with other member countries.
All asbestos producers, the Government of Quebec, all unions,
the Bloc Quebecois, the council of mayors of the Asbestos RCM,
all were unanimous in calling for a complaint to be filed with
the WTO.
1935
Even a highly placed public servant—mark his name well—François
Filion of International Trade, made the following statement at
Thetford Mines on March 18, 1998. “For the federal government,
it is not a question of whether or not we will be complaining to
the WTO on France's asbestos ban, but only of when we will be
doing so”. Now it is one minute to midnight. Time is of the
essence. The Government of Canada should waste no time in filing
a proper complaint within the next few days.
I have one question for the Government of Canada. Why does
Canada not put the same effort into defending asbestos it would
to defend the interests of Sherritt in the Toronto region,
western Canadian wheat sales, the Pacific salmon or the famous
turbot war in the Atlantic, in which Brian Tobin led the battle
against Spain? Is it because the asbestos mines are located
exclusively in Quebec? I am convinced that, if Quebec were a
sovereign country, it would have filed a complaint long ago
against the WTO, and we would have won our case.
I repeat, is the government going to continue to delay until
asbestos is banned everywhere in the world, before it lifts a
finger? The time for diplomacy is past.
Jacques Roy could not deliver the goods, so now the Prime
Minister should advise his ministers involved in this matter to
act as promptly as possible.
[English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to my colleague's intervention. He raised
the point in discussions about BC mines in Quebec that immediate
action similar to that pursued by the then Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans and now premier of Newfoundland, the hon. Brian Tobin,
would be appropriate in this case.
I point out to the hon. member that it was the Bloc Quebecois
which later in discussions with the European Community
specifically said that was inappropriate action and that if the
opportunity were to arise and a sovereign Quebec were to be
established, those would not be the actions of the nation state
of Quebec, that they would proceed with negotiations first.
Therefore, I would like my hon. friend and colleague to clarify
and state for the record, as we all know in this House, that is
not the position of the Bloc Quebecois on other issues.
The hon. member may agree with me that the proper resolution of
this matter is in further discussions. A referral to the World
Trade Organization at this point in time is very premature
because discussions are ongoing.
The hon. member raised the point that active measures were not
being used. I simply point out to my colleague that $3 million
has been set aside for active measures for the approximately 300
miners who are affected and there has been substantial uptake of
those initiatives. Of the 307 affected workers, 40 have found
work at one of the other two mines run by Lab Chrysotile, the
Bell mine and the Lac d'Amiante mine. About 10 workers have
retired and another 40 to 50 have expressed interest in continued
training.
Active measures are working. We want to continue with that. We
want to tell the affected workers that the Government of Canada
is on their side and we will continue to work on their labour
market adjustment.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38, a motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.37 p.m.)