Debates of April 23rd, 1998

Supply

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I presume from the final remarks of the member that members opposite consider this to be a free vote issue. I would hope that if arguments are presented to them which are cogent they would consider voting with the government when it comes to the test before the House.

I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to an analogy.

In 1986 there is no doubt that the Red Cross should have done something about the blood products because screening procedures were available and the whole issue about liability revolves on the fact that action was not taken at a time when it could have been taken.

However, I would point out to members opposite that there is a clear analogy between having this medical technology available in 1986 and not using it and not having it available to the victims of hepatitis C before 1986.

I draw the hon. member's attention to parallels like the Salk vaccine. Would he propose that those who had polio or who suffered from the consequences of polio should have been compensated by the government when the Salk vaccine was introduced? Is he suggesting that all those who were suffering from the disease before the arrival of the vaccine should have been compensated, even though the vaccine was not available at the time they contracted the disease?

It is exactly the same with insulin. Diabetes was a great killer and a great maimer of people several decades ago. Insulin was discovered by Sir Frederick Banting. It became available. Do we assume that the government is therefore liable to all those people who suffered from the disease before the vaccine was available or before the medical technology was available to address that disease?

Penicillin is a great example. Penicillin was known and available but was not widely used by the medical profession when it could have been the answer to all kinds of diseases of the day. Does it mean because penicillin had been invented but was not widely available in all medical communities that everyone was liable because of something that was not yet in common use?

I hope they listen very carefully because we are coming to exactly the same situation now with antibiotics. The efficiency of antibiotics is deteriorating rapidly. Are we going to hold governments responsible if a specific antibiotic is prescribed for tuberculosis but no longer works? Are we going to hold the government liable for a failure of medical technology?

The government can only be liable when it can affect the outcome, when it can make the wrong decision that creates the liability.

As much as our heart goes out to those suffering who contracted hepatitis C before 1986, the reality is that the government could not have done anything about it at the time and, therefore, the government cannot be held accountable for it, in the same way that the government cannot be held accountable for all the polio victims and all the people suffering from tuberculosis who will not get a result from the vaccine.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's question I feel sick.

They are trying to defend something which is not defendable by coming up with ludicrous ideas. What has insulin to do with this?

This was a federally-regulated body that had tests, but people got infected. Insulin was discovered. What has insulin to do with this? Did a federally-regulated body have tainted insulin given to people? Is that what he is saying?

What we are saying here is very simple. We are saying that a federally-regulated body could have stopped this infection, possibly, had the power to do it and did not do it. There was negligence.

Compensation has to be given to everybody who was infected. That is the question. The motion today is to compensate everybody infected with hepatitis C.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter. It probably will be one of the most significant debates that we will participate in during the course of this parliament.

Quite simply, the government's position on the hepatitis C question represents a betrayal of the Liberal principles and traditions of going to bat for innocent people, of going to bat for those who are unable to go to bat for themselves, of assisting those in need in this country. Liberal principles and traditions have driven Liberal policy for many years. One of the hallmarks of the Liberal Party, I thought, was one of being a fair and compassionate party. Now the government is turning its back on innocent Canadians who have been victimized not because of their negligence or oversight but because the system failed them.

How is it that the small country of Ireland which is one-tenth the size of Canada can have such a huge heart and provide compensation for all its victims of hepatitis C? Canada is 10 times the size of Ireland. How is it that the Government of Canada can be so heartless and cruel? How is it that a Liberal government can take the position it is taking?

I sat as a Liberal member of parliament for 12 years. I was a Liberal for many years before then. I was a Liberal when Pierre Trudeau was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and when he was the prime minister of Canada. Pierre Trudeau would never have taken the position that this government has taken. Former Prime Minister John Turner would never have taken the position that this government today is taking. Prime Minister King, Prime Minister Laurier and the entire list of Liberal prime ministers from Confederation on would not have taken the cruel and heartless position that this government is taking.

Liberals have been calling me from across the country. Rank and file Liberals, small l and big L Liberals, are saying to me that they are ashamed of being members of the Liberal Party when they see their government abandoning disadvantaged Canadians. Why does this government have a heart big enough, and rightly so, to compensate victims of the ice storm in Quebec and Ontario and to compensate flood victims in Manitoba and Quebec? Why does it have the political will, the political wherewithal and the heart to help those people, and yet abandon these 40,000 people? They are not losing property or chattels. They are not unemployed. These people will lose their lives. Their lives have been shattered as a result of the negligence of the Government of Canada and its agencies.

Their families will suffer. We are not only talking about the 40,000 people who have been left out, we are talking about their families. Their hopes and aspirations have been shattered. Give them some dignity. Tell them the government cares. Tell them the government understands what they are going through.

I wonder whether any of those Liberal members across the way know of any victims or whether they have any family who were victimized because of the tainted blood scandal in this country. Perhaps if they had a family member or if they themselves were inflicted they could understand the pain and suffering that is going on out there. I do not believe this government understands the magnitude of the suffering. It is a Liberal government and that is what is most disturbing. I know that many members across the way are deeply troubled by this.

What makes matters worse is that Liberal members are being told they must vote against the motion because it is a vote of confidence. What nonsense. What a bogus position to take. What does that mean? It means those Liberal members across the way will be coerced and threatened by the whip and by the leadership of the party. They will be stripped of their responsibilities if they do not toe the party line.

That is what is wrong with politics in Canada today. Those people across the way were elected to represent their constituents, to have some compassion, to be the representatives of their ridings. Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians according to a public opinion poll agree that all hepatitis C victims should be compensated.

Those Liberal members across the way who are going to toe the party line on Tuesday should be asking themselves who they are representing. Are they representing themselves because they want to be on a particular committee or they want to be parliamentary secretaries or because they want to be cabinet ministers? Are they representing themselves or are they representing their constituents?

If they succumb to the pressure of the whip to support the government and to vote against this motion, they are not only betraying the Liberal Party and Liberal traditions, they are betraying their constituents. There will be a political price to pay. I can assure hon. members across the way of that. They know in their heart of hearts that the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, the Liberal thing to do is to compensate all innocent victims. That is what Ireland is doing.

The Minister of Health, Mr. Compassion himself, a man who would be prime minister is refusing to show some of that Liberal compassion, that Liberal understanding which has made Liberal leaders great over the course of this century and since Confederation. He uses instead weak and bogus Bay Street arguments for which he was paid a handsome sum when he was a lawyer on Bay Street. He uses bogus legal arguments in order to deny innocent victims their rightful compensation. I say shame on him.

But is it his decision? Behind the scenes Liberal members of parliament say it is really the finance minister, that he made the final decision. He is the guy that controls the purse strings. These are the people who support the Minister of Health. The supporters of the Minister of Finance say that no, the final decision was with the Minister of Health, that it was his decision.

It really does not matter because ultimately it is the Prime Minister's decision. If he wants to be remembered as his predecessors are remembered, as Mr. Trudeau is revered and honoured and remembered by Liberals and non-Liberals across the country, as are all his predecessors whom he often wishes to emulate, he would follow in the true traditions of the Liberal Party. He would open up his heart and provide compensation to all those people who are suffering.

The fact that this government is insisting it be a vote of confidence would suggest how bankrupt it is with respect to morality. If it was such a right decision, if it was the correct decision, if it was the moral decision, if it was the Liberal way of doing things, why has the government chosen to consider this or deem it a confidence motion?

If it is the right decision, members of parliament on the Liberal side would vote for it based on the merits because that is the right thing. They know that the backbenchers on the Liberal side of the House know it is the wrong thing. The only way the government can ensure Liberal members on the backbenches will vote against the motion and in favour of the government's position on the matter is by deeming it a vote of confidence, declaring it to be a vote of confidence and then threatening them like it threatened me. When I decided to vote against the budget two years ago the government said publicly in its talking points “he voted to defeat the government and on that basis he has to be removed from the Liberal caucus”.

That is the same way the government is going to deal with members of Parliament opposite. Over the course of the remainder of this day and throughout the course of the weekend the phones will be ringing. The Prime Minister's office will be tracking down MPs in their ridings right across the country. They will be told that it is a vote of confidence and if the member votes against the government's position, if the member votes against the leader, the government is going to fall, so the member had better be there to vote against that motion. That is wrong. It is immoral, it is unjust and it is unfair. As I said, it is a betrayal.

The Government of Canada, a previous government, appointed a royal commission of inquiry. The government's position challenges the integrity of the royal commission itself. Mr. Justice Horace Krever in his report indicated “Until now our treatment of the blood injured has been unequal. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot in my opinion be justified”. Let me repeat that: “Until now our treatment of the blood injured has been unequal. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot in my opinion be justified”. He is saying that the position of the Government of Canada today cannot be justified.

Justice Krever sat through many months of hearings. He heard witnesses. He looked into the eyes of suffering witnesses. He heard experts and he came up with the conclusion that to compensate some and not others cannot be justified. That is what the government is doing. It is compensating some and not others. Some 69,000 people were infected and only some 20,000 will be compensated.

When it came to other Canadians who suffered as a result of tainted blood, the HIV victims, the government did the right thing. It compensated everyone regardless of when they contracted HIV as a result of the blood system. That was the right decision. The government ought to be consistent and do the same for all hepatitis C victims.

Getting back to the Minister of Health, on April 29, 1996 he had this to say in the House: “The answer of course is that when there are resolutions as there are today involving victims rights, members of this party”—referring to the Liberal Party—“vote as they see fit. I already told the House this morning that I am going to be voting in favour of the resolution because I share the objectives expressed by the hon. member. I expect the other members of the government side will vote as they see fit”.

What absolute hypocrisy. He speaks one way on April 29, 1996 with respect to a certain group of victims in this country and now he and his government are saying that members cannot vote as they see fit. They must vote as they are told, not based on what they believe to be right in their hearts, but based on the decision taken by the government.

The position of the government today is morally wrong. As the debate intensifies, Canadians will express their position in clear and certain terms. The Prime Minister often goes abroad and talks about the Canadian way, about how Canadians have compassion, how they are understanding and how they are tolerant. This is inconsistent. The government's position is inconsistent with the so-called Canadian way.

As I indicated earlier, the government over the years has seen fit to compensate victims whether they be flood victims, ice storm victims or unemployed fishermen in Atlantic Canada. The Government of Canada has also compensated Canadians who insulated their homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Remember that? I suppose those people lost some monetary value to their homes and because of a government decision, the government felt it was morally responsible and therefore provided compensation. How does the government reconcile these decisions to compensate some and not others?

What really bothers a lot of Canadians, what really irks a lot of Canadians is that this government finds money, some $80 million, to hand over to Bombardier, one of the most profitable corporations in Canada. Yesterday it announced record profits, the most in the history of the company. People are writing their cheques as we speak to the receiver general as they complete their income tax forms leading up to the deadline. This is hard earned money made by hardworking Canadians and the Prime Minister hands over some $80 million to a profitable company. How can that be justified? How can he hand over money?

Did it contribute to the Liberal Party of Canada? Does he have some friends, family or connections on the Bombardier board? I do not know. It boggles the mind how one set of standards can be applied to wealthy business friends and another set of standards applied to poor innocent Canadians who are suffering physically.

We are not dealing with a flooded basement here. We are not dealing with property damage. We are not dealing with urea formaldehyde foam insulation in homes. We are dealing with people who will die. They will die as a result of having hepatitis C, not because of their own negligence, not because of the negligence of their doctor. Had it been negligence on the part of their doctor, at least there would be compensation through insurance plans. They are going to die. Many will suffer.

A constituent who lives in my riding has written to me. I will not quote from her letter. I spoke to her a few days ago and she knows who she is. She is on Eileen Avenue in York South—Weston. She told me the impact this has had on her family and the uncertainty it has created for her, her children and her husband, the pain and suffering they are going through.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance are okay. They will go home and sleep well. They are healthy. Their children are healthy. Their spouses are healthy. Do they know what it is like to live with the uncertainty of not knowing what the future might bring as far as their health is concerned? I think not.

I appeal to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister of Canada, in particular to the Minister of Finance. I would ask him to look in the mirror and ask himself what would Paul Martin, Sr. do on this issue if he were the Prime Minister of Canada, a position that he aspired to and a position that the Minister of Finance aspires to. What would Paul Martin, Sr. have done? I think he will find that in his heart of hearts he knows that Paul Martin, Sr. would have done the right thing. He would have compensated all innocent victims of hepatitis C.

It is not too late for this government to admit it has made a mistake, that it will do the right thing and that it will compensate all victims. It is not fair that only the victims from 1986 to 1990 will be compensated. All victims should be compensated.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made an allusion in his speech that party discipline on this side is governed by a punishment process whereby if we do not align ourselves with the government we may lose the opportunity for a free trip or a position as parliamentary secretary.

I understand from the member that he was a Liberal for 14 years. How many times did he vote against his conscience because he wanted a parliamentary secretary's job or because he was afraid he would lose the opportunity for a free trip? Come to think of it, how many free trips did this member take when he was a member of the Liberal Party?

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolute pure nonsense. That member opposite lacks the spinal backbone to represent his constituents.

In the years that I was in the Liberal caucus, whenever I was faced with a choice of voting on the basis of my conscience or on the basis of what was right for the leader of the Liberal Party, I always voted consistent with the best interests of my constituents. I do not know if he knows his history. On many occasions I voted against the party and the leader, whether it was on the Meech Lake accord, cruise missile testing or on cutting health transfers to the provinces. He knows that when I was a member of the Liberal caucus I did not suck up to the PMO the way he sucks up to the PMO.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after the member's 14 years experience in the Liberal government, what advice would he be able to give his former colleagues and backbenchers on how they might approach the Prime Minister this weekend to get him to change his mind?

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, very simply they should not even refer to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's office will be calling them. The whip will be calling them. When they have a difficult case the Prime Minister may be making those calls. If called, all they have to say is “I have a moral duty to represent my constituents. I want to do what is right. What is right in this case is to compensate all victims, not to pit one victim against another. I am prepared to suffer the consequences of doing what is right”.

Ultimately the people who put these people in office will understand and separate those members of parliament who stand up for principle and those who do not. Just ask the people of York South—Weston.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am in total agreement with the member on this side of the House. What is happening is totally disgusting. What we are seeing is a government that just does not care.

We often hear the government side saying that it did not know before 1986. I believe that in the Krever report it had been put on alert in 1981. Could the member confirm that for me?

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is where the Minister of Health and the government are being intellectually dishonest. They are misstating fact.

The fact is tests existed prior to 1986. Perhaps the tests as far as the Americans were concerned began in 1986. But Germany and other jurisdictions had tests. There were mechanisms. There were opportunities available to Canada in order to prevent the tragedy that occurred.

Regardless, we should be looking at a no fault system. We should not be looking at laying blame at the feet of an agency or government. We should understand that this is the largest medical tragedy in the history of Canada. We should be focusing our attention on providing compassionate and fair compensation to those who are suffering or will suffer as a result.

I urge the government to look at the Irish example, to look at the way the Irish government is treating innocent victims. It is making generous compensation available to all victims of hepatitis C regardless of when they contracted it as a result of the blood system. That is the model. That is the fair and compassionate way the government should follow.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very tragic issue. I sat in utter amazement during question period today as I listened to members of the government stand up time after time and put their largest possible smokescreen forward to try to divert attention away from the fact that we are dealing with the government's failure to ensure that people who were getting blood transfusions were getting safe blood transfusions. That is what we are dealing with here. The government failed. It failed in the regulatory process to ensure that the health of Canadians was put first.

Government members have said there is nothing we could do about it. Prior to 1986 we had no means of testing. We did not know. Therefore how could we be responsible?

That statement, that premise, is an absolute lie. I know it. The Liberal government knows it. The Canadian people know it and most certainly the victims of the tainted blood know it themselves. They are having to live with it day after day.

How can this government, if it has one ounce of conscience, say it will take responsibility for those infected after 1986 but not those before? There is not one substantial piece of rationale behind that decision that anyone in the world could ever determine.

Once again the government has clearly displayed that it is morally bankrupt, that it would prefer to talk in legal terms, like the Minister of Health is so good at, and talk in dollars and cents and try to hide behind some decision it came to with the ministers of health of the different provinces. It thinks this somehow is the most important part of this discussion. It totally forgets that the most important part of this discussion is the people who were infected with hep C, the victims. They are the most important part of this discussion.

Why can the government not understand this? The government members do understand it. They know it. They know that the victims are the most important part of this whole issue but they will not recognize it because it is going to cost them money, because they say they have come to some agreement.

This is a very sad day for Canadians. It is a sad day when victims of hepatitis C who were infected prior to 1986 have to watch the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister say that prior to 1986 it is not their fault and therefore cannot be held responsible. They have to watch the government leaders stand up one after another and tell what they know is an absolute lie. Everyone knows that.

These are the facts. In 1981 the Red Cross rejected a recommendation from its own people to implement surrogate tests, the ALT test and in 1994 the anti-HBc test. A 1995 study revealed that their combined use would have lowered the incidence of post-transfusion hepatitis C by as much as 85%. In 1986 the Red Cross was aware this testing was being used but did not implement it in Canada. As early as 1978 the Red Cross was aware that non-A and non-B hepatitis was getting into the blood supply. It is unfortunate that Red Cross officials did not appreciate the significance and the long term implications but they knew it was happening. How can the government deny responsibility?

During this debate we can talk about the impact on the victims and about the moral bankruptcy of the Liberal government. I will address something the Liberal government has the audacity to stand behind. It has tried to cloud this issue by saying that it is simply a non-confidence ploy of the opposition parties to try to bring down the government. It has said that it cannot allow its own Liberal backbench members to vote the wishes of their constituents or of their consciences because this must be treated as a non-confidence motion.

I quote from something referring to opposition supply motions being treated by the government as non-confidence motions: “This completely unnecessary and incorrect interpretation of the rules serves only to create greater frustration and partisanship and it is urgent that the standing orders be further amended to clarify that no opposition motion may be considered a matter of no confidence unless it specifically and explicitly indicates that it is intended to condemn the government”.

Nowhere in the motion of today is it specifically indicated that this motion is intended to condemn the government. This motion urges the government to respect the report of the Krever commission. That is a wonderful statement. It came from the Liberal plan for the House of Commons and electoral reform entitled “Reviving Parliamentary Democracy”. Liberal members will want to know who was among the signatories to this report, the person who is now their own House leader. At that time he was the assistant House leader.

Government members have the audacity to say that this is a non-confidence motion of some sort and that their members must vote with the government on it when in this report, which they prepared themselves and which their current House leader worked on and was an author to, condemned that very line of thought they are putting forward now. Not only is this government morally bankrupt by the way it is handling this case but its members by their statements today have displayed the highest form of hypocrisy I have ever seen in my life.

Only one thing can be done on this issue. This government must recognize the victims and award full compensation to all victims of hepatitis C, not only those it has put into this convenient little window.

I end my presentation today by appealing to the Liberal backbenchers to appeal to their hearts and their conscience that they would know the right thing to do when this issues comes up for a vote.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments because as earlier on in the day, the debate has moved partially away from the issue at hand and on to political tactics. Political tactics are fine. They are partisan and everybody who watches this debate understands this is a side issue that does not have much to do with the motion.

On the substance of the motion, I am sure that all those following the debate want to be appraised of the issues at hand. The last speaker along with the other colleague from his party made references to federal responsibilities and leadership on the matter of infection. He will know and he will want everybody following the debate to have a full understanding of all the players who had a role in the management of the blood system.

I wanted to make some comments so I could have an opportunity to give them a full appraisal of the issue. He will recall for everybody who is engaged in the debate that one of those players, the one responsible for administering the blood system, as of this coming September will cease to have existed, the Red Cross, a venerable institution.

Second, the provincial authorities responsible for administering health care have also participated in this and have put forward a package for everyone to consider. I know—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. The Liberals themselves purposely moved this whole debate away from the issue of compensation. It was the cabinet ministers, the Minister of Health and the House leader, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister who purposely moved this away from a compensation issue to hep C victims to a political issue. That is what happened.

We do have a full understanding that the Krever commission sanctioned and created by the Liberal government reported that all hepatitis C victims should be compensated. The government said it was going to accept that report only if it liked it.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has really put its foot in it this time.

A terrible injustice has been done. I hope that the members of this government will understand that they have made a blatant error. I call upon them to recognize that error. Everyone makes mistakes, but they need to open their eyes to the injustice here. They need to say that it is not right for some people to receive compensation while others do not.

I ask my Reform colleague how they can be made to realize that they have committed an injustice and a mistake.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations in the Krever commission are very clear. He did not say compensate some of the hepatitis C victims. He said compensate all of them in the same way that he recommended a compensation of all the HIV victims.

The government has displayed a reprehensible attitude on this issue. I hope once again the backbench members of the Liberal Party will have enough good sense to look into their hearts and conscience and when this motion comes to a vote they will vote what they really believe to be the right thing, not what their government whip tells them to vote.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to continue the debate on this issue. It seems we have not yet been able to change the government's mind on this and we hope to continue to raise the issue until we have it convinced it is wrong, that it is dividing Canadians into different groups on the basis that the day before yesterday some contracted hepatitis C and some did today and so they do not qualify for help.

In 1993 the federal government commissioned an enquiry to examine what happened, to look into the regulation, management and operation of the blood system. It issued a report and made some recommendations, among them that there should be compensation paid to those who suffered as a result of it. They are suffering. They are suffering a lot.

They have not come to Ottawa for a holiday. There is no place to take a holiday right now. They are here because they are hurting.

It is not our rhetoric that matters. It will not betray us for what we are. What betrays us is our actions. High flown words and intentions do not do anything. It is our actions that speak loudly.

The Minister of Health said: “We Liberals feel deep sympathy for those who were infected prior to January 1, 1986”. That gets them nothing. They cannot take that to the bank. They cannot live it in health. They cannot work because somebody felt sorry for them. They cannot put their children through university. Their wife, who may end up being an early widow, that is not any help to her. It is not going to help them to and from hospitals and all the expenses. This makes me sick.

Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians want hepatitis C victims to be compensated for loss of health, livelihood, years of life, enjoyment and productivity. Canadians know what is right. Over there they do not know what is right.

What do they get from the Liberal government? Back alley brutality. I think it needs to be made clear just what constitutes the government in this country. When I came here as a rookie there were seminars held for rookie members of parliament. What did they say? In Canada we have the government within the parliament and particularly the government is drawn from the party with the most members elected. This time it was the Liberals. The way they are going it will be the last time.

I think it would be a real good idea if we painted all those chairs another colour so that those members of the governing party who are not members of the government would be able to see who they are and see what their relation is in policy development in their party. That way everybody would know. Everybody would be on the same line.

I want to draw a couple of parallels since our Minister of Health was in the previous parliament minister of justice. When gun control legislation came up, what did he do? He said it is the right thing to do. They set aside money for it. They have alienated half the country. There is a constitutional challenge on it. The government forged ahead in the face of all that opposition. It said $85 million. Now it is up in the region of $600 million. This has not stopped the government one bit from forging ahead with its plan to implement gun control. It is the reason the Liberals lost western Canada. It is the reason that the oppositions combined almost equal the government.

They acted on principle and money was no object. But now when it comes to hepatitis C and people have been hurt and they are going to be for life disadvantaged because of their illness, what is the response? Now it is political consideration. We have all the provinces on board. But the government does not have the people of Canada on board.

Yes, it has the provincial health ministers in line just as it is trying to line up its backbench supporters, but I bet a number of them will vote for this.

If the government wants to make this a vote of non-confidence that would certainly please us, but it is not to be a motion of non-confidence. As a previous member said, it is a motion to move the government to action. That is what we want to see.

Earlier when the Liberals were the government they compensated people who had the wrong kind of insulation in their homes because it might injure their health. there was a statistical possibility that it may have injured people's health. But did they know it was a dangerous product when they proposed that it be put in people's houses? Probably not. Did it matter? No. They removed the insulation and compensated homeowners for what was happening.

To get back to my Bill C-68 comparison, the gun control legislation applies not to criminals but to every Canadian who owns a gun. But here the government is saying that is too much to apply a law to those people who have been hurt by tainted blood products. That is all we are asking. Target this thing. The government does not have to pay everybody for everything. We want to see some compassion. There are compelling arguments for it and they have been made time and time again today.

We heard bogus arguments raised against it like tainted insulin, as if lack of having treatment was equivalent to mistreatment. That does not hold water. I cannot understand where the Liberals are going. As I said, they are not under a vote of non-confidence here but they are losing the confidence of the Canadian people. They bring dishonour on this House if they enforce party discipline to defeat this supply day motion. I will be ashamed to be associated with this House if it fails.

I call on members from the governing party to join with the opposition members in doing the right thing and bring honour to this House by supporting the supply day motion next Tuesday.

I trust there will be a groundswell of support, that people will be phoning constituency offices across this country to show their support. I trust that the ministers' fax lines and e-mails will be loaded by Canadians letting them know, that their phone lines will be jammed and their mailmen will walk in like Santa Claus dumping mail on their office floors. That is what we want to see happen across this country between now and next Tuesday.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I must say that I am in agreement with the motion introduced by the Reform member.

I must say, though, that I am a bit confused and I would like my colleague to explain something to me Since I was elected, I have been hearing the Reform Party push the Liberals to cut and to cut some more. They are not interested in equity in health care or education. Now today we see them calling for equity for everyone.

I am completely in agreement with them that everyone affected should receive some compensation. I wonder why we cannot hear the same thing from the Reformers in the House about how there ought perhaps not to be different policies for the rich and for the poor of this country. That is something we often hear from the Reformers. They are pushing the Liberals so that we will end up with one health system for the rich and another for the poor. The same thing goes for education.

Can my colleague explain why today they have changed their tack and want everyone to be treated equitably? I wonder why they do not always support such ideas.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think the member would be trying to make political hay out of this motion.

The Reform Party listens to Canadians. Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians want the victims of hepatitis C to be compensated. Also the Reform Party was founded on a set of principles and it acts on principle.

I reject the hon. member to the left of me making some sort of comparison. This is a policy many Canadians want implemented in the country. Something of this nature is doing the right thing. It is acting on principle which is supported by the people of Canada.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I observe that the government is certainly acting on the situation in this instance. However it is controversial and there are feelings both ways. Even on our side there are some problems.

It cannot be anything but a confidence vote now because of the rhetoric from the other side. I allude to a speech by the leader of the NDP in which she said that the Canadian government now had the opportunity to act with compassion and end the battle being fought by the wounded. Then she said that instead of acting with fairness and justice the government has drawn an arbitrary line, et cetera.

When a government tries to do the right thing and the rhetoric comes from the opposite side saying that the government is acting without principle, there is no choice but to treat the motion as a confidence motion.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will just quote his own health minister speaking in 1996:

The answer of course is that when there are resolutions, as there are today involving victims rights, members of this party vote as they see fit.

I already told the House this morning that I will vote in favour of the resolution because I share the objectives expressed by the hon. member. I expect that members on the government side will vote as they see fit.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some people have mentioned that the intent of the motion was not to help the victim but to unite the right. Can he confirm if that is the case?

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if this unites Canadians against what the government stands for on this issue, so be it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bras D'Or, DEVCO.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge members to vote against the motion presented by the Reform Party.

The motion is about an agreement announced on March 27 and entered into by all of Canada's health ministers, that is to say, all 10 provincial governments, the 2 territorial governments and the federal government.

What does this agreement say? On March 27 Canada's health ministers announced that the federal, provincial and territorial governments were offering $1.1 billion of assistance to Canadians infected by the hepatitis C virus during a time when some of these infections might have been avoided had the Canadian blood system responded differently. The compensation offered is $800 million from the federal government and $300 million from the provinces.

All Canada's governments recognize the harm caused to a group of Canadians during the 1986-1990 period. The health ministers from all the governments involved representing four different political parties agreed it was right and appropriate to offer to assist these Canadians because during the period in question the Canadian blood system could have taken certain risk reduction actions but did not do so.

When governments provide financial assistance surely it should be in situations where government action or inaction resulted in harm. I am told, and I do not claim any expertise in these matters, that prior to 1986 there was no consensus in the international medical scientific community on how to accurately test for the virus then known as hepatitis non-A, non-B, which we now call hepatitis C.

What is very important is that the motion in effect expresses a lack of confidence. It attacks the decision not just of the federal government but of the 10 provincial governments and the 2 territorial governments. We are dealing with an agreement made by all of them. This is an agreement in which today all the provinces and the territorial governments, as far as I am aware, remain part of. They are steadfast in supporting this agreement.

The hon. member who just spoke suggested that the provincial governments were out of touch with their constituents. That is a strange comment coming from a Reform member. He is attacking, and I will be talking about this later on in my speech, the government of Premier Klein. Is he saying that government is totally out of touch with the people who elected it? Is he saying that the government of Premier Harris is totally out of touch with the people who elected it? I suggest it may well be on a number of issues, but the Harris government is steadfast in support of this agreement.

Clay Serby is not just the minister of health in the NDP Government of Saskatchewan. He is spokesman for all the provinces and territories on this issue. He said on April 7, according to the Toronto Star :

Provincial ministers, along with the federal health minister, remain committed to the deal announced in Toronto. As health ministers from every province, we worked together to reach a consensus on this very difficult issue. This was not an easy decision to reach. This is a very complex issue. We have come up with an approach that is national in scope, fair and reasonable.

Elizabeth Witmer, the Ontario minister of health in the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris, said on April 7, as quoted in the Hamilton Spectator :

There has been a very careful analysis and a decision was made. I support the decision that was made.

Here is what Jean Rochon, Quebec's health minister, said in a letter sent to our health minister on April 12, 1998. As you know, Mr. Rochon is a minister of the Parti Quebecois, which is affiliated with the Bloc Quebecois here in the House.

Mr. Rochon said “I feel that our program is justified and that we made a fair decision. Our respective governments have recognized that, between January 1986 and July 1990, action could have been taken to prevent infection, since a screening test was scientifically recommended during this period”.

If the federal position is wrong, is the provincial position not wrong as well? Yet neither the Reform Party nor any of the other opposition parties in the House have said one word, not one one, to criticize the compensation agreement, the one entered into by all provinces and territories and their ministers of health.

As I say, if the federal position is wrong then why is the provincial position, taking part in the same agreement, not wrong as well? That is not what the Reform Party or the other provincial parties are saying.

The Reform Party has not criticized their friends and allies, Premier Harris of Ontario and Premier Klein of Alberta. They are especially careful not to say one word about Premier Klein's support of this proposal.

The last speaker talked about how the Reform Party is a party of principle. I thought one of the principles of the Reform Party dealt with federal-provincial relations. The Reform Party is quick to blame the federal government if it does not agree with the provinces because in the Reform's opinion provincial governments are closer to the people.

If that is the case, why does the Reform Party not listen to the provinces it usually defends on this issue? Based on its response in other cases, one might expect the Reform Party to congratulate the federal government for achieving agreement between all the provinces and listening to the views of the provinces.

The Bloc Quebecois has not made a single criticism of the position of the Government of Quebec, its leader and the Bloc's former leader, Lucien Bouchard, or the Parti Quebecois.

The NDP has not said one word of criticism against Premier Romanow and his NDP Government of Saskatchewan, not one word of criticism against Premier Clark and his NDP Government of British Columbia.

The Conservative Party in this House has not said one word of criticism on this matter against the position of the Binns Conservative Government of Prince Edward Island, against the Harris Conservative Government of Ontario, against the Filmon Conservative Government of Manitoba or against the Conservative government of Premier Klein of Alberta.

The opposition parties would have a lot more credibility on this matter if they used their opportunity to speak in the House to say something about the provincial governments they are allied with. They are not saying anything about the positions of those provincial governments.

They are not saying one critical word when they have had over and over again opportunities to do so. Of course they say things about the federal government's position on this difficult matter, but if they are to be considered credible why do they not get up in their place and say the same thing about the provincial governments?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If the hon. Deputy Prime Minister would excuse the Chair, is it the member's intention to split his time?