House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Division No. 174
Government Orders

7:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion.

Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion
Private Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 12, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. M-75 under Private Members' Business.

As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover. Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.

The question is on the motion.

Before the Clerk announced the result of the vote:

Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion
Private Members' Business

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my name to those supporting the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived to on the following division:)

Division No. 175
Private Members' Business

7:35 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from May 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code
Private Members' Business

7:35 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 12, 1998, the next deferred recorded division is on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-247 under Private Members' Business.

We will follow the same voting pattern as we did the last time.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 176
Private Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

National Head Start Program
Private Members' Business

7:50 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on Motion No. 261.

The vote is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 177
Private Members' Business

May 25th, 1998 / 8 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment carried.

The next question is on the motion as amended.

(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 178
Private Members' Business

8:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved

Division No. 178
Adjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Charlotte, NB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that I will have a little time tonight to continue my crusade on the hepatitis C story. I do not have to remind the House that it is a very heart wrenching story. Many thousands of Canadians are waiting to find out whether they are going to be compensated. The only compensation package the federal government has agreed to is for the innocent victims between the years 1986 and 1990.

We on this side of the House and some of the members from the Liberal caucus believe that all victims of hepatitis C should be compensated. A group of people who through no fault of their own were infected by tainted blood prior to 1986. They will receive no compensation. There are also victims on the other side of that date. We often talk about the pre-1986 victims but there are also victims who were infected through no fault of their own after 1990. A constituent of mine has been reminding me of that. We often talk in this House of the pre-1986 victims but there are many victims who were infected after 1990.

We are talking about fairness in the compensation package. Canada has been selected by the United Nations as the number one country in the world. I think Canada is more generous than that in terms of what the government is offering. We have the capacity and the financial wherewithal to compensate all victims of hepatitis C. I remind the government that we have to do something for those victims.

When we look at what we have been reading lately in the newspapers, many of us are still pretty distressed by what we are hearing from the government. I was pleased today when I asked that question of the health minister. He is not going to tie assistance and research monies into other areas of legitimate health concern in this country as was reported by one of our national television networks over the weekend. It reported that the government might withhold funding for breast cancer research and funding for the AIDS strategy. That is not the case at all. The health minister told me today there will be no change in the funding of those two areas and other areas.

We are looking for more generosity on the part of the Minister of Health. We have gone after him pretty rigorously in the House and we have to continue to keep the heat on the minister. We know there has been some progress on behalf of some of the provinces. We are looking for a compensation package for all those victims outside the prescribed area of 1986 to 1990. We want victims before and after compensated.

Division No. 178
Adjournment Proceedings

8:10 p.m.

Kenora—Rainy River
Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Madam Speaker, when the ministers of health made the announcement on March 27 on how the various governments of Canada would be approaching the issue of hepatitis C, they did so together sitting at the same table with one another and with people who are affected by the virus. They did so knowing that some people would not be happy. They sat across from these people, faced them and answered their questions.

The public wants governments to listen to what peoples' thoughts are on these issues and has asked that we take responsibility for the blood system problems of the past. We have done so. It wants governments to work together and we did so. The Canadian public prefers that any assistance provided by governments be distributed according to need. This is what we proposed this past March 27.

On May 14 health ministers met with representatives from the Hepatitis C Society of Canada. They met and listened to the Canadian Hemophilia Society. Health Canada officials have been speaking directly to affected members of the public who have called into Health Canada to tell us about their daily lives, the problems they face and what they want governments to do.

The federal government has consistently shown that it wants to work with all involved but that not everybody involved wants to work toward a real solution. We continue to do so.

Division No. 178
Adjournment Proceedings

8:15 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has launched a large scale offensive to bring the federal government to review the Employment Insurance Act. We have known for a while that only 41 per cent of the unemployed receive benefits.

Today, the Bloc Quebecois released a black book on the employment insurance reform. This book, based on Statistics Canada's figures, confirms that only 26 per cent of unemployed young people receive benefits. This is totally unacceptable. The government must do something about this.

This black book on employment insurance also shows that, in 1996, out of $6 billion in cuts, $4.3 billion was due to restrictions in the program, while the remaining $1.7 billion was attributable to labour market activity. The $4.3 billion was due to restraints in eligibility, the duration of benefits and the amounts paid.

How did we get there? The problem is that, in their latest attempt to overhaul the EI system, the Liberals were obsessed with fighting the deficit. All the government wanted to do was find ways to accumulate as much money as possible at the expense of society's most disadvantaged, the people who struggle to make ends meet.

The government must go back and abolish the intensity rule, which penalizes seasonal workers. It must reduce the number of hours required in a first job. We must ensure that we have all the information needed to correct this reform, which creates social iniquity and also has the unfortunate effect of lagging behind society and the labour market.

The government has not yet decided what to do about independent workers. It does not know exactly how to adapt to the new conditions of precarious employment. It is forcing everyone to pay contributions from the first hour, but the end result is that many people, 74% of young people, are contributing, but not getting the benefits.

When will the federal government finally decide to review the Employment Insurance Act and give it back its true purpose of ensuring a decent income between jobs for people who are unemployed?