Grant McNally

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his question.

The people of Ireland obviously have heart, compassion and concern for all the victims of this tragedy in their country. It would be my hope, as I know it is the member's, that Canadians would be proud of this government in reversing its decision and showing compassion and heart and showing that it cares for all the victims of this tragedy.

I sincerely hope the government is able to do that.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question because it is an outrageous statement made by the member opposite, that some people suffering from hepatitis C can go on to live normal lives. Perhaps that is the case but the constituents who have written to me have detailed the anguish, the pain and the common tasks in their lives they used to do without any problem which are now difficult tasks for them, things such as going to the park.

One of my constituents writes that it is difficult to go any distance from home. By the time they get to where they are going for an outing she is too tired. She has to go home and rest. It is unbelievable that members opposite would be so callous, so uncaring, so insensitive to the fact that Canadians are suffering from hepatitis C. They do not have the decency to compensate these victims. They think their lives are fine.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day that we have this debate in the House today because of the decision of the Minister of Health and the fact that he has created two tiers of victims in the country.

I would like the hon. member to perhaps turn the page to 1045 in the Krever report and read this statement:

Until now, our treatment of the blood-injured has been unequal—. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified.

I wonder how the members of the government can stand in their places today and argue the fact that there should be two tiers of victims: those who are compensated and those who are not. It is shameful. I know there are several hepatitis C victims watching this debate today.

Let us just do a quick summary of what we have heard so far today. We have heard from members on the government side canned speeches from the minister's department and misdirection. They will not deal with the fundamental issue or question of the motion being put that there should be compensation for all victims of hepatitis C.

This is a non-partisan issue. All members of the opposition parties—colleagues in the Conservative Party, the Bloc Party, the NDP and the Reform Party—are in unison when they say to the government that it is wrong. Canadians know. The government knows it is wrong on this issue. In fact there is nothing wrong with being wrong if one does something about it. If a person admits a mistake and moves on people have honour and respect for that. If a person stonewalls and says there is no problem, deflects and will not stand in league, the people of this country have no respect for that.

I would like to focus on the human tragedy that this has become and I would like to focus on some of my constituents who have taken the time to write letters. There are heart rending stories of individuals who have been affected by this tragedy and they have asked me to share their comments here in the House, that the government would listen to their stories, that the government would have compassion and hear what has happened to them by no fault of their own.

One of my constituents, Mrs. Laura Stoll from Maple Ridge, B.C., writes:

I am pleased to hear that [the health minister] supports compensation for victims of hepatitis C. The Krever commission calls for compensation, in which I fully agree. I would like to inform you how HCV has affected me.

In 1983 due to a motor vehicle accident I received a blood transfusion and in January 1996 was diagnosed with HCV. Needless to say, it was a dreadful shock.

I now have much bruising on legs and arms, blood vessels rupturing and leaving black marks and permanent brown marks on my legs. Then also swelling and pain in my legs, other effects are: nausea, dizziness, tinnitis and fatigue.

It is hard to have to read this letter and to share the pain this individual in my riding has had to suffer. She concludes by saying please bring about just compensation. She was initially thankful to the Minister of Health because compensation was coming forward and she thought there would be compensation for all victims.

She wrote me again on April 15 when she found out the truth of the matter:

I was greatly disturbed by the decision made by the health ministers to only compensate the HCV victims who received blood products from 1986 to 1990. These dates mean nothing, they were chosen by lawyers to define a case they would most easily win.

My family and I are counting on you to do the right thing and support compensation for all victims.

That is what I am compelled to do. I must stand in my place and make a compelling case for the victims of hepatitis C from my riding and across this country that this is morally wrong. My colleagues from all parties and I will stand in our places to point out to the government the wrong decision it has made in this case. It is so clear.

Mrs. Joyce Smith from my own home town of Mission B.C. writes:

I am writing on behalf of myself and all the other people in this province and in Canada who are suffering from the effects of tainted blood. I have been working on this letter for many, many days and I realize you may look at the length of this letter and wonder why it is so long. I have tried to downsize it, but because every bit of information I am sharing with you is of the utmost importance, I pray that somehow, in some way, it will help give you insight as to how my life has been dramatically changed. I also hope that it will show you some of the adversities we are dealing with in our everyday lives. There must be changes made to help compensate our ongoing burden of this illness. We are innocent victims of a crime that no one wishes to take responsibility of.

As time went on I did not get any better and the financial pressure was increased as my income had decreased. We started getting behind in our mortgage payments and other financial commitments. We could not pay our mortgage insurance, so now when I die my husband will be left with a mortgage to pay. I was running scared and the stress was unbelievable.

She goes on in detail about the effects of hepatitis C and how it has impacted her life and the life of her family members. She concludes quite bravely:

You may be interested in knowing that through all of this turmoil and with what little energy I have I have set myself some goals. I will: do my part to help as many hep C people as is possible; tell anyone that will listen that I think it is absolutely deplorable the way decisions concerning our lives are kept in secret; stand and shout out loud how inhuman it is for the establishments, the Red Cross, the federal government and the provincial government to not accept their part of the responsibility for what has happened to us; make the most out of every moment of the day; hold my grandchildren just a little bit longer; watch for rainbows; pray and seek forgiveness for those I do not understand.

In closing, I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your valuable time and understanding in this matter. I would appreciate hearing from you in the very near future. Please keep in mind that my future may not be as long as yours.

I have written to Mrs. Smith. I communicated with her my deep concern for her plight and the lack of action from the government side on this issue. It is quite clear that action can still be taken in this matter, that the government can change its mind and compensate all victims of hepatitis C.

I received another letter that was very disturbing to me. I know the individual who wrote to me. He was a community leader in the area in which I grew up. It was quite shocking to learn that he too had become a victim of hepatitis C. He has not even been able to tell his own family of his plight because of the impact it will have on their lives.

This is a wrong decision. All we are hearing is weak arguments from this government and it is time for the people of Canada to rise up, to call their members of parliament and to say no, we do not support you on this, change your mind and support all victims of hepatitis C.

[Hepatitis C, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Health to listen to the human side of his hepatitis C decision.

One of my constituents, Mrs. Joyce Smith from Mission, B.C., writes:

My three grown children are trying very hard to accept the fact mom is not the same. She does not smile or laugh as often as she used to. They do not want to talk about the fact that I am dying. I stare at our two beautiful grandchildren and wonder if I will live to see them grow up. I look into my husband's eyes and I know that he is afraid of the future. My husband and I have worked so hard, and raised our family, and now it was supposed to be our time together. But, the almost unbearable fatigue that I deal with prevents us from going very far or doing very much together.

Another one of my constituents, Mrs. Laura Stoll, urges me “to do the right thing and support compensation for all victims”. I certainly support compensation for all victims. However, how much longer will the Minister of Health continue to say no to people like Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Stoll? Where is his sense of fairness, his sense of human compassion? My constituents and all other Canadians would like to know.

[Criminal Code, April 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is part of a much larger body of interrelated questions pertaining to new reproductive technologies.

In examining the question surrounding medically assisted reproductive technologies, we start to see how complex the whole body of issues really is. Questions of human dignity, rights and freedoms, genetic engineering and make-up, in vitro fertilization, consent for medical research, profiting from financial gain of the use of the human body and organ transplants, rights to private life and information, and the need for public debate and consultation are only some of the issues on the table.

As we know many of these issues were touched on and analysed through the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies which reported in November 1993.

My colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, introduced legislation that specifically addresses one aspect of the realm of complex questions, that of cloning and genetic manipulation.

The Liberal government claims that it will introduce its own legislation on reproductive technology, but it has also indicated that the government's legislation will not amend the Criminal Code. In a debate in the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health indicated that the government would treat reproductive technologies as a health issue and just a health issue.

However, a consideration of some of the complex issues that I just listed reveals that increasingly the domains of health and medicine, science, law, ethics, safety, human rights and privacy are all interwoven. We cannot easily distinguish how these issues are connected to the realms of business, society and government as the lines blur and the relative roles of the players constantly adapt and change.

There are social, legal, economic and human rights and scientific and medical interests at stake when we start talking about new reproductive technologies. It is naive to think that a clear distinction can be made so that these questions could only be classified as being health related.

Thus we cannot hope to adequately address the risks and concerns related to human cloning without also addressing the need to amend the Criminal Code to explicitly prohibit a practice which cannot be justified by any ethically acceptable motive.

In 1996 the government introduced Bill C-47, the Human Reproductive and Genetic Technologies Act, which did not make practices or techniques an offence under the Criminal Code. Bill C-47 was also to include a regulatory framework on all techniques of reproduction and genetic manipulation.

We have waited long enough for the Liberal government to act. Voluntary co-operation is simply not enough in an area that so drastically affects the life, security and safety of Canadians and the integrity of the value of health and justice that we hold dear.

My colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga West, asked members in opposition to wait. He wants members to wait. I ask him how long he wants Canadians to wait for legislation in this area. Does he want us to wait until after human cloning has begun?

I commend my hon. colleague from Drummond for taking action, for she has seen something that needs to be addressed. She has gone ahead with the bill and has asked other members to support it. She has seen inaction on the government side, and we in opposition are taking action in this area. That is why we are addressing this concern today.

The whole issue of timing is important. How present is the danger and fear about the possibility of cloning humans? In Nature , the scientific journal published the Dolly paper to which we are all now referring, indicated that “cloning humans from adult tissues is likely to be achievable any time from one to ten years from now”. That is why my hon. colleague is bringing the bill forward. There needs to be action on this issue and we do not see any action coming from the government.

While there have been many concerns and risks raised related to the cloning of humans from adult cells, none has been able to offer any ethically acceptable reason for cloning humans. The suggestion that humans might be cloned to provide spare parts for their progenitors has been widely condemned by individuals and groups all around the world.

It is interesting to note the premise of convention considering what we are debating today. The convention that is happening in Europe around this same topic starts from the premise the interests of human beings come before those of science or society.

I conclude by saying that in Canada we take pride in being an international leader in areas of health, safety and quality of human life. It is important that we take action on this issue and set the ethical basis for further biological and medical developments both now and in the future.

Certainly questions of this nature will continue to permeate our social, legal, ethical and medical institutions. It is critical to address the issue now. As we see in the European example, criminal penalties are included as stipulation for state legislation. This same logic should be applied to our own consideration as we face larger issues in bioethics and law.

In its final report the Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies concluded:

We have judged that certain activities conflict so sharply with the values espoused by Canadians and by this commission and are still potentially harmful to the interests of individuals and of society that they must be prohibited by the federal government under threat of criminal sanction.

The list of activities specifically mentions cloning. It is time that we in Canada follow suit with the initiatives of other members of the international community and explicitly prohibit this practice. That is why I will be supporting the bill and encouraging all other members of the House to do so.

[Petitions, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition with signatures from over 200 of my constituents. They ask that Parliament amend the Criminal Code of Canada to raise the age of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an adult from 14 years to 16 years.

[Petitions, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from approximately 60 of my constituents. They are petitioning 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.

[Petitions, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the first petition is being presented by approximately 50 of my constituents on the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment. They petition Parliament to impose a moratorium on ratifications and conduct full public hearings so that Canadians can have an opportunity to express their opinions about it.

[Xa:Ytem, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Xa:ytem in my hometown of Mission, B.C., which is one of the oldest habitation sites in North America. Xa:ytem is one of the first native spiritual sites in Canada to be formally recognized as a national historic site.

Today Xa:ytem conducts numerous tours and programs, and as a teacher I took my own classes to visit the site. This year over 12,000 school children are expected to visit Xa:ytem.

I would like to congratulate Linnea Battel, Gordon Mohs and the Sto:lo people for working to preserve Xa:ytem. I applaud the vision and drive of those who are developing the site with an eye to the future by focusing on a private and public sector partnership to develop the site.

Xa:ytem is an important spiritual and cultural landmark to the Sto:lo people of the Fraser Valley. I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the excellent work being done by the board and staff of Xa:ytem.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to engage in today's debate on Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. I hope not to address what this government has done for Canadians but rather to point out what this government has done to Canadians. I will discuss what Canadians wanted from this budget and how this budget affects Canadian families and students.

On budget day the finance minister stood up and smugly told Canadians that he had slain the deficit monster. Well, I disagree. The deficit has been fought on the backs of the taxpayers. The hon. secretary of state was mentioning “We did it. The government did it. We did this, we did that”. It was the hard work of the Canadian taxpayers that balanced this budget and I do not think the government should lose sight of that fact.

The hon. member mentioned a balanced budget. He was trumpeting his own government's balanced budget. In 1993 we were saying that could be accomplished within three years. The government scoffed at that, yet it put in place the same kind of plan.

I sent out a householder survey in my riding of Dewdney—Alouette and had over 500 people respond on questions having to do with the budget. I will take a few minutes to touch on some of the results and point out some of the things Canadians wanted but did not get from the budget.

On the question of government spending, 72% of the people who responded in Dewdney—Alouette said that spending should be reduced. Only 3% of the respondents believed government spending should be increased.

On the question of interest on the debt and initiatives for debt reduction, 96% of the people who responded believed that government should set real goals and timetables to lower the debt.

On the point of deficit spending, my constituents were asked whether they believe the government should pass legislation to prevent deficit spending from happening again. Overwhelmingly, constituents sent a clear message. Of those asked, 92% supported the notion of this type of legislation preventing future deficit spending which of course has led to the enormously huge national debt of close to $600 billion.

Yes, the tax burden imposed on Canadian families is enormous. Canadian families work half the year just to pay their tax bill. For most Canadians, forgoing a second income is not even an option. For those who decide to stay at home and raise their children, they are unable to take advantage of some of the deductions for families who choose to have their children in care. We would like the government to address that and to have equity for all Canadian families.

Canadians wanted the government to cut spending. They wanted tax relief. They wanted the government to address the debt. What did Canadians get? They got higher spending on the part of the government, higher taxes and a government that is on the brink of falling back into the deficit gorge with any fluctuation in interest rates.

I will briefly touch on the millennium scholarship foundation. As some members mentioned earlier, this is not really about education, it is about the Prime Minister using taxpayer dollars to boost his political profile. The way this was handled in the budget was quite surprising. I find it quite unbelievable.

The government simply cannot record something just because it announced the intention of doing something. There is a difference between an expenditure and a future commitment. The finance minister lost sight of this fact. The very finance minister who is trumpeting the budget for what it does for education slashed and burned health care and education funding by $7 billion. That is a fact that cannot be lost on Canadians.

A few members mentioned B.C. I am glad they realize where it is now because there will soon be blowing an ill wind from the west.

If the Liberals really had a concern about education, they could never have cut to the degree that they have cut since 1993 and then make these half measures, not even half measures, not even quarter measures, to try to convince Canadians that they care about education. Words are empty if they are not backed up by actions. Canadians are starting to realize that a budget that pretends to address all these concerns in not even quarter measures just does not match up with the actions the government is implementing in the budget.

I was talking to two university professors about the millennium scholarship foundation. They thought it was a good idea until I pointed out to them that the students at their institution would not be eligible for these scholarships. This is due to the fact that they teach at a public institution that is privately funded. Students who choose to go to that type of institution do not have the opportunity to take part in the millennium scholarship foundation. That is a shame because this is not even a quarter measure, as I mentioned before. It does not address the concerns of the majority of students in this country.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to over 60 high school students. I was explaining to them the concern with the debt and why we need to address that debt which is close to $600 billion. They asked me how that was possible. I used the story of overspending.

When a government chooses to overspend year after year, the debt piles up higher and higher. I had to explain to those high school students that $45 billion goes to interest on that debt alone and is eating the heart out of our social programs. They were shocked that this could happen in our country. They asked me how it happened? I said because the governments of the day put us in this shape because they did not take care of the financial house of this country. I am sorry to say, but the Liberal government started us along this path.

I explained the so-called debt contingency retirement plan of the finance minister. He wants to dedicate $3 billion to debt retirement on that total of almost $600 billion. There is a big if. That is if that money not needed for other spending. I see it as an escape clause that could be used at any time for the finance minister to dedicate to any other kind of spending without having to put it to debt retirement.

If we treated our mortgages on our homes in the same way the government is treating the national debt, we would be hauled off and put into a place not nearly as nice as this for not meeting our financial obligation. We must have this house in order.

This finance minister's plan does not address any kind of substantial debt retirement plan. That debt was created over years. There has to be a plan to get that debt down. The future of our country hangs in the balance as a result of that. This government must take note of that and do something about it. It must do something soon with a concrete plan; not an if plan, not a plan that if we do not need the money we will put it to debt retirement. It has to be a committed plan.

When I was talking to those high school students they were shocked at the state of our country. They asked me why I wanted to get into politics. I was a teacher prior to this. I said this country needs people who are willing to stand up for their future, for our children's future, for the future of our nation and set a course to address the major concerns in this country. That is why I entered politics. We hope to influence the government to look at these concerns and these issues and address them with concrete plans.

It is for that reason that I cannot support Bill C-36.