Debates of April 23rd, 1998

Privilege

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again because this is new to all of us I am wondering, in the interest of having all members in the House represented at such a meeting, is it possible for that one meeting to have the independent member present, or is it possible to exchange a position such as mine with having him there present?

[The Speaker]

As a general rule I as Speaker of the House represent the independent members on the Board of Internal Economy. If the Board of Internal Economy as a body wishes to entertain any other witnesses, it can do so.

Business Of The House

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader the nature of the business for the remainder of this week and for the week following.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his very excellent question, which is no doubt the finest one asked today.

Tomorrow the House shall consider second reading of the environment legislation, Bill C-32. If necessary the debate shall continue on Monday.

When it is completed we shall call Bill S-9, the depository notes legislation. When that is finished or on next Wednesday, whichever comes first, we shall commence second reading of Bill C-27, the coastal fisheries legislation.

Once that is completed it is our intention to resume debate on the drinking water safety bill, Bill C-14. This would take place and continue on next Thursday.

Next Tuesday shall be an allotted day. In the evening we plan to hold a special take note debate on Bosnia.

Points Of Order

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Today in question period I asked a question of the government in relation to the vote on Tuesday night on the hepatitis C issue and I just want some clarification, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will give me a bit of time here. I think this clarification would probably best come outside question period and outside normal debate.

I want some clarification in terms of what the Prime Minister meant yesterday when he said that it would be a confidence vote. I am in favour of a free vote and I do not want people to imply that I was not. I feel that this vote has to come from the heart and it has to come from the independent judgment of members of parliament.

What did the Prime Minister mean when he talked about a confidence vote on Tuesday night?

[The Speaker]

I do not know how we can fit this into a point of order. It is surely a question that should be put to the Prime Minister in question period as we have that every day.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps for clarification, you indicated that what I was told was accurate with respect to referring the creation of parliamentary associations to the interparliamentary committee. I am wondering if that is indeed what will happen, or will it go directly to the Board of Internal Economy.

[The Speaker]

It is my understanding that the Joint Interparliamentary Council will meet before we get it before the Board of Internal Economy.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the political parties and I understand there is agreement to defer the vote on this afternoon's motion, which would normally take place on Monday evening, to Tuesday. The motion would be as follows:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am prepared to give my consent to this matter on the condition that I am permitted my full allotted time to speak to the motion before the House today.

[The Speaker]

Who gives this guarantee?

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

The House by unanimous consent, that I be given permission to speak today and that I be given my full allotted time.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe one of my colleagues approached the hon. member and provided him an assurance to that effect a little earlier today. If we have given our word, as I believe we have, that one of the slots provided for a Liberal member would be used by him, I would trust that the word given is accepted as being reality.

[The Speaker]

What we have is a miscommunication. The hon. member then gives his consent. Is that it?

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

No, Mr. Speaker. I understood that I would only be sharing time with a Liberal member. I do not wish to share my time with a Liberal member. I wish to have my full allotted time, that being 20 minutes to speak in the House.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I may I will clear this matter up. I am the Liberal member who was designated to share time with the hon. member. I am quite prepared to give up my time.

[The Speaker]

Is the matter settled?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

There is consent and that is how we will proceed. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's visit to Cuba and the people he was to have met on Tuesday, I am wondering if the House would give further consent to have this vote on Wednesday or what would be the disposition of the House.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

We have already said no to that.

[The Speaker]

That settles that little matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak not as a member of the Reform caucus and not even as a member of the House. Today I rise to speak as an individual Canadian who is witnessing thousands of his fellow citizens dying. They are dying while their government looks the other way. They are dying while their government uses cold, legal arguments and speaks of the need to make hard decisions.

They are dying through no fault of their own and yet the government says that it has had to make a hard decision. The government has not made a hard decision. The government has made a cruel decision.

Canadians put their trust in our national health care system and they through its mismanagement are paying the ultimate price. I am referring to the 20,000 to 25,000 individuals who were infected with the hepatitis C virus through the Canadian blood system prior to 1986 and today are either sick or dying.

While the government has chosen to compensate more than 28,000 who were infected after 1986, it has chosen to ignore the rest. It saddens me greatly that I must participate in a debate of this nature, a debate which could have been avoided had the government respected the rights of its own citizens. This is justice denied for a group that is rapidly running out of time.

Both the health minister and the Prime Minister are decent men and are fundamentally good people. However, on this issue I fear they are allowing their legal background to cloud their sense of compassion.

I ask them to reconsider their position and to afford some dignity to the thousands whose lives have been shattered. I ask all members of the House to cast their partisanship aside and vote to compensate all persons who contracted hepatitis C from blood products. We must act now because compensation and justice delayed are compensation and justice denied. This is especially true for thousands who will develop the more acute symptoms associated with chronic hepatitis C infection.

I have some notes but I will not read them. I will speak based on what I feel. I sat here this morning listening to the government side. I listened to the parliamentary secretary who talked most of his time about what the blood system of the future will be.

We are talking about people who were infected in the past. Not only that, I have a note from Larry Maheu who asks “What about victims after 1990 when the blood was supposed to be safe?” He was told by his doctor in Sunnybrook Hospital that the blood screening was not seriously done until 1993. What kind of situation did we have prior to 1986? What kind of a situation did we have from 1990 to 1993? What are we talking about?

Then another member talked about how hepatitis C was not serious when compared to HIV. Excuse me, the member should ask the people with hepatitis C. They are sick, and he has the gall to say that is not a serious matter, that it is a matter of money.

Then the parliamentary secretary says that these people have the right to go court. What is this nonsense? Of course they have a right to go to court if they make the wrong decision. Is that the right decision? No. Government members are making people who are suffering go to court and suffer again. They are saying that there is compensation for some people and not for others. What nonsense.

I am amazed to see government members skirting the issue. Time after time as I sit in the House I am getting more and more depressed. We now have one Liberal member giving his time to an independent member. I am glad he did that, but we can see that he is running away from the issue because he cannot defend himself.

Then we have the Prime Minister changing the whole issue and saying that this is a confidence vote for the government, so that he can make his members vote not according to their conscience but according to the threat that they will go into an election.

As my colleague from Macleod said to Liberal members, all we are asking for is that they look into the eyes of those who are suffering and make a conscientious decision. We are telling them that this is not a confidence vote on the government. We are only asking them to make a morally right decision. That is all we are asking.

The government is justifying itself by saying it made this decision with 12 other ministers. Well, yahoo. As far as I know, before I was a member of parliament, this government did not listen to the provincial ministers. Now it is justifying this by saying that the provincial ministers have agreed so it must agree. That is not what Canadians expect from a federal government. Canadians expect the government to stand up for them and not hide behind what the provinces say. It is the government's responsibility because this is a federally regulated institution.

Let us assume for a moment that the Minister of Health's claim that nothing could have been done prior to 1986 is correct, although I know it is not. If this were the case then the government would not be responsible for the infection of Canadians prior to 1986 and, by the government's reasoning, there would be no need for compensation.

We have the principle that if the government was not at fault then it would not have to pay. Then why does the government spend tens of millions of dollars to compensate those affected by floods and ice storms? The government is not responsible for the weather, yet the government chooses to compensate those adversely affected by it. Maybe there are some politics behind this. Maybe there are more votes to be bought from those people than there are from the poor victims of hepatitis C.

Perhaps a more compelling example is the fact that this government has chosen to compensate all tainted blood victims from 1986 on. The government's premise that it is not responsible for hepatitis C infection is wrong.

An essential aspect of leadership is to acknowledge when you have made a wrong decision. This is the time to acknowledge it. Premier Klein did it. Premier Harris did it. This government can do it too. It is a matter of compassion.

Why can this government not look beyond the legal arguments and do the honourable thing? Do not listen to the lawyers, listen to the people.

The Minister of Health is prepared to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to battle victims in court.

The minister claims that the health care system will collapse, that this will be a burden on the health care system. Really? If a small mistake is such a threat to the health care system then there is something seriously wrong with it.

I appeal to government members, including backbenchers. This is not a vote of confidence against the government, it is a vote that requires us to take a moral stand on a tragic issue. Let us look the victims in their eyes and tell them that they have our support.