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?