House of Commons Hansard #97 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was aboriginal.
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. He should read the replies by Lucien Bouchard and Jean Rochon. This week they said “We have adopted the appropriate principle to protect the health care system by compensating only those infected during the period of time authorities should have acted”. That is what Lucien Bouchard and Jean Rochon said this week.
They changed their position—
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is not about saving face, it is about showing leadership, Mr. Minister. The file is open. I repeat, the file is open, Mr. Minister. The provinces—
Hepatitis COral Question Period
The Speaker
My colleague, please address your questions through the Chair. I would ask the member to go directly to his question.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to know today whether or not the minister will put more money on the table since the government has a surplus and it cut back billions of dollars in transfer payments for health to the provinces. Is he going to put more money on the table and fairly compensate all the victims of hepatitis C as the provincial health ministers are now calling for?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, as Premier Romanow was saying last Friday when he visited Ottawa, governments are doing the right thing. They are showing leadership; the federal government most of all by offering compensation to those who were injured at a time when governments could have prevented it. The governments of Canada are taking that position because it is the right thing to do and the hon. member knows it.
Gilles Bernier Progressive Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, this morning the Saskatchewan health minister is holding a conference call with all provincial health ministers. Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have recognized that more must be done to compensate all hepatitis C victims. If the provinces come to the federal health minister with a request to renegotiate the compensation package, will the minister reopen the file?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out just a few moments ago, there is not one provincial or territorial government that has said it is withdrawing from the agreement to contribute to an offer of compensation of $1.1 billion.
Instead, what has happened is that some provincial ministers have engaged in the empty, hollow, cynical exercise of saying “Oh, yes, others should be offered compensation too. But we are not going to do it”.
The Canadian people will see that for what it is. They will also see the federal government standing on the principle it thinks is right and showing courage and leadership.
Gilles Bernier Progressive Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, the ultimate constitutional authority for protection of blood and blood products rests with the federal Minister of Health. He has the final authority on compensation. The only reason the government is in this mess today is because it has a health minister who obviously cannot do his job.
The minister has only two choices. Will he reopen the compensation file or do everyone a favour and resign?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I shall do what the Prime Minister and this government have done from the outset. I shall do the right thing.
We have proceeded on the correct principle in offering cash payments to those who were injured as result of institutional fault.
For the others, I invite the hon. member and all other members of this House to work with this government on its agenda to strengthen medicare so that all of those who are ill in this country can have the highest possible quality of care. That, at the end of the day, is our most fundamental obligation.
Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, he keeps referring to his opponents in the provinces as cynical and callous. I will tell the House what is cynical and callous. It is throwing half the victims of hepatitis C out of the lifeboat. It is coercing these backbenchers into supporting a position and then pretending to take the high ground.
If the minister wants to do away with cynicism, I suggest he excise it from his government, from his caucus and from his own heart.
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, nothing is less edifying for the people of Canada than to see this kind of display of name calling.
People have watched the theatre over there this week. They have seen the member for Macleod, that party's health critic, who has become the chief ambulance chaser for the opposition. They have seen the opposition refer to a 15 year old child as a victim of this tragedy without even knowing if that 15 year old is covered by the compensation that has been offered. They do not even understand the package. They do not even know what we offering. Yet, they stand to call names—
Hepatitis COral Question Period
The Speaker
I would encourage my colleagues to please stay from personal remarks as much as you can.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what is edifying. This lawyer in health minister's clothing stood in the House and told the House repeatedly that he has the support of the provinces behind his limited compensation package, when the fact and the truth is that he does not have that support. It is being shredded away every day.
Since the health minister has misled the House on this issue of provincial support for his package, why does the Prime Minister not demand his resignation? Why should we listen to the repeat of these arguments?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we should listen to the minister because he is an outstanding minister. He is doing a first class job.
The leader of the Reform Party has brought forward no information to say that the provincial governments, as such, have left the accord. They are still there. They are accepting responsibility. If that was not the case why did they put $300 million on the table and not leave everything to the federal government? The facts show that this is a shared responsibility and the federal government has certainly accepted more than its share.
Hélène Alarie Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board.
Pay equity is not negotiable, it is a matter of justice. Section 11 of the Human Rights Act was adopted in 1977 in order to put an end to economic inequality between men and women in the workplace.
What is the President of Treasury Board waiting for before sitting down with the Public Service Alliance to settle the pay equity issue, which has dragged on since 1997, once and for all?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, the matter of pay equity is clearly one in which the government has made the right proposals. The government made a proposal which now, in light of the most recent court decisions, is seen as having been very generous.
On numerous occasions we have asked the unions to pass the offer on to their membership because we are convinced that the majority of their members would vote in favour of the government offer.
I beg my hon. colleague to try to change the inflexibility of the union leadership and to ask them to submit our offer to their members.
Hélène Alarie Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, does the President of Treasury Board realize that his actions are sending the message to major employers under federal jurisdiction that legal obligations can be avoided by challenging them before the courts?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, if there is one group which is demanding negotiation of the pay equity issue, it is the group dealing with pay equity matters within the government.
We have tried for months and months to reach a negotiated conclusion. In fact, at the present time it is the unions which are stopping their membership from voting on a more than generous offer from the federal government.
Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, what is cynical is when the government does not acknowledge that the provinces will be paying $1.6 billion in health services over the years ahead because of the negligence of this government. It has not acknowledged that it was not the fault of the provinces. The federal regulators were at fault and this federal government.
Yesterday we had revealed something about the character of the Prime Minister when he responded to the provinces calling for new negotiations to compensate hepatitis C victims. He could have said “I am willing to discuss it. I am open to new ideas. I have some concerns, but together we can overcome them”. A true leader would put personal frustrations aside and sit down with the provinces to work out a new deal. Instead, he—
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, for the last five weeks in this House we have stood on the principle that governments should pay cash compensation when they have caused damages and when those responsible for the system could and should have acted. That is an important principle.
It is true to say that in the last couple of days some of the health ministers and some of the premiers of this country have departed from that principle, but Canadians will see that for what it is. They depart from the principle but they then say that Ottawa must pay, not them. It is easy to cry crocodile tears and then say that someone else should be responsible.
Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, the provinces will be paying to the tune of $1.6 billion in addition to that $300 million in the years ahead because of the fault of this federal government.
Let us be very clear that it was the federal government that had responsibility for regulating the blood supply. The provinces had no statutory authority in this matter. It is irresponsible for this Prime Minister to now blame the provinces. It is juvenile and petty to use that kind of hostile rhetoric. Why does he not take seriously the federal government's obligation and show even a hint of prime ministerial leadership by improving the package to hepatitis C victims?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is correct in what he is saying, why did the provinces agree to be part of the March agreement and put $300 million on the table? If it is entirely the federal government's fault, then the provinces were certainly wrong themselves to be part of the agreement.
If it is entirely the federal government's responsibility, why is he asking the federal government to open discussions with the provinces? The hon. member's arguments simply do not add up.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
In reply to a question which I asked a few weeks ago to his colleague, the environment minister, the Minister of Natural Resources said, and I quote “With respect to the need to expand in terms of renewable energy, alternative sources of energy, co-generation projects and so forth, indeed those are very much a part of our agenda to deal with climate change”.
Can the minister tell us if nuclear fusion is among these new forms of renewable energy covered by what he refers to as “our agenda to deal with climate change”?