Debates of June 1st, 1998

Division No. 186

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers vote yes to this concurrence motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, Bloc Quebecois members are in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no to this motion.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party are in favour of this motion.

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

Division No. 187

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Nunavut Act

[The Speaker]

Shall I dispense with the reading of the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

The question is on the amendment.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would ask that you seek unanimous consent so that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House with Liberal members voting no.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers are very pleased to vote yes to this amendment.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members oppose this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on this matter.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party oppose this motion.

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment defeated.

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

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am on the hepatitis C issue again. It goes back to the original compensation package that was announced by the government some months ago.

Many of us are concerned about the package because it only includes those innocent victims from the years 1986 to 1990. I think that most Canadians expect more than that for a number of reasons. We have to realize that these are innocent victims of a tainted blood supply.

Going back to the original Krever inquiry and the report of Justice Krever, he states that all victims should be compensated regardless of the years when they were infected. That is only fair.

As I have mentioned in this House time and time again, Canada by far is the number one country in the world. We are rated as the best country in the world by the United Nations. We are a very fair and a very generous country. Most Canadians want to see that fairness and generosity expressed in that compensation package.

We have had some pretty heated discussions in this House on that compensation package. Up to now those victims prior to 1986 are not being compensated. We do not have any consideration being given to those victims after 1990. We are talking I suppose conservatively about a group of people which could be less than 20,000. The government has led us to believe that the number could be over 60,000.

Unfortunately, the government cannot substantiate that number. One would ask why it would use a number that cannot be substantiated. I think the reason the government did that is that it might go beyond the government's capacity to pay if the number was large enough. That is the sort of convoluted logic in my way of thinking. That is why the hepatitis C association tells us that yes, the government officials inflated the number making it appear as if it was beyond the capacity of the government to pay compensation to those victims. The number is far less than that. Some experts put the number down as low as 8,000 to 12,000 yet to be compensated.

The good news out of all of this to this point, if there is any good news at all, if there is a little comfort we can take in what has happened is that the provinces and the federal government are back at the negotiating table. They are back today as we speak.

I think there is a glimmer of hope that the federal government might come up with something for those victims left outside the package. At the end of the day, it is not the provinces, it is not the provincial health ministers that are responsible for the safety of Canada's blood supply system. Members know that the buck stops at the doorstep of the federal health minister. The federal health minister himself is responsible for the safety of Canada's blood supply system. He is back at the bargaining table with the provinces today.

I am hopeful that a package will be arrived at. We are looking for generosity on the part of the federal government on behalf of the Prime Minister and his government and we are hoping that is what happens in the next couple of days. We are hopeful that that will happen. What we want to see is simply compensation for all those innocent victims of a tainted blood supply system regardless of when they were infected.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take up where the hon. member left off with the themes of generosity and fairness.

I think he will be among the first to recognize that prior to the actions of the federal government and the minister, there was a reluctance to apply either one of those two terms to the entire process as seen through the eyes of the victims, those he quite rightly calls the innocent victims of a terrible tragedy in Canadian blood history.

He would also at the same time acknowledge that the federal government has acted with great generosity. It has acted with a great sense of fairness. It has acted with great deliberateness in bringing all of the partners together to the table.

He well knows that a mere one year ago these concepts were not even on the table. There was no discussion of compensation. The only issue was how well all the governments of Canada would disseminate information that would allow victims to deal with their sickness, with their disease in relative comfort.

We are now looking at a package arrived at, cobbled together by all the governments, the territories, the provinces and the federal government on, number one, a package of compensation. Equally important and perhaps even more so in the eyes of many is that there is an entire package for additional services for those who have been smitten by this disease.

Most of us have been taken up with the issue of compensating one group as opposed to another but there has never been a distinction on the part of the federal government. The idea was that it would act on behalf of all our citizens.

With due regard to the issue that the opposition have raised up until this point which is the question of avoidability, if governments could have acted differently and did not do so, then there should be compensation. But in all cases there should be at least a series of measures in place to allow people to live their lives as normally as possible under the circumstances.

[The Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.24 p.m.)