Debates of Sept. 24th, 1998

Criminal Code

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, given what little time is left, it will be extremely hard for me to get into the details of the presentation I have prepared. However, I still want to speak briefly of Bill C-251.

Before addressing the issue, I want to mention all the respect I have for the work my hon. colleague has done on this bill. She gave a lot of thought to this issue and the results of her work deserve a lot of respect.

Obviously, for both my colleague and I, the safety of the people is always foremost in our minds. Canadians feel safe at home and that is the most important factor to take into consideration.

I would like to briefly point out some statistics the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime included in its latest report. It said that, asked to choose among several factors those that best described what it is to be Canadian, 88% of respondents ranked the feeling of belonging to a safe society among the nine most significant factors.

I cannot support this bill for reasons I had hoped to have more time to explain in detail, but which I will get into briefly.

First of all, I think there is in Canada a myth about what is called a life sentence.

What does it mean? In the case of first degree murder or repeat second degree murder, the mandatory sentence is life without parole eligibility for 25 years. What does it mean? It means that the offender will be subject to the control and supervision of correctional authorities for the rest of his life. It means that a multiple murderer is ineligible for judicial review for the reduction of parole ineligibility. It means that that eligibility for parole after 25 years does not mean automatic release from a penitentiary.

I understand time has run out. I hope I have an opportunity to elaborate.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

To reassure the parliamentary secretary right off, the next time this bill is considered in the House, he will have seven minutes to start the debate, if he so wishes.

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am on my feet to go back after the health minister in regard to a question I put to him in June prior to the House recessing for the summer regarding the hepatitis C victims.

A majority of Canadians are very upset by the government's determination that it would only compensate those victims from 1986 to 1990. We feel that is fundamentally wrong. We feel that it is wrong for a number of reasons but primarily the victims we are talking about prior to 1986 and certainly some even after 1990 are all innocent victims of a tainted blood scandal.

I go back to Justice Krever's recommendation that all victims should be compensated because there was wrongdoing on many levels. I just want to give a couple of examples of that.

One is that we actually brought blood into this country that came out of the U.S. prison system. Think about it. Sick Canadians were given blood given by U.S. prisoners. I think we know what goes on in prisons. We will not go into detail. Some Canadians contracted hepatitis C because of that very error and all the other difficulties surrounding this issue.

The government holds fast on its position that we will not compensate those innocent victims outside of the convenient timeframe of 1986 to 1990. The only reason the minister can give is because those years 1986 to 1990 are the years that we most likely could not defend ourselves if it did go to the courts. In other words it would be very difficult for the government to defend its position in those years.

A victim who contracted hepatitis C on December 31, 1985 would not be compensated but a victim who contracted hepatitis C a day later on January 1, 1986 would be compensated. This is absolutely bizarre and it is absolutely wrong. We are going to continue to fight on this side of the House along with a lot of other Canadians to make sure there is fairness in this compensation package. All victims should be compensated.

We often blame the health minister. I am going to be fairly generous to him and say he has most likely tried as hard as he could in cabinet to get compensation for those victims. At the end of the day it falls at the doorstep of the government, the leader of the government, the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister conveniently falls into the role of the little humble man from Shawinigan. Water just runs off his back. Talk about being coated in Teflon. This Prime Minister is absolutely and totally coated with Teflon from top to bottom.

Can the Prime Minister not step back a little from this issue and look at it for its seriousness? Actually the human compassion and the need to compensate all victims—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, as I reply to the member I would point out that his question on June 10 related to the testing of plasma donors.

I would also point out to him that I think everyone in the House and across the country feels very badly when anyone who they know gets an illness through no fault of their own, whether that illness is cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis or diabetes.

It is important we all understand that when people across the country get sick, the values embodied in the Canada Health Act are that we offer those people care and access to treatment, which hopefully will give them a good health outcome. That is what the Canada Health Act is about.

I wanted to address the member's question on June 10 with regard to the hepatitis C testing of plasma donors between the period of 1990 to 1993. I wanted to point out to him that a critical distinction needs to be made at the outset of this issue and discussion. That is the distinction between the testing of blood donors who are donating blood which will be transferred directly into persons needing a blood transfusion as contrasted with the testing of donors of plasma which is then sent to a manufacturing operation to be fractionated into plasma derivatives such as coagulation factors, immune globulins and albumin.

In 1990 there was clear scientific evidence that testing of donors of fresh blood for transfusion—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I apologize to the parliamentary secretary but the time has expired.

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

(The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.)