House of Commons Hansard #75 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was religious.

Topics

Presence in GalleryOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Presence in GalleryOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege arising out of question period from the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell.

Presence in GalleryPrivilege

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have given you notification of this point of privilege, as well as to the hon. member about whom I am going to speak now.

A little earlier in the House, one member during question period alleged that a Liberal MP was under criminal investigation. She did not name the MP and therefore has cast a net on every single one of us on this side of the House of Commons.

Presence in GalleryPrivilege

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Presence in GalleryPrivilege

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Respect for the institution has just been alluded to very strongly by the comments across the way.

If there is a criminal investigation against anyone, it is not a matter of public record, as we all know. Once the charges are laid, however, the sub judice convention is then triggered and you will know from citation 506 of Beauchesne's that this is applied consistently in criminal cases where it occurs.

You will further know from Marleau and Montpetit, at page 428, that it has been the case and that Speaker Parent, your predecessor, gave a 1995 ruling to discourage all comments on sub judice matters rather than to allow members to experiment within the limits of the convention, and to test the Speaker's discretion given this speculation to determine how a comment might influence a matter before the court.

Clearly, when the matter of charges has been made, it is clearly inappropriate to raise it here. If someone is suggesting that criminal investigations are made and no charges have been laid, and without naming the MP, not only has she named everyone on this side of the House but even the occupant of the chair.

This is inappropriate. These comments have to be withdrawn. Anyone who was elected as a Liberal MP or a Conservative MP, or anyone else, deserves the respect of the House because they were elected by their constituents. Accusations of this nature, if they are to be made, should include names. They should be made outside the House of Commons and people should have the intestinal fortitude to live with what they say.

Presence in GalleryPrivilege

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the member opposite's bogus outrage about this. There is some real sensitivity and rightly so in the Liberal ranks about constant allegations of wrongdoing and evidence of wrongdoing as well. However, if the member is curious as to the origin of my remarks, I refer him to a Globe and Mail article dated March 31, 2005. It stated:

The RCMP also investigated allegations in the spring of 2003 that Liberal MP--

If the member is curious, he can get the report. I am sure he has already seen it in fact and knows the name very well because he has the same access to the media as every other member of Parliament. It goes on:

--had requested favours and financial support for [the Prime Minister's] leadership campaign in exchange for helping Indian nationals to obtain permits to come to Canada.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would want to assure you unequivocally that I was not in any way impugning your integrity with my remarks.

One must ask oneself, why did the member not show the same outrage for the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration actually went to a cultural community and chastized it for bringing up concerns about this abuse of the system? I do not see his outrage there. He is simply outraged that a Liberal member might have been named or his integrity impugned in this. Rightly so, Mr. Speaker, if this is happening and it rightly was investigated.

Presence in GalleryPrivilege

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair did note the remarks during question period. I am looking for a precedent that involved a similar problem some years ago of which I am vaguely aware. When I have the material at hand, I will review the comments that were made and the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, and the remarks in response made by the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I will get back to the House on this matter in due course.

Points of OrderPrivilege

April 4th, 2005 / 3:20 p.m.

Hamilton East—Stoney Creek Ontario

Liberal

Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie during question period, frankly across the way and you may not have heard him as you were looking after the House, asked me to ask him to stand, so that he could retract a statement he made during question period. He said a number of times “you're lying, you're lying”.

I know that the member knows that it is unparliamentary language and I would ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member retract that statement.

Points of OrderPrivilege

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to tell my colleague that he can raise a matter of privilege if he wishes. Thus, I must retract the words that are unacceptable here, namely, that I said he had lied. I will not do it here because it is forbidden. But I will say it outside the House.

Canadian Human Rights TribunalRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

I have the honour to lay upon the table the 2004 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal annual report.

National SecurityRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to table two important items that relate to our country's national security.

First, the report of the Interim Committee of Parliamentarians on National Security. I would like to acknowledge and thank all members from all parties in this Parliament, both in the House of Commons and the other place, for their work on this important report.

In addition, I am tabling for the consideration of the House our proposed model for a national security committee of parliamentarians.

BroadcastingRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Jeanne-Le Ber Québec

Liberal

Liza Frulla LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, the government's second response to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage's report entitled, “Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting”.

Certificates of NominationRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), I am tabling a certificate of nomination with respect to the Law Commission of Canada. This certificate would stand referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I am also tabling, pursuant to Standing Order 110(2), a certificate of nomination with respect to the Standards Council of Canada. This certificate would be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the government's response to 59 petitions.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to have more than one seconder to my bill that you may be introducing momentarily, a list of which has been submitted to you and the other parties in this House.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia have the unanimous consent of the House to have a number of seconders for the bill he is about to introduce?

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Taiwan Affairs ActRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, an act to provide for an improved framework for economic, trade, cultural and other initiatives between the people of Canada and the people of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I had secured the approval of the following members to second the bill: the member for Vancouver Island North; the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, who is noted; the member for Halifax; the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges; the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell; the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont; the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country; and the member for Newton—North Delta.

This bill may be cited as the Taiwan affairs act. It provides the statutory framework for economic, cultural and other initiatives between the people of Canada and the people of Taiwan in the circumstances that followed Canada's recognition of the People's Republic of China in 1970. The bill is about 35 years overdue.

I note the bill has seconders from members of Parliament from all parties in the House. Today as then we take note of the People's Republic of China as the sole and lawful government of China. However, from cabinet minutes in 1969, it is specific and clear that the Canadian government intended to maintain a de facto relationship with Taiwan.

The purposes of the bill are to continue the good relationship with the People's Republic of China while building a legal framework to guide and forge better mutually beneficial relations with the people of Taiwan.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

National Ovarian Cancer Month ActRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Carol Skelton Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-358, an act to designate the month of September as National Ovarian Cancer Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of thousands of Canadian women who have or will find out they have ovarian cancer. The bill would designate September as national ovarian cancer month, similar to those in other countries.

Each year 2,600 women are diagnosed with this cancer and one in 70 will get this cancer in their lifetime. The good news is that when detected early and treated, the survival rate is as high as 90%.

We need to fund research, testing and awareness. I sincerely hope my colleagues support this initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James, MB

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Tuesday, October 22, 2004, be concurred in.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I would like to remind hon. members that the provisional changes to the Standing Orders which came into effect on March 7, 2005 alter the procedures related to motions for concurrence in committee reports.

Such motions shall now receive not more than three hours of consideration, after which time the Speaker shall interrupt and put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion.

For today's debate, members speaking to the motion will have a 20 minute period for debate followed by a 10 minute period for questions and comments.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cambridge.

The report calls on the government to extend compensation as recommended by the Krever inquiry to all those who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood.

A few minutes ago in question period I asked the minister if the government would support the health committee's recommendation. The response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health was that this motion was passed unanimously by the committee. In fact, this is not the case. The Liberal members on the health committee voted against the report which is being presented today. I am very disappointed that the member would imply that the Liberals supported it when they did not. However, I welcome the Liberals' support when the report comes up for a vote.

This is surely not the first time legislators have gathered in the House to debate this issue. Last fall members debated a motion prompted by a similar health committee report only to have it withdrawn by the government before a vote could be held. This will not happen again. Thanks to new procedural rules adopted less than a month ago, the House will vote on this motion when the debate ends.

The reasons the report is needed are well known to all in the House but they bear repeating. In 1998 the government refused to accept responsibility for anyone infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood and instead created a privately administered compensation fund for only those who were infected between 1986 and 1990.

At the time the government claimed that it was not liable for mistakes and mismanagement outside that time period but since then, new evidence has revealed this claim to be false. Testing was available as far back as 1981, yet documents show authorities knowingly ignored this information. The RCMP has laid charges against individuals involved in this matter prior to 1986.

Furthermore the government stated at the time that there were simply too many victims to compensate. The Prime Minister warned that full compensation would “bankrupt medicare”. We know that this was false as well. There are far fewer victims than previously claimed. The government overestimated the numbers to justify its decision.

For the purpose of clarity, I would like to define the parameters of the upcoming debate. For too long the government has purposely confused two separate issues: one, the fund and any potential surplus it may contain; and two, fair compensation for all victims of tainted blood.

As a result, compensation for forgotten victims has usually been spoken of in terms of the existing hepatitis C compensation fund. The minister himself has suggested that some form of compensation may be forthcoming but any moneys depend on the result of an actuarial audit of the fund due in June of this year. The government's position is clear: Compensation depends entirely on the money in the fund; if there is no surplus, compensation will not be extended.

I would like to state for the record today and for the benefit of the members who will rise after me that in regard to this issue to be debated, the fund and any surplus are not as relevant as the government may lead us to believe. I will state again that the hepatitis C compensation fund and any surplus it may hold are irrelevant to the issue being debated at this time. The fair and just treatment of the forgotten victims is most prominent. The moneys must be found, fund or no fund.

We are here today to encourage the government to finally, at long last, offer a helping hand to those who have been callously neglected for so many years. We are here today to respectfully request that the government recognize that compassion demands compensation regardless of the money in the current fund. Whether or not there is an actuarial surplus matters little when people are suffering, especially as a result of erroneous mistakes made by those entrusted to help them.

What matters is not how the victims are compensated, but that they are compensated immediately. Victims should not be made to wait while the government dithers over what to do. The cruel suspense and financial uncertainty under which uncompensated victims have lived must end.

The government would have Canadians believe that it has already helped forgotten victims. It has deceived the public into believing that help had been provided to forgotten victims through the care not cash program.

Some 300 million federal dollars were committed to the provinces so that they could provide drugs, immunization, nursing care and other services to infected victims not covered by the fund. The sad reality is that not a cent of that money ever reached those it was intended to help. Instead, the money was absorbed into the general health care revenues of each province.

Victims unable to work due to their illness are rendered destitute trying to pay massive drug bills they cannot afford. Yet the government has repeatedly declared the care not cash program as evidence that it cares about the forgotten victims.

Agreeing to re-examine the fund is a tacit admission by the government that it bears responsibility for all victims, including those left out of compensation. Until last year, the government had stated emphatically that it bore no responsibility for anyone outside the 1986-90 timeframe. It washed its hands of the whole affair by declaring the issue to be a matter for the courts.

Last fall the Minister of Health announced a shift in government policy citing changing circumstances, but the circumstances have not really changed. They are still the same. Victims infected with hepatitis C continue to suffer financial hardship and health problems. People are still dying.

The health minister stated last fall that what motivates his government is the desire to help those who need help. If it were truly motivated by this desire, if it were truly a compassionate government, compensation would be extended to those victims immediately and unequivocally.

There is a chance there will not be any surplus or a surplus large enough to cover all the forgotten victims. If the minister is true to his word, he will not crush the hopes of these victims come June by denying them compensation, but will instead offer a helping hand regardless of the surplus size. However, if this is his intent, then why wait until June? Why delay compassion if he is truly motivated to help those in need?

There are two ways to compensate all victims which would guarantee the efficiency of the fund. One is to pay victims out of the consolidated revenue fund. Any surplus in the fund could later be transferred back into the consolidated revenue fund. The other is to compensate victims now from the fund and address the surplus issue later. If the audit shows later that no surplus exists, then the government can top up the fund.

Regardless of the method of payment, all victims should be treated equally. The 1986-90 window is an arbitrary time period created to limit the government's liability. It is hard to justify why a victim infected in December 1985 should be treated differently from one infected in January 1986. In creating this arbitrary window, the government has pitted victim against victim in an effort to limit opposition. This tactic must end. All victims must be given fair and equitable treatment.

My motion has the support of all opposition parties. I hope it will garner the support of those on the other side of the House as well. The last time a vote on this issue took place in the House, many government members rose against their conscience to support the government's position. Some rose with tears streaming down their cheeks, aware of the cruelty they were endorsing. Today those members are unable to hide behind a vote of confidence, but now can freely vote as their conscience dictates. I sincerely hope that they will do so, for no one with a conscience can vote against this motion.

It would be wonderful if an apology to those who have struggled for seven years were forthcoming from across the aisle. Several of these individuals who have led the fight are in the House today. I wish to acknowledge their perseverance in the face of such adversity.

The Conservative Party has long fought this battle. I would like to acknowledge two individuals in particular, Dr. Grant Hill and the member for Yellowhead, for their tireless work on behalf of the forgotten victims.

Canadians have waited too long for the government to admit its mistake, accept responsibility and acknowledge that compassion is the only answer for those suffering. The suffering must end. Compensation must be provided.

I respectfully request that this government do the right thing at last and compensate all victims. Let us not wait until June. Compassion is needed now. Please compensate these victims immediately, I say. It is the right thing to do. It is the will of the committee and it will be the will of the House. I ask that the government not show contempt for the House and that it show compassion for the victims, support the motion and compensate these people immediately.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mean to interrupt the member for Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia, but there are a number of questions on the order paper that are in fact due today. The government was prepared to immediately table answers to those questions. Perhaps you might seek unanimous consent to allow me to table the questions on the order paper. We were going to get to them in routine proceedings, but because of this important issue we may not.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Is that agreed?