House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Hepatitis C May 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the victims of hepatitis C we cannot let that one go by.
Since, on December 2, 1997, at 11.30 a.m., the Quebec National Assembly was unanimously calling for a program of compensation for the victims of hepatitis C, how can the Prime Minister keep repeating in this House that, were it not for the federal Minister of Health, no one would be compensating the victims? How can he keep making such a claim? Let him say it from his seat.
Hepatitis C May 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in such a state over the hepatitis C case that he will say anything in his efforts to justify his position.
He said a few minutes ago in this House that, had it not been for his Minister of Health, no one was going to compensate the victims of hepatitis C.
What does he say to the resolution passed unanimously December 2 in the National Assembly that the federal and provincial governments compensate these victims? What has he to say?
Hepatitis C May 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister of Canada realize how incredible it is for him to be mocking those growing in compassion?
With his heavy responsibility and the responsibility of those opposite, who are laughing at the moment, will the Prime Minister agree to do as his colleagues and half the members of this House have done and show some compassion toward the victims of hepatitis C?
Hepatitis C May 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the premier of Quebec has just announced that his government has decided to increase its financial contribution to the compensation of the victims of hepatitis C.
My question is for the Prime Minister. With position taken by Ontario first, and now Quebec, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, for humanitarian reasons, he has an obligation to increase his contribution in order to resolve the hepatitis C problem?
Hepatitis C May 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, hepatitis C is a very special problem that requires a special solution.
The costs of compensation were shared because there is a shared responsibility. When it comes to care, the provinces are on their own.
Is the federal government not also responsible for sharing the costs of providing health care to hepatitis C victims? The federal government is getting off with a bill for only 30% of the costs.
Hepatitis C May 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, over the last four years, federal transfer payments have been cut by 35% and frozen at $12.5 billion, and this does not take into account the additional $1.6 billion cost of paying for the treatment of hepatitis C victims.
Will the Prime Minister admit that no additional amount has been proposed to help share the costs of caring for hepatitis C victims, costs that the provinces will have to shoulder alone, and that the government is a bit quick to wash its hands of the matter?
Hepatitis C May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health says that the federal government pays the cost of health care, he forgets to point out that transfer payments have been frozen at $12.5 billion. Hepatitis C victims or not, transfers have been cut and then frozen.
Does the minister not understand that those with hepatitis C are victims twice over, first because of the government's incompetence and now because of its stubbornness?
Hepatitis C May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Health wants to talk about money, that is what we will do. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions that his government would pay the greater part of the compensation for hepatitis C victims. Compensation of $1.1 billion has been offered, but there remains the $1.6 billion in care needed by victims that will be paid by the provinces.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Health admit that, by limiting its contribution to $800 million out of a total of $2.7 billion to cover the cost of hepatitis C, and thus footing only 30% of the bill, Ottawa has done not too badly?
Hepatitis C April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is well aware that the reason we are questioning the federal government is because it has primary responsibility for Canada's blood supply.
Having first been the victims of the government's incompetence, are hemophiliacs now going to be victims of the Prime Minister's stubbornness?
Hepatitis C April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the president of the hemophiliacs' association said that it was absolutely disgraceful that the Prime Minister was turning the vote being held tomorrow, Tuesday, into a vote of confidence in the government.
Instead of turning tomorrow's vote into a vote of confidence, should the government not instead make it one of conscience and allow members to vote in accordance with what they really think with respect to hemophiliacs?