House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 80% of the vote.
Hepatitis C May 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, surely the government is not so addled that it is going into negotiations with the provinces without having any kind of position at all. That does not make any sense.
We have heard government members talk about excuses, about processes and have seen them pointing fingers at the provinces. All that is irrelevant. This is about people's lives.
What position is the government taking into negotiations with the provinces? Is the hep C file open or closed?
Taxation May 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, a Reform government would have balanced the budget three years ago.
The fact of the matter is that since this government came to power it has hiked taxes 36 times. Taxes are $6 billion higher than they were when the government came to power. Suffice it to say, this government is the world champion when it comes to taxes, higher taxes than any country in the G-7 thanks to this finance minister.
When is the finance minister going to figure it out? That money belongs to taxpayers, not to his greedy caucus and greedy cabinet.
Taxation May 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, over the last three years the average family of four in Ontario making $60,000 has received about $3,500 in tax relief from the provincial government, but from the federal government they receive not even a thin dime, nothing. In fact taxes have gone up on the federal level.
Why is it that the Government of Ontario understands that that money belongs to the taxpayers? Why can it figure out but the federal finance minister does not seem to have a clue?
Hepatitis C May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the file was closed and now the file is open. We understand the government is finally starting to feel a little heat from the public.
When will the health minister acknowledge the real reason they are pushing the file back on to the table and opening the file up again is that they are losing the PR battle? They know their backbenchers want this deal. They know the public wants it. When will they admit they made a mistake and that is why they are opening this file?
Hepatitis C May 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about changing positions I want to remind the health minister about something he said not very long ago. He said the file was closed. I distinctly remember him saying that. In fact when his backbenchers came to him and asked him about this he told them that the file was closed.
Who has changed positions here? Is the truth not that the real reason the government is changing its position is that it is losing the PR battle?
Hepatitis C April 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it looks like the little guy from Shawinigan is really the big ego from Shawinigan. That is what it boils down to.
The fact is that the government did not have to bring in a confidence motion on this vote. The Prime Minister did not have to pummel his backbenchers into submission. Why will he not admit that he has made a mistake? Why is he letting his big ego stand in the way of doing the right thing? Why will he not help hep C victims?
Hepatitis C April 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate for a week now. I can only conclude that what this is all about is the Prime Minister's precious little ego.
We know that the public wants to compensate hepatitis C victims. We know that the provinces want to compensate the victims. We know that the backbenchers want to compensate victims even though they could not find the courage to vote in favour of compensation.
Why will the Prime Minister not admit that he will not compensate victims because of his ego? Why will he not admit that he made a mistake?
Hepatitis C April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful position. It is a case of government negligence.
These are the facts. All the Deputy Prime Minister's so-called deal allows hepatitis C victims like Karen to do is to take advantage of health care services that already exist. Thank you very little.
Instead of a deal for Liberal backbenchers when will we see compensation for all hepatitis C victims, victims like Karen? When?
Hepatitis C April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Karen is a hepatitis C victim from Medicine Hat. She contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood in 1985, years after testing for hepatitis C was first available.
Under the imaginary new deal that was cooked up by the Deputy Prime Minister this morning, I am wondering how much compensation Karen will receive.
Supply April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate today with considerable interest.
Obviously it is an issue that has gripped the country. People are quite aware of the issue now. They have followed it very closely and I think that Canadians are always compassionate.
When we look at the facts in this case we cannot help but support the position taken not only by the Reform Party but by all oppositions parties. I should pay tribute to members of all parties who have spoken today in the interests of standing up for Canadians. I say that of members of the opposition.
Let us go back through the chronology. In October 1993 the government appointed a commission. It appointed Justice Krever to look into the contamination of the blood system. We had an interim report in February 1995 and a final report in November of last year. In that report Justice Krever made the recommendation that all victims should be compensated.
We know, for instance, that AIDS/HIV victims going back to 1978 were compensated. They were all compensated. Justice Krever has made the judgment that all of the victims of hepatitis C should also be compensated.
I point out to the health minister that it is the justice who this government appointed who is making that recommendation. It is not another government, it is his judge who chaired the commission to bring forward these types of recommendations. We are simply pointing out that it is the government's own committee with its own expert review that has made these recommendations. We are simply asking them to listen to Justice Krever's advice and to do as he suggested.
It is not only in Canada that this advice has been followed. We have heard over the last couple of days how the Government of Ireland eventually had to yield to considerable public pressure because of the public's superior moral conscience which forced its government to pay compensation to all victims.
I would urge the government to listen to its own conscience and to finally come around to the point of view that it must start to compensate all victims.
The government has drawn an arbitrary line. It says January 1986 is the point at which it will start to pay compensation. As other members have pointed out, in other parts of the world testing was already under way, going back to 1981, which would have detected hepatitis C.
I point out in response to questions from the health minister that when a federal body takes on a responsibility to regulate something like the blood system, implied in that is responsibility and culpability. When the federal government steps in as a regulator the public has the right to assume that the government is taking all reasonable steps to ensure that it is doing its job, that it is getting the best possible information and that it is reaching out around the world to find out, in this case, whether or not there are tests available to determine whether there are things like hepatitis C lurking in blood. It did not do that and it should therefore be culpable. It is that straightforward.
The justice minister wants us to absolve the government of all blame. He is essentially justifying not paying compensation on the basis of the tardiness of the regulating agency to use other tests that were available around the world. The regulating agency was responsible for not utilizing all the available means to ensure that the blood system was safe. If it did not take those steps, then it is culpable. It is that straightforward.
I say in response to the health minister's speech of a few minutes ago that the regulating agency simply did not do its job. It simply did not use all available means at the time, which is why Justice Krever ruled that everybody should receive compensation.
The second point I want to go to is the idea of a free vote. I say to the health minister, the former justice minister, that if he is so convinced of his position, then allow this issue to go to a free vote. If he really believes that the federal government has no more responsibility previous to 1986 then let us ask him to put his position on the line with his own members. If he really believes in that, let us ask him to put his position on the line. Does he not trust his ability to make a persuasive argument to his own caucus? Let us let the people's representatives make that decision.
Today in the House we know that the leaders of the respective opposition parties got up and said “We do not view this as a vote of non-confidence. This is not a confidence motion”.
We also know the government has spoken in the past. It has written volumes about how it would allow more free votes. We view this issue as a moral issue. We say that this is an issue whereby the public should have the right to be represented by their representatives in the House of Commons. Let us have the government now finally put its money where its mouth is. Let us have it actually bring this motion to a free vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday.
We know there is a three line whip. People are being called back from all over the country. They are being told to be here, not to vote freely, but to vote against the motion, to vote against their own consciences, to vote against what their constituents are telling them.
No matter what theory of representation they believe in, they cannot possibly believe in one whereby the government says “it is my way or the highway” irrespective of what the public is telling them, irrespective of what their conscience tells them, especially when opposition party members have said they do not view this as a confidence motion.
I conclude my remarks by saying that if the government truly believes it is on the moral high ground here, then let us put this issue to members in a free vote. That is the true test. That is the real way to find out whether or not the government's arguments have carried the day. Because if those arguments are as persuasive as the health minister thinks they are, the government will have no problem carrying just a very few members on the government side that it will need to win the vote.