Gurmant Grewal

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ignore the second part, but you have made my job much easier.

In British Columbia, for instance, we have fixed dates for elections. Similarly, the Liberal government in Ontario is considering that and promised it in its election platform. The United States has fixed dates for elections. Many countries in the western world--

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member who spoke before me stated that the previous government was turfed. I think the Liberal government will face the same fate as soon as the election is called.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in today's debate on the Conservative supply day motion calling upon the government to establish fixed dates for federal general elections. The motions reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, there being a serious democratic deficit in Canada, particularly in the domination of the executive over the House of Commons by providing to the Prime Minister the sole political prerogative to determine when Parliament should be dissolved for the purpose of a general election;

That, unless the government loses the confidence of the House, general elections should be held on fixed dates; and

That the government should bring in measures to establish fixed election dates to be held on the third Monday of the month that is four years after the month in which the polling day for the most recently held general election fell.

That is the motion we are debating today and the status quo has gone on for far too long. In the last few months, constituents have been asking me when the election will take place. I have been telling them that my guess is as good as theirs. No one in this country knows.

Before I move further, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Blackstrap. She has significant issues to contribute to this campaign and we would like to listen to her as well.

The Liberals have been calling the election depending on their chances of winning that election. The status quo as to when to call the election is very opportunistic politically at present.

The discretion to call an election, however, remains a powerful weapon in the armoury of the Prime Minister to use for partisan advantage, as shown by the last leader of the Liberal Party. Jean Chrétien fuelled a lot of cynicism about the electoral process during his 10 years in office by calling elections whenever it suited his political agenda or when the polls indicated it was appropriate for him to call an election, gauging his political opportunities.

Despite comfortable majorities in the House and no burning issues requiring a mandate, Mr. Chrétien went to the Canadian public twice in seven years. As my colleague has indicated from a mathematical aspect, we know that elections are called simply because the government knows that the voters will return it to office irrespective of the cost to the taxpayers.

Our current Prime Minister appears anxious to follow in his predecessor's footsteps by calling an election just three and a half years into a mandate, and this despite the promise he made to do things differently and address the democratic deficit.

The way the ruling party can control election dates makes up a huge portion of the democratic deficit that has destroyed the faith of many Canadians in their own government.

With careful polling and strategic spending and policies designed to win over key segments of voters, the ruling party gains a huge advantage. On the other hand, the whole country is left in limbo. One just has to imagine 308 candidates multiplied by at least four parties, plus independent candidates. This is compounded by various campaign managers and campaign teams of all the candidates.

One just has to look at the Elections Canada staff. How much staff is in limbo? What about all the other organizations and individuals associated with the election, such as the sign companies, the telephone companies, the people who print the brochures and other literature, the leasing companies for vehicles and other items, even the office equipment, office supplies and office space?

This is contributing to uncertainty. The candidates cannot make any long term commitments to any events or anything of that sort because they do not know when the election will be called

Look at the inefficiency this whole mechanism has created in terms of dollars, time, commitment and so on. We cannot have an agenda in the House of Commons. I have a private member's bill ready to be introduced, but I cannot introduce it because I do not know how long we are going to sit here. If I were to introduce it, then I would have to come back again and reintroduce it, if I am re-elected. It depends on so many things.

So much inefficiency is created by this uncertain and opportunistic process by the government. No wonder voter apathy is mounting against the government and no wonder we have a low turnout in elections from time to time. We cannot be innovative in reforming the electoral process in general because of all these uncertainties surrounding this issue.

How about proportional representation? What a wonderful idea and concept, but it cannot be introduced because so many things have to be done within electoral reform.

Despite the promise, Canadians are still saddled with an elected dictatorship in the country. The power is concentrated in the PMO and the companies supporting the Prime Minister at this time. The Prime Minister is using his control over his members of Parliament in his caucus, whether it is voting in the House, driving the agenda, and so on.

Now that the Prime Minister has all the power, he is just as reluctant as his predecessor to let go of any of it. The Prime Minister's record shows clearly that he has no interest in addressing any democratic deficit issues and they have been mounting ever since.

I am proud to stand up and say to the House that this party, the official opposition of Canada, has been lobbying for the elimination of the democratic deficit for many years.

Further, the Liberals failed to appoint an independent ethics commissioner and still continue to have the lapdog of the Prime Minister. It is despite the fact that it was promised in the red book in 1993 that an independent ethics commissioner would be appointed who would report to Parliament. However, it did not happen that way.

Similarly, it has been promised, and the Prime Minister said he would address the issue of free votes in the House of Commons. We still see the caucus members of the Liberal Party clapping like trained seals.

It is similar with Senate reform. The Liberal cronies, the defeated candidates, are appointed to the Senate, whereas the democratically elected candidates are not appointed to the Senate. The representation in the Senate from Canada's western provinces, where I come from, remains unaddressed.

Our electoral system allows less than 40% of the vote to translate into a majority government in this country. The Liberal government abdicates Parliament's responsibility as the law-making body of Canada to the courts. How big is the democratic deficit there? The definition of marriage is to be decided by the courts.

All these issues concerning citizen initiatives and that all MPs should be treated equally in the House did not happen. Another factor within electoral reform is the nomination process. For 14 years, non-Canadian instant members have been pre-selecting candidates to be finally selected by the general Canadian population to be elected and sent as their representative to Parliament. Discretion is okay, but there is a big flaw in the process. All these issues need to be addressed.

If the Prime Minister were serious about amending the democratic deficit, he would have to agree with established fixed election dates. If he opposes this motion, it will reveal that he is not serious about dealing with the democratic deficit, but is simply engaged in typical window dressing and half-baked measures.

[Petitions, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I also have three petitions signed by hundreds of people from across Canada.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to immediately hold a new debate on the definition of marriage and to reaffirm, as it did in 1999 in response to the motion from the official opposition, its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Finally, on the same topic, I have two petitions in which the petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to present six petitions on Bill C-250. The petitioners believe that the addition of sexual orientation as a protected category under sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code threatens the ability of individuals to exercise their religious freedoms and to express their moral and religious doctrines without fear of criminal prosecution.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be free and to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.

[Avian Flu, April 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in today's emergency debate on avian flu.

I would like to thank my colleague from Langley--Abbotsford for taking the initiative to bring this very important issue to the floor of the House. This issue is non-partisan, like any other national crisis or emergency.

I have visited numerous farms, particularly in my constituency of Surrey. The city of Surrey or the municipality often organize farm and agricultural trips in the riding. These visits have been very informative and have given me firsthand information in getting to know the farmers as well as the farming practices in my constituency.

My first degree is an agriculture honours degree with a specialization in animal sciences. I have firsthand experience in raising poultry as a practicum in my graduation degree.

Last month I attended a reception at the Chateau Laurier hosted by the poultry farmers of Canada. I met and discussed the upcoming outbreak of avian flu with many poultry farmers from the Fraser Valley. At that time the crisis had not developed to the extent that we see today. It has been almost a month, and from my experience I knew that the effects of this crisis would mount and would be a bigger crisis than what we saw in those days. That was probably the time to take preventive measures.

When I was speaking to the farmers about it, we were somewhat concerned about what the weak Liberal government would do about it. In our experience dealing with the government, whether it was SARS, softwood lumber or agricultural crises in the past, we have seen that the government's action has not been adequate. We all know what happened with BSE. We were a little concerned at that time when we were having this discussion at the reception.

I have also spoken to many local veterinarians, particularly a friend of mine in my constituency, Dr. Ravi Mann. I was just talking to him about what the government should do and how we could deal with the situation.

From time to time I have been talking to farmers and I am very concerned about the magnitude of this crisis that has developed. Farmers and other local concerned people have told me that the virus in the valley is very serious. The Fraser Valley, for those who do not know about it, is surrounded by hills and mountains, and the effects of a virus in a valley become significant. In fact, most of the infectious diseases, like the flu, even during the normal flu season, we see that it originates from that part and then it moves toward the other areas. I do not mean to demean the situation, but what I mean is that when there is a viral outbreak in a valley it has to be taken seriously.

Virology is changing rapidly and a virus has the ability to alter, even with vaccination. With mutation and the changing of a virus strain from one to another, vaccination does not become an effective tool in preventing this serious disease. After five weeks now, the virus continues to spread. We do not see an immediate end and the situation is still not contained as we speak.

Avian influenza, also known as bird flu, is a contagious disease. It is caused by type A strains of influenza virus that normally infect only birds but sometimes pigs as well. Avian influenza has two forms: one that causes mild illness in birds, and the other one, known as highly pathogenic avian influenza, which is extremely contagious and rapidly fatal for infected birds.

The highly pathogenic form of bird flu first appeared in Italy more than 100 years ago. It was first recognized in the United States in 1924-25 and occurred again in the United States in 1929. It was eradicated both times.

Recent outbreaks have occurred in Australia, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Italy, Chile, Mexico and the United States.

A serious outbreak of avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2003, spreading to Belgium and Germany, affected some 250 farms and necessitated the slaughter of more than 28 million poultry.

Since mid-December 2003, an increasing number of Asian countries, including Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam, have reported outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in chickens and ducks.

The World Health Organization reports that the rapid spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza is unprecedented and is a great concern for human health as well as agriculture.

Bird flu has been in Canada in the past and was successfully eliminated. We have a history. Highly pathogenic avian influenza was isolated in poultry in Ontario in 1966, the only occurrence ever for Canada. Low pathogenic avian influenza has been isolated in poultry in Canada three times since 1975.

What we have now, however, is the worst outbreak of avian flu in Canadian history.

Since February, a highly infectious strain of avian flu has struck 29 commercial poultry farms in the Fraser Valley as well as 10 backyard flocks. The disease, which can kill a flock within days, has jumped from farm to farm despite efforts to hold it to its original five-kilometre-wide zone. Outbreaks have been confirmed as far west as Surrey and as far east as Chilliwack.

The latest outbreak was found on a South Surrey bird farm at 176th Street. Those people who are watching in Surrey and the surrounding area will know that where the five kilometre zone ends and where 176th Street in South Surrey, probably around the 1500 block, is. This farmer's entire flock, 30,000 chickens, was ordered to be killed on Friday. This outbreak has officials worried because the newest infection site is about 45 kilometres west of the original hot zone in the eastern Fraser Valley.

We do not know how the virus got into British Columbia's modern chicken farms and how it spread despite a biosecurity crackdown. I believe the provincial government is trying to do its best but I do not see much action or commitment from the federal government. As a result, the government does not tell how it can be stopped. We probably do not know how it can be stopped at this juncture.

An estimated 1 million sick birds will be slaughtered and another 18 million poultry will be rushed to commercial slaughter to remove them from the infected area. Sampling will be done in each flock four days before slaughter and a visual inspection 24 hours before slaughter. The cull is expected to take at least six to eight weeks.

I would also like to mention that the Fraser Valley is responsible for over 80% or 85% of B.C.'s billion dollar poultry industry. A significant chunk of B.C.'s poultry industry is in the Fraser Valley.

About 600 chicken and turkey farmers will be affected by the cull and the direct cost of the cull to the farmers could be as high as $45 million, according to industry spokesmen.

However we also know there are many other types of costs associated with this crisis: the capital cost for the equipment that is idle; the cost to dispose of the manure; and the cost to disinfect the farm, the buildings and the equipment.

Even in the processing industries, they will be operating under capacity or they will probably shut down for some time. There are different types of costs. There are associated opportunity costs. There could be long lead times before the farmers can repopulate their poultry farms. This is going to cost a huge amount to the farmers as well as the associated people in the industry.

There will be real economic and non-economic impacts. There will be various types of direct and indirect costs and losses. Killing all types of birds means killing the livelihood of many farmers, whether small or large operations. Thousands in the industry will lose jobs, and producers and processors will be seriously affected. Some may even go broke financially. We are talking about a serious crisis.

There are about 3,000 people employed on the processing side of the poultry industry and about 2,000 workers on farms. Many people, almost every farming family, will be affected.

Many workers in the poultry industry will have to be laid off. Earlier this month Sunrise Poultry, in my constituency of Surrey Central, gave layoff notices to 30 workers in the plant and issued a warning to the remaining 420 employees that further layoffs may be imminent.

It will take six to eight weeks to destroy the birds. Following that, it could take several months to cleanse the affected farms and areas, and re-establish new flocks, the vast majority of which are grown in enclosed barns. After the farms are cleared of chicken carcasses, it takes days for the manure to be cleared out. Farmers must then wait 21 days before beginning to rebuild their flocks if the farms and surrounding farms receive a clean bill of health. Industry officials said it could take months before producers could begin operations again.

It does not mean that since the crisis happened west of the Rockies, it is not a serious national issue. The workers in the forest industry have still not seen any compensation from this weak and arrogant Liberal government. We know what happened in the forest industry. Because of the inaction of this weak government, the forestry workers in British Columbia are suffering. Forestry used to be the number one industry in British Columbia. I have seen mills devastated, closing one after the other and workers being laid off.

We have other issues and the avian flu is just one more. Who says that western alienation is not real and that it is a myth? It is real. This will be a litmus test for the government to prove that it can follow through and make a commitment on this issue. We will be looking forward to any meaningful action and commitment from the government in a timely fashion.

Last year the Canadian Food Inspection Agency began meeting with the poultry producers across the country advising them of the dangers of this disease. The CFIA suggested a bank of avian flu vaccine, but the idea went nowhere.

After the initial outbreak, the CFIA moved quickly to quarantine barns and exterminate flocks. However, these measures failed to stop the spread. Soon there was a cluster of five infected farms. The CFIA set up roadblocks to control traffic and established decontamination stations where vehicles had their tires sprayed with disinfectant, but the virus continued to spread.

A lot of human movement was not caught by the biosecurity measures because the security measures were probably not efficient and effective.

Since the outbreak was discovered, the U.S. has placed restrictions on basic poultry and eggs, and the European Union has banned Canadian poultry products. In total, nearly 40 countries have restricted imports of Canadian poultry due to the outbreak. We know that our border with the U.S. has not been properly opened for beef and now 40 countries have restricted imports of Canadian poultry due to the outbreak. We need serious action on that.

The federal government has declared the Fraser Valley, from Hope to Vancouver, an avian influenza control zone, restricting all movement of any live birds in captivity, including chickens, turkeys, pet birds and eggs to prevent the spread of the deadly bird flu. We do not know what to tell our farmers because we did not hear a proper commitment from the government.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the compensation of affected producers on the same principle as any other disaster beyond their control. There exists a protocol of compensation according to the animal involved, but the agriculture minister was unable to provide any information on how or when producers in British Columbia might be compensated.

In Canada, we need a national strategy to deal with this kind of crisis on this type of issue. We should have learned some lessons from the SARS crisis. The government must consult local specialists, farmers and other stakeholders. That should be part of the process. There must be special consideration for rare or genetic treasures and specialty birds. The compensation package should reflect that.

What about pigeons? They are very difficult to breed. The government is looking at $33 or $35 per bird according to the Health Act, but what about pigeons? They probably cost at least $65.

Therefore, we need to see what we should do about the rare or genetic birds. It may be so devastating that a whole species of a particular bird may be eradicated. It is going to cost on the environmental front as well. We need to look into this very seriously.

The other thing is the long term implication of the avian flu, which is the worst in Canadian history. The long term implication must be part of the compensation decision making process because once we depopulate a particular farm the farmers need time to re-establish, refurbish and repopulate their farms.

In fact, considering the failure of previous Liberal agriculture programs to actually deliver amounts promised to those most in need, we in the Conservative Party suggest B.C. farmers begin now to document their inventories and to encourage their industry representatives to pressure the Liberals into developing a workable program of compensation that will flow quickly and effectively to producers.

In conclusion, I would like to urge the Liberal government not to sit on its hands. It must do whatever is necessary to conserve and preserve this devastated industry at this moment. Farmers need the help of the government, whether it is in the form of tax deferrals or compensation package. Whatever it is, the government must act efficiently and effectively as soon as possible.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2004. This omnibus bill would put into law several measures in the March 2004 budget.

Last month's budget failed to deliver money for our hospitals. It did nothing to reduce spiralling tuition fees. It ignored the pressing needs of the Canadian armed forces. It neglected to put money back into the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.

Under the Liberals, spending has increased by $41 billion over the past seven years. Over the next two years spending is set to rise by another $13 billion, but almost none of the government's multibillion dollar spending will do anything to alleviate child poverty. It will not do much to improve health care, build new roads, help public transit or create jobs. Hospital waiting lines will continue to get longer. Students will continue to plunge deeper into debt. Our soldiers will be stretched as thinly as ever before.

The Liberals use weasel words like “prudence” and “accountability”, but waste and scandal more accurately describe their spending record. When the current Prime Minister was the finance minister we witnessed the billion dollar HRDC boondoggle, $100 million in GST fraud, a $1 billion cost overrun on the gun registry, the theft of $160 million from the defence department, not to mention the sponsorship scandal and the hundreds of millions of dollars given to Liberal friendly advertising agencies. Quite frankly, this is money that would be better off in the pockets of hardworking Canadians.

The aim of the equalization program is to shift resources from the have provinces to the have not provinces to ensure a reasonably similar level of service for health care and education across the country. Eight provinces receive about $10 billion annually. The amount is determined by a very complex formula which measures the ability of each province to raise revenue. B.C. receives about $440 million since it became a have not province under this government's watch.

Bill C-30 renews the equalization program for five years, to March 31, 2009. At their annual conference, all 10 premiers called on the federal government to calculate its standard for equalization by averaging the fiscal capacity of all 10 provinces.

The Liberals refused and instead unilaterally introduced their own changes for a new formula. It changes the way some revenue sources in the formula are measured, resulting in payment increases of about $265 million per year. It also introduces a three year moving average to the way the formula is calculated to smooth out year to year fluctuations in payment levels.

The budget announced a payment to the provinces of $300 million to support a national immunization strategy and $100 million to help improve public health facilities. The budget stated that this would be booked to fiscal year 2003-04 but that payment would be made over three years.

Bill C-30 also authorizes payments to a trust for these purposes but does not specify when they are to be made. Nor does the legislation specify the amounts to be paid to individual provinces.

The budget announced that a further $100 million would be provided to Canada Health Infoway Inc. While the budget said that the payment was to help the provinces invest in hardware and software for public health surveillance, Bill C-30 gave no direction as to its use. This brings the total funds advanced to the foundation to $1.2 billion, including its initial endowment of $500 million announced in September 2000 and $600 million announced in the 2003 budget.

In her April 2002 report, “Placing the Public's Money Beyond Parliament's Reach”, the Auditor General raised concerns about this foundation's accountability structure. Transferring money to funds and foundations so that it may be spent in future budget years was a popular way of doing business when the Prime Minister headed the finance department.

The Auditor General found that from 1996-97 to 2000-01 the government paid $7.1 billion through transfers to nine foundations to achieve various policy objectives of the government. The government treated the $7.1 billion in transfers to foundations as an expenditure, but as of March 31, 2001 almost the entire amount was still in the bank accounts and other investments of the foundations. Very little of it had actually been received by the ultimate intended recipients. The Auditor General concluded that “the $7.1 billion, or most of it, is not really an expenditure of the government”.

The recording of these transfers as expenditures enabled the government to report a lower annual surplus. It was hiding money. This is completely cooking the books.

I remember in the public accounts committee at that time discovering that the government was hiding money in a foundation which was not even in existence as of that date. The foundation came into existence a year later, but the government hid money to pay to that foundation which did not even exist. If a businessman were to follow this practice in his business, I would bet he would be in jail.

Why was the Prime Minister, who was the finance minister at that time, allowed to cook the books? The Auditor General took a strong step. The Auditor General refused to sign off on the government books. What the government did was completely, in my judgment, illegal and a violation of generally accepted accounting principles and should not be allowed to be done by the government.

The federal government also talked about employment insurance. The EI fund is a real scandal in Ottawa. The surplus of employment insurance overpayments has reached about $44 billion and another $3 billion surplus is expected. That surplus is not supposed to exist. This money belongs to employees and employers. The government does not need to accumulate money to the tune of a $47 billion surplus. The Auditor General and the chief actuary of the EI fund have said that it should not be more than $15 billion. The government is abusing its accounting powers and manipulating generally accepted accounting principles just to benefit the government and its Liberal friends.

On another issue, in Surrey at least 44% of what we pay for gasoline is the taxes on gasoline which the Prime Minister has been talking about. Last year the tax bite for B.C. totalled over $1.1 billion. In return the government transferred only $37 million to the province for infrastructure improvements, which is a paltry return of just over 3%. In contrast, the United States gives 95% of the money for infrastructure development projects. In Canada, it is about 3%, which is laughable. The government is carrying all that money into the general revenue, which is a complete black hole.

Discretionary spending increased a whopping 15% this budget year and the government wants overall spending to grow by another 8.8% over the next two years. Truth and transparency in fiscal policy is what we were promised, but we do not see it.

My time has expired, so in conclusion, I would like to say that the sponsorship program referred to by the environment minister's staff as a Liberal slush fund, and likely the unity fund as well, also known as the honey pot, funnelled money into Liberal ridings. We saw the same thing with the transitional jobs fund.

The rot extends far beyond a mere $100 million skimmed by a few advertising firms. It is the whole system of discretionary spending that we are concerned with that is corrupt and corrupting the system. It depletes the treasury, distorts the economy, incites envy, encourages special pleading, and rewards friends of the government.

With the tax filing deadline looming, Canadians should pay close attention to what the government is doing with their money. The Liberals are furiously spending in their bid for re-election and that is not acceptable.

[Gasoline Prices, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, gas prices rose 7¢ per litre last week and crude oil futures soared to a 14 year high. British Columbians pay some of the highest gas prices in the country. Forecasters predict $1 a litre by the summer, yet the government does nothing.

As finance minister, the Prime Minister promised his 1.5¢ per litre gas tax hike was a temporary measure to balance the books. The books are balanced, but he is still hosing us at the pumps. He is collecting $7 billion in gas taxes, with more than $1 billion coming from B.C. motorists, yet less than 3% is spent on roads and infrastructures. Now he is weaseling out of his promise to send gas tax revenues to the cities.

It is time for the tired and scandal-ridden government to eliminate the deficit fighting gasoline tax, stop charging GST on gas taxes, and dedicate more gasoline taxes to highway spending.

[Surrey Central City, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Surrey Central City, an office-retail-university complex, for winning the most prestigious award, the Special Jury Prize at the International Property Market Awards in Cannes, France. It is kind of an Oscar of the property industry.

Architect, Bing Thom, was recognized for transforming a struggling Surrey mall into a modern urban centre that is a landmark dominating the city's skyline.

Lost in the stories of grow-ops, auto theft, gang violence and homelessness in Surrey is the vibrancy of one of Canada's fastest growing cities. Construction is booming and over 800 new residents a month call Surrey home.

Known as the city of parks, it is home to North America's third largest rodeo, B.C. Hydro, Terasen, BC Biomedical Labs and TransLink, among many corporations.

Surrey, a city with heart, is a great place to live and an excellent location for business. No wonder Steve Malkowich and Gary Hollick of The Now newspaper have launched “I love Surrey” pins.

[Health, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when the government decided to compensate only the victims infected between 1986 and 1990, it claimed that earlier infections were not preventable and that nothing could have been done to protect transfusion recipients before 1986. Now we know that this travesty was preventable and there was a test, yet the government still refuses to administer justice.

Why has the Prime Minister not shown compassion for the suffering and the dying?

[Health, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to light that in 1981 the Canadian Red Cross and Health Canada knew of a test that could have prevented the transmission of hepatitis C through blood transfusions.

They chose to do nothing. As a consequence thousands of innocent Canadians, including my constituent, Allan Blumenfeld, contracted hepatitis C.

Why has the Prime Minister not done the right thing and reopened the compensation package for those infected prior to 1986?