Mr. Speaker, Question No. 33 will be answered today. .[Text]
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper May 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Question No. 33 will be answered today. .[Text]
Government Response To Petitions May 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Supply May 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should not forget is that the decision the government announced was the collective view of all the health ministers of all political colours. That fact cannot be escaped from.
From 1986 to 1990 it is my understanding that at the time, the position taken by all the provinces including those headed by Tory premiers was that throughout the compensation negotiations, compensation should be open only to victims who became infected through government inaction.
While the hon. member will be pleased to see progress, I should remind him that the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul took up this issue as early as in 1990. At the time the Tory government did not move on the issue, although I must compliment it on the HIV compensation, which I also presented to the then Minister of Health in the Tory government.
We have to recognize that the current Minister of Health was the first to advance the idea of compensation for patients with hepatitis C from the system. He has succeeded certainly to a great extent. Certainly we have to address those people who have taken ill with hepatitis C even before 1986.
The ministers of health from across the country will be meeting. Let us give them an opportunity to discuss the new plan. Hopefully it will address the very issues we all would like to have addressed, that is, to show that we look after those victims in a compassionate fashion.
Supply May 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a very simple question. Out of respect for his position as Leader of the Opposition of Her Royal Majesty and at the same time out of humility, can the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge once and for all and say the right thing, that it was this Minister of Health who advanced this issue of compensation for the victims of hepatitis C in Canada by convening the ministers of health across the country to the table?
Supply May 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her presentation on this issue. I would like to indicate and reiterate for the record that indeed the Minister of Health did indicate yesterday during question period that “Today's development is a new one. The ground has moved and an important partner has changed its position”, referring of course to the province of Ontario, a major province of our Confederation.
I was not present for the earlier part of the debate, but I am sure we all share the point of view that this government is known for its compassion. I think the hon. member would agree that had it not been for the federal Minister of Health the issue of compensation for hepatitis C patients would not have advanced.
In 1990 I started speaking on the issue of HIV infection and certainly this has been a preoccupation of this government.
I agree this is a non-partisan issue. It is an issue that calls on good public policy and policy that is imbued with reasonableness and compassion at all times. We have to put this together. The challenge for us now is how to creatively approach this issue.
With respect to the motion before us, I certainly would agree to a consultation with and the involvement of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada. I have consulted with my constituents. Patients have called me. When I explained to them the position of the government I must say, without hesitation, that they agreed with the position the government has taken.
I assured these individuals that we have not abandoned the other patients with hepatitis C. In fact we have taken an approach of compassion for all of them, contrary to the Reform member who only alluded to the victims infected from 1981 on. When we say all, we have to speak of all.
I would like to say that I am prepared—and I cannot speak for the government—to work in a very non-partisan fashion as we approach this very delicate issue to address in a creative way the needs of patients with hepatitis C, even those who were infected before 1986. We will have to approach this in a very creative, non-partisan and careful way.
Depository Bills And Notes Act April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to reply to the question.
Let me start by saying that the federal government, along with the provincial and territorial governments, offered $1.1 billion to compensate the patients for whom the disease could have been avoided from 1986 to 1990.
This was a decision arrived at by all provincial governments including the two NDP governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan. It is not a package that was given without careful and thoughtful consideration for the victims of hepatitis C for whom the disease could have been avoided.
If we extend the package to those in the absence of fault, we ought to extend the compensation as well for all kinds of diseases as a consequence of injury from blood, not only hepatitis C but even allergies or even shock from blood transfusions.
The hon. member who raised the question has not told the House that she has approached the NDP premiers of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Neither has she told the House that she has approached the health ministers of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, her own NDP counterparts.
If the federal NDP member has a commitment to change the package announced by the government, why has she not informed the House that she has already spoken to those NDP premiers and NDP governments?
The NDP minister of health in Saskatchewan has said that those who use this issue for the point alone as indicated by the NDP member are using political opportunism.
Supply April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent in the interests of fairness and justice. Since they alluded to my name, Mr. Speaker, can they provide me with a two-minute response to their questions?
Supply April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you not find it more in order that the person alluded to in the question is the person to respond?
Supply April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a very sensitive issue like this, I was told in high school that in the rules of debate when you become personal you have lost the argument.
Supply April 23rd, 1998
Madam Speaker, if the member was listening he would have understood that I was answering the question pointedly. The question can be answered pointedly in the context of the greater whole. We cannot be simplistic in medicine. I understand his difficulty, but unfortunately the member was trying to be simplistic in his approach. Life is not a simple entity.