Grant Hill

[Hepatitis C, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the file is still open and I think the noose is tightening.

The truth of the matter is the government in the seventies and eighties had access to that information. When Judge Krever asked for the documents to show what the cabinet said about this, what did it do? It closed the file. It would not let anybody see it.

Is not the reason that those files were closed is that the Liberal government cares more about its own than about victims?

[Hepatitis C, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the documents are a real potent reminder of what exactly this government did.

The regulators ignored reports in the New England Journal of Medicine , a prestigious medical journal. They also ignored what other countries were doing. They grossly underestimated the numbers of people infected.

This Liberal government shirked its responsibility in those days. Why is it shirking that responsibility today?

[Hepatitis C, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, newspapers across the country are publishing government documents that show clearly that from the seventies and the eighties the Liberal government knew and did not act on the tainted blood issue. It had information that could have prevented this tragedy.

Is the real reason this government will not go back and compensate before 1986 because the Prime Minister was a member of the cabinet that could have prevented this tragedy?

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again I defer to your wisdom and judgment on these matters, as I recognize your profound experience in the rules and practices and regulations of the House. It would be very unwise of me to try to argue such points.

I will go back to the point that I was trying to make before, the undemocratic nature of Bill C-19. Members opposite have some difficulty understanding this principle. I was trying to point out when one has not been democratic in one's own affairs it is difficult to be democratic in the affairs of others.

It is very important to have balance in labour laws. This sort of balance is what Reformers seek. We would like management and workers to have the proper balance. We think it can be improved. We have made amendments to do so. I would ask my colleagues to consider the amendments we have put forward with care and with sincerity.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that timely reminder.

The issue is democracy, voting for constituent wishes and, in terms of the union here, looking at how union members could be so far off base as to be certified when there are only 35% voting for a union.

It is a sad commentary that this legislation is coming from a government that has not acted in a democratic way.

I was asked a piercing question by a journalist today as to how this issue of democracy in the House could have got so far away from where the government should be, a government of compassion, a government of kindness and a government of sincerity. I could not answer.

There were four or five opportunities for the government to change its mind on the non-democratic position it took. I could list the opportunities. The latest one is where the provinces, which had a stand that was supposedly unified, broke ranks. What a perfect opportunity for the Prime Minister to simply say they had made a mistake, that they would listen now reflecting on that error and go back to the drawing board.

Instead the government dug in its heels and became aggressive and belligerent on behalf of a position it took, a position I am convinced most Canadians know is wrong.

How does the government get out of a position when it has been non-democratic? It is really quite tough. How does an individual go back to their constituents and say “when we talked before the vote I promised you that I would not vote for this package and I changed my mind”? I guess the cartoon that says spineless really says a lot.

There are members opposite who, I am absolutely convinced when they go to public events over the next few months and answer the questions of their constituents, will have trouble explaining to them why they went that route. I feel sorry for them. I feel in my heart that they did not want to do that. I guess they can find some excuse to say to an individual with hepatitis C, but frankly it is difficult for me to explain. I could not explain it to the journalist. Maybe they could.

Mr. Speaker, I see you getting ready with Beauchesne's. I presume that means I should be moving into another area.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak on the amendments to this bill and so I think it is a choice opportunity.

Labour laws in Canada are trying to strike a balance between the rights of management and the rights of workers. That balance is a balance that I think we all look for and all strive for. I am not sure that the correct balance has been struck in this bill and I would like to bring forth a few examples as to how I think it could be improved.

We are speaking on the second group of amendments. The whole idea of balance is so that the workers will have a safe, secure environment, which is very important. I had lots to do in my previous life with employment problems and non-safe working conditions. I think the unions had a good part to play in making workplaces safer. I endorse the work unions have done in that area.

Looking back through history I have found evidence where workers were not paid properly. I am convinced that the unions have had an excellent record in terms of getting fair wages for their individual workers.

As long as the balance is there and not tipped in favour of the unions, I think we have the best of both worlds in Canada. I look to other countries and their experiences and share some of the comments of the member from Juan de Fuca who talked about Britain and New Zealand as classical examples where the balance was tipped.

It is interesting to me that when the balance became so tipped Britain had the lead in national health care. It had a system that was completely and totally socialized. In Britain, as these things often work, the health care system deteriorated. Most people know now that Britain has both a private and a public system. Which groups were the first ones to speak out loudly for the private system when the public system failed them? It was the unions. They sought private health care for their workers instead of the public system where the waiting time was long.

The unions got together and thought the national health system was the answer for all the problems and then ended up pushing for a private system, an experience that is quite interesting and quite unique. I digress a little, however, from the actual topic here.

This grouping of amendments deals with the democratic process when it relates to union activity, a democratic process where it does not look fair to me for 35% of the workers to vote for a union and for the labour board to decide that the union should well be certified. It reminds me of a dictatorial process. We saw such a process not so long ago in this House.

I wonder if members opposite would reflect on the forced vote on hepatitis C a few days ago. It generated media interest that was intense. If the Prime Minister had not done that maybe the story would not have been so vigorous.

I saw what I consider to be the harshest cartoon I have ever seen in a political arena relating to this. It showed on one side a victim of hepatitis and asked how do you recognize a victim of hepatitis C. It also detailed the sad things these victims have, yellow skin, jaundice, swollen liver and fatigue. On the other side of the panel it asked how do you recognize a Liberal backbencher. It drew a person in a business suit and labelled them. The labels were devastating, two faced, no heart, spineless, gutless.

They were placed in the position of being called all those things. Individual members I had talked to and knew did not want to vote that way sincerely and humbly were forced to vote against their conscience. I consider that action to have—

[Hepatitis C, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the victims over and over again say that they are not answering this simple question. I do not know how many times we have to ask it.

Surely when you go to a negotiation you go there with a position. All we are asking is what is the position of the government as it goes to this important meeting on hepatitis C.

Is it going there sulking with its heels dug in, or is it going there in an open spirit of co-operation? For the victims' sake, will the government compensate pre-1986 victims? Yes or no.

[Hepatitis C, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing for me is that the victims watch these proceedings. They watch these antics. They are not interested in politics. They are not interested in pettiness. They are not interested in name calling.

What they want to know, and I get to be their voice, is what is the position of the Prime Minister as they go to this meeting. Is he ready to compensate the victims of hepatitis C from tainted blood? Yes or no. Will he or will he not?

[Hepatitis C, May 6th, 1998]

All we ask is that they remember what this is all about, and it is all about the victims. For the sake of the victims pre-1986, will the Prime Minister say if he is willing to go there to negotiate on behalf of those victims, or is he to go there and say “absolutely no way?”

[Hepatitis C, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the saddest thing about all this is that they seem to have forgotten what this is all about. This is all about—