House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 56% of the vote.
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
First, Mr. Speaker, it is accepted by most commentators who know the history of this file that it was in 1986 that Canada ought to have adopted testing procedures. I rely, among others, on the Krever report in that connection.
The hon. member refers to 1981. Is he now arguing against his colleagues by suggesting compensation should only go to 1981 and not before that? The Reform Party should decide on one approach to this issue because it is contradicting itself.
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I made the point that in the HIV example of 10 years ago the government proceeded on the same principle. It looked at what happened. It found that government should have been more vigilant, should have put surveillance systems in place, should have been more keenly aware of what was going on in Europe and other countries, and did not.
On the basis of that, compensation was offered. We are using the same principle in this case. It is a sound principle. It is a principle accepted by every government in this country.
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Speaker, because in our analysis carried out by every government in Canada when we looked at the history of this matter as sketched out in the Krever report and elsewhere, it was clear that in the period 1986 to 1990 something could have been done to manage the risks. Something should have been done to prevent the infections and it was not.
In those circumstances all the governments of Canada agreed that is the appropriate basis on which the public should offer compensation to those who were harmed.
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, there is sound reason for the approach taken by the governments of Canada in dealing with this difficult issue.
I refer the hon. member, for example, to the writing this week of Professor Bernard Dickens of the medical law and ethics faculty of the University of Toronto. He wrote at length an analysis that was published in the popular press about the proper role of government when it comes to a tragedy like this and the distinction between paying compensation based on accepting responsibility and going beyond that and the implications for the health care system.
I urge the member to think through the position he is expressing and its possible consequence for health care in Canada.
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the member is simply wrong. If her reference is to Premier Clark, I assume Premier Clark has by now spoken to his minister of health with whom I spoke yesterday and has been reminded that the British Columbia government was at the table, part of the discussions, part of the agreement, and stands solidly with the rest of the governments of the country behind this agreement.
As to responsibility, we did take responsibility as those responsible in government. We considered a difficult matter. We came to a conclusion as to the appropriate response. We announced that decision and we have explained the principles behind it. That is the responsibility of public officials.
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is woefully misinformed. Next Monday, Clay Serby, minister of health for the NDP government in Saskatchewan who this year is the chair of provincial ministers, will co-ordinate a conference call among provincial ministers of health to talk about the membership of the board of directors and other details for the creation of the new blood service.
The ministers of health of the governments of the country, all governments of all political stripes, believe strongly that we have an appropriate and a justified approach to the compensation issue. They are solidly behind this deal. The hon. member should not cruelly raise—
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, every provincial government stands solidly behind this agreement. Every provincial government respects the agreement that they themselves negotiated, including British Columbia and Quebec. Every province and both territories stand solidly with the agreement that they negotiated.
Last Friday we sat opposite victims, looked them in the eye and told them, as we believed, this was the right approach to the issue.
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that in the course of the past several months I have met with many victims of the tainted blood tragedy, spoke to them directly, spoke to them about the approach being taken toward compensation and personally explained to those victims, as I have in the House of Commons, the reason for the approach taken by all governments in the country toward the issue of compensation.
I explained to them that as the ministers of health looked at the history of these tragic events they found there was a period between 1986 and 1990 when governments could and should have acted and did not, and that is the basis on which compensation is being offered.
Hepatitis C April 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, all governments in the country that worked together on this difficult problem kept their eye on the goal of doing the right thing in accordance with sound public policy. All governments, all ministers of health, worked together toward showing compassion as the Deputy Prime Minister has said.
We have now created an offer of $1.1 billion for the direct benefit of over 22,000 victims of this tragedy. That, in the judgment of every government in the country of every political stripe, is the appropriate response to this tragedy.
Hepatitis C April 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the member may have heard me say all week, since Monday when this issue was first raised in the House, that what governments did, not just the federal government but provincial governments from one side of this country to the other, was to look at the history of this matter. We asked the tough question: Where is the point at which governments and the public, in essence, should accept responsibility?
We found that there was a four year period during which something could and should have been done. That is what all governments agreed upon as the appropriate place for government to act.