John Nunziata

[Division No. 139, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will support Motions Nos. 10 and 11. With respect to the remaining motions I will vote as I voted on the original motion.

[Division No. 138, May 12th, 1998]

I will be voting yes to this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will cast my vote in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but chuckle when the hon. member puffed out his chest and said he was not whipped, he did the right thing. Let him go back to his constituency in Ontario and I will challenge him to a public debate in his riding.

Who was he representing when he stood up and he turned his back on the sick and the dying in this country? Who was he representing? The reality is he was just propping up his Minister of Health.

He stands up and says that had it not been for the Minister of Health, earlier referred to by one of his colleagues as his hero, there would not have been money on the table. He knows that the only reason the federal government ponied up money was the Minister of Health had a legal opinion that said if we do not compensate those victims between 1986 and 1990, we will be forced to do so by the courts.

That is the reality and I wish the hon. member would stop talking from his talking points and start looking at the reality. He knows the reality is that the only reason the money was there was legal liability. It was not compensation based on compassion. The minister was looking at legal liability and damages and what he tried to do was contain the damage. But having said that, he inflicted political damage on himself.

Only because the Conservative premier in the province of Ontario has agreed to come forward with an additional $200 million, now the minister and the member have had to swallow themselves whole.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians still do not understand how the federal government and the provincial governments arrived at $1.1. billion. There is a huge discrepancy in terms of the actual numbers of victims. Somehow the federal government ended up putting $800 million on the table and the provinces $300 million. We do not know on what basis that formula was arrived at. I remind the House that there is only one taxpayer in this country, Canadians from coast to coast. They pay their taxes both to the provincial government and the federal government. Canadians have made it clear they want all victims compensated.

In light of the significant development yesterday where the premier of Ontario agreed to inject an additional $200 million into the compensation package, would the hon. member agree that in order to maintain any semblance of credibility the federal government has to come to the meeting not just with an open mind, not just with an open heart but also with an open wallet given the excellent fiscal situation the federal government finds itself in? It tends to boast every day about how well—

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary indicated that consultations have taken place. This is the first I am hearing about it. On that basis at this moment I am not prepared to give my consent.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member agree that this meeting of the health ministers that is about to take place ought to take place in a public fashion as opposed to the health ministers getting together behind closed doors? Does he not agree that Canadians and in particular victims of hepatitis C have a right to see who is showing true leadership, who in fact has genuine compassion when it comes to assisting those that are sick and disabled?

I am pleased that it appears the motion put forward by his colleague will carry later on this afternoon. It appears that the Liberal government will be supporting the motion. Would the hon. member go one step further and agree that the meeting should be open to the media so that all Canadians can see exactly what is happening?

Can the hon. member explain how in the first place $1.1 billion was put on the table? What mathematical calculation was used? How was $1.1 billion arrived at? Is it simply that amount divided by 22,000 or can he explain? Is there any explanation as to how that amount was arrived at in the first place?

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the debate today and to question period and I have yet to hear from any government member or from the minister whether they accept the fact that all those who contracted hepatitis C because of the blood system will be compensated.

If that is not the position of the Government of Canada, and it seems to me that it ought to be a prerequisite to attending any meeting of ministers, then why is it attending the meeting? Why is the Minister of Health agreeing to go to the meeting? Does he intend to go to the meeting with cap in hand?

Mike Harris, the premier of the province of Ontario, was challenged to put up or shut up. He put up, up to $200 million. I suppose it is now up to the Prime Minister to put up or shut up. How much more money is the Government of Canada prepared to put into the package?

It keeps boasting about the $800 million that it has already put into the package. We all know the reason the federal government agreed to pony up $800 million. It is not because of a sense of compassion for the victims, it is because of legal liability. That was very clear listening to the Minister of Health, given his Bay Street background. He was not writing the cheque because of compassion, he was writing the cheque because he knew that if the money was not put on the table the courts would have found in favour of the plaintiffs and the government would have been required to put up the money.

Would the hon. member, for whom I have considerable respect, agree that the time has come to accept the principle that all those who contracted hepatitis C because of the blood system, through no fault of their own, ought to be compensated?

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it would be inappropriate to talk about what happens in caucus. However, in view of the fact that I am no longer in that caucus, I would be more than happy to suggest what took place. This is information that is filtered out to the media and others.

Certainly there were members who were led to believe that the compensation package would be extended to all those who contracted hepatitis C as a result of the blood system. On that basis they voted with the government. They toed the party line and did as they were told. However, much to their chagrin, 24 hours later the Minister of Health declared that the file was closed. Yesterday he declared, honest to God, the file is closed. What an awful, callous, cold-hearted way of dealing with innocent victims who are sick and dying.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I submit that it would be very difficult for the health minister to have any credibility whatsoever in attending these meetings.

He has stated that the file is closed. He has repeated day after day the arguments that the floodgates would open and that it would bankrupt the health care system in the country. How could he conceivably attend a meeting of first ministers and have any credibility whatsoever after having stated those positions not only in the House of Commons but across the country?

If there is to be any integrity to the process that is about to take place, first the process should be open so that all Canadians can see what is happening and, second, the current health minister ought not to be a participant at those hearings.