Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter. It probably will be one of the most significant debates that we will participate in during the course of this parliament.
Quite simply, the government's position on the hepatitis C question represents a betrayal of the Liberal principles and traditions of going to bat for innocent people, of going to bat for those who are unable to go to bat for themselves, of assisting those in need in this country. Liberal principles and traditions have driven Liberal policy for many years. One of the hallmarks of the Liberal Party, I thought, was one of being a fair and compassionate party. Now the government is turning its back on innocent Canadians who have been victimized not because of their negligence or oversight but because the system failed them.
How is it that the small country of Ireland which is one-tenth the size of Canada can have such a huge heart and provide compensation for all its victims of hepatitis C? Canada is 10 times the size of Ireland. How is it that the Government of Canada can be so heartless and cruel? How is it that a Liberal government can take the position it is taking?
I sat as a Liberal member of parliament for 12 years. I was a Liberal for many years before then. I was a Liberal when Pierre Trudeau was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and when he was the prime minister of Canada. Pierre Trudeau would never have taken the position that this government has taken. Former Prime Minister John Turner would never have taken the position that this government today is taking. Prime Minister King, Prime Minister Laurier and the entire list of Liberal prime ministers from Confederation on would not have taken the cruel and heartless position that this government is taking.
Liberals have been calling me from across the country. Rank and file Liberals, small l and big L Liberals, are saying to me that they are ashamed of being members of the Liberal Party when they see their government abandoning disadvantaged Canadians. Why does this government have a heart big enough, and rightly so, to compensate victims of the ice storm in Quebec and Ontario and to compensate flood victims in Manitoba and Quebec? Why does it have the political will, the political wherewithal and the heart to help those people, and yet abandon these 40,000 people? They are not losing property or chattels. They are not unemployed. These people will lose their lives. Their lives have been shattered as a result of the negligence of the Government of Canada and its agencies.
Their families will suffer. We are not only talking about the 40,000 people who have been left out, we are talking about their families. Their hopes and aspirations have been shattered. Give them some dignity. Tell them the government cares. Tell them the government understands what they are going through.
I wonder whether any of those Liberal members across the way know of any victims or whether they have any family who were victimized because of the tainted blood scandal in this country. Perhaps if they had a family member or if they themselves were inflicted they could understand the pain and suffering that is going on out there. I do not believe this government understands the magnitude of the suffering. It is a Liberal government and that is what is most disturbing. I know that many members across the way are deeply troubled by this.
What makes matters worse is that Liberal members are being told they must vote against the motion because it is a vote of confidence. What nonsense. What a bogus position to take. What does that mean? It means those Liberal members across the way will be coerced and threatened by the whip and by the leadership of the party. They will be stripped of their responsibilities if they do not toe the party line.
That is what is wrong with politics in Canada today. Those people across the way were elected to represent their constituents, to have some compassion, to be the representatives of their ridings. Eighty-seven per cent of Canadians according to a public opinion poll agree that all hepatitis C victims should be compensated.
Those Liberal members across the way who are going to toe the party line on Tuesday should be asking themselves who they are representing. Are they representing themselves because they want to be on a particular committee or they want to be parliamentary secretaries or because they want to be cabinet ministers? Are they representing themselves or are they representing their constituents?
If they succumb to the pressure of the whip to support the government and to vote against this motion, they are not only betraying the Liberal Party and Liberal traditions, they are betraying their constituents. There will be a political price to pay. I can assure hon. members across the way of that. They know in their heart of hearts that the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, the Liberal thing to do is to compensate all innocent victims. That is what Ireland is doing.
The Minister of Health, Mr. Compassion himself, a man who would be prime minister is refusing to show some of that Liberal compassion, that Liberal understanding which has made Liberal leaders great over the course of this century and since Confederation. He uses instead weak and bogus Bay Street arguments for which he was paid a handsome sum when he was a lawyer on Bay Street. He uses bogus legal arguments in order to deny innocent victims their rightful compensation. I say shame on him.
But is it his decision? Behind the scenes Liberal members of parliament say it is really the finance minister, that he made the final decision. He is the guy that controls the purse strings. These are the people who support the Minister of Health. The supporters of the Minister of Finance say that no, the final decision was with the Minister of Health, that it was his decision.
It really does not matter because ultimately it is the Prime Minister's decision. If he wants to be remembered as his predecessors are remembered, as Mr. Trudeau is revered and honoured and remembered by Liberals and non-Liberals across the country, as are all his predecessors whom he often wishes to emulate, he would follow in the true traditions of the Liberal Party. He would open up his heart and provide compensation to all those people who are suffering.
The fact that this government is insisting it be a vote of confidence would suggest how bankrupt it is with respect to morality. If it was such a right decision, if it was the correct decision, if it was the moral decision, if it was the Liberal way of doing things, why has the government chosen to consider this or deem it a confidence motion?
If it is the right decision, members of parliament on the Liberal side would vote for it based on the merits because that is the right thing. They know that the backbenchers on the Liberal side of the House know it is the wrong thing. The only way the government can ensure Liberal members on the backbenches will vote against the motion and in favour of the government's position on the matter is by deeming it a vote of confidence, declaring it to be a vote of confidence and then threatening them like it threatened me. When I decided to vote against the budget two years ago the government said publicly in its talking points “he voted to defeat the government and on that basis he has to be removed from the Liberal caucus”.
That is the same way the government is going to deal with members of Parliament opposite. Over the course of the remainder of this day and throughout the course of the weekend the phones will be ringing. The Prime Minister's office will be tracking down MPs in their ridings right across the country. They will be told that it is a vote of confidence and if the member votes against the government's position, if the member votes against the leader, the government is going to fall, so the member had better be there to vote against that motion. That is wrong. It is immoral, it is unjust and it is unfair. As I said, it is a betrayal.
The Government of Canada, a previous government, appointed a royal commission of inquiry. The government's position challenges the integrity of the royal commission itself. Mr. Justice Horace Krever in his report indicated “Until now our treatment of the blood injured has been unequal. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot in my opinion be justified”. Let me repeat that: “Until now our treatment of the blood injured has been unequal. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot in my opinion be justified”. He is saying that the position of the Government of Canada today cannot be justified.
Justice Krever sat through many months of hearings. He heard witnesses. He looked into the eyes of suffering witnesses. He heard experts and he came up with the conclusion that to compensate some and not others cannot be justified. That is what the government is doing. It is compensating some and not others. Some 69,000 people were infected and only some 20,000 will be compensated.
When it came to other Canadians who suffered as a result of tainted blood, the HIV victims, the government did the right thing. It compensated everyone regardless of when they contracted HIV as a result of the blood system. That was the right decision. The government ought to be consistent and do the same for all hepatitis C victims.
Getting back to the Minister of Health, on April 29, 1996 he had this to say in the House: “The answer of course is that when there are resolutions as there are today involving victims rights, members of this party”—referring to the Liberal Party—“vote as they see fit. I already told the House this morning that I am going to be voting in favour of the resolution because I share the objectives expressed by the hon. member. I expect the other members of the government side will vote as they see fit”.
What absolute hypocrisy. He speaks one way on April 29, 1996 with respect to a certain group of victims in this country and now he and his government are saying that members cannot vote as they see fit. They must vote as they are told, not based on what they believe to be right in their hearts, but based on the decision taken by the government.
The position of the government today is morally wrong. As the debate intensifies, Canadians will express their position in clear and certain terms. The Prime Minister often goes abroad and talks about the Canadian way, about how Canadians have compassion, how they are understanding and how they are tolerant. This is inconsistent. The government's position is inconsistent with the so-called Canadian way.
As I indicated earlier, the government over the years has seen fit to compensate victims whether they be flood victims, ice storm victims or unemployed fishermen in Atlantic Canada. The Government of Canada has also compensated Canadians who insulated their homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Remember that? I suppose those people lost some monetary value to their homes and because of a government decision, the government felt it was morally responsible and therefore provided compensation. How does the government reconcile these decisions to compensate some and not others?
What really bothers a lot of Canadians, what really irks a lot of Canadians is that this government finds money, some $80 million, to hand over to Bombardier, one of the most profitable corporations in Canada. Yesterday it announced record profits, the most in the history of the company. People are writing their cheques as we speak to the receiver general as they complete their income tax forms leading up to the deadline. This is hard earned money made by hardworking Canadians and the Prime Minister hands over some $80 million to a profitable company. How can that be justified? How can he hand over money?
Did it contribute to the Liberal Party of Canada? Does he have some friends, family or connections on the Bombardier board? I do not know. It boggles the mind how one set of standards can be applied to wealthy business friends and another set of standards applied to poor innocent Canadians who are suffering physically.
We are not dealing with a flooded basement here. We are not dealing with property damage. We are not dealing with urea formaldehyde foam insulation in homes. We are dealing with people who will die. They will die as a result of having hepatitis C, not because of their own negligence, not because of the negligence of their doctor. Had it been negligence on the part of their doctor, at least there would be compensation through insurance plans. They are going to die. Many will suffer.
A constituent who lives in my riding has written to me. I will not quote from her letter. I spoke to her a few days ago and she knows who she is. She is on Eileen Avenue in York South—Weston. She told me the impact this has had on her family and the uncertainty it has created for her, her children and her husband, the pain and suffering they are going through.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance are okay. They will go home and sleep well. They are healthy. Their children are healthy. Their spouses are healthy. Do they know what it is like to live with the uncertainty of not knowing what the future might bring as far as their health is concerned? I think not.
I appeal to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister of Canada, in particular to the Minister of Finance. I would ask him to look in the mirror and ask himself what would Paul Martin, Sr. do on this issue if he were the Prime Minister of Canada, a position that he aspired to and a position that the Minister of Finance aspires to. What would Paul Martin, Sr. have done? I think he will find that in his heart of hearts he knows that Paul Martin, Sr. would have done the right thing. He would have compensated all innocent victims of hepatitis C.
It is not too late for this government to admit it has made a mistake, that it will do the right thing and that it will compensate all victims. It is not fair that only the victims from 1986 to 1990 will be compensated. All victims should be compensated.
