Greg Thompson

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, that question is so fundamental to this debate and so straightforward that it is almost difficult to answer because there is no answer. I would ask the Prime Minister to give his head a shake. That is simply unacceptable.

Again, let the government do the right thing and stand up and vote for this compensation package. Let us get on with doing what is right and move in the direction in which most Canadians would like to see the government move.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park. The argument comes down to exactly that. Let us do what is right and let us do it now.

My colleague used the term dithering. The government has been dithering on this ever since the Krever report was tabled in the House of Commons. We have been debating it ever since.

There is more than enough money in the fund to do exactly that. One of the bogus arguments the government initially had was that too many victims would come forward, but the number was hugely exaggerated. The fund started out with $1.2 billion, yet $1.05 billion still is left.

It is interesting to note that last year the fund earned $60 million more than what it paid out. I do not think that was invested in the market. I think it is in guaranteed interest bearing accounts. There is still a ton of money left in it.

The argument put forward by our health critic was so be it. If the Government of Canada has to spend additional moneys to compensate those innocent victims, then let it do it. It would be doing the right thing. If my math is correct and if the math of all the other actuaries to whom I have spoken is correct, the fund would more than compensate all victims.

Let us get on with the job and do it right. Let us do it on Wednesday night when we vote in the House.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay a compliment to my colleague from Winnipeg, our health critic, who brought this motion forward.

This has been around the House, as members well know, a long time. In fact, it predates many of us in this place. It basically goes back to the 1980s when Canadians were subjected to plasma infected with hepatitis C from blood that was received from places like, for example, prisons in the United States and Canada, and developing countries where there are no safeguards. As a result of that, many Canadians were infected with that very debilitating and often fatal disease.

The government then appointed Justice Krever to look into how this could occur in a country like Canada. How could we have a tainted blood scandal, if you will? Justice Krever uncovered a pattern of gross negligence and criminality, not only involving the Red Cross but Ottawa itself in terms of the handling of our blood supply.

After a number of years of investigation hearings across the country, Justice Krever concluded that all victims of hepatitis C as a result of that tainted blood should be compensated. Most Canadians agreed with Justice Krever. Everyone on this side of the House agreed with Justice Krever and many people on the other side of the House, that is the government of the day, the Liberal government, agreed as well that all victims should be compensated.

Unfortunately, and this is really why we are still debating this after so many years, not all those victims are being compensated. Only victims between 1986 and 1990 are being compensated. That is simply an artificial time period that the government threw up for convenience because it simply did not want to spend the money to compensate innocent victims of a tainted blood scandal.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley.

The government had an opportunity back in 1997, when Krever reported, to do what was right, that every Canadian considered was the right thing to do: compensate these innocent victims. It did not. It only compensated those between 1986 and 1990. If a person's date of infection resulted outside of that time span, he or she was simply out of luck, according to the government.

On this side of the House, as health critic for our party at that time, I take a lot of pride in being the first to stand in the House and demand from the government that all victims should be compensated. I was part of that very strong debate coming from this side of the House and really putting the wood to the government on that issue with the help of a lot of my colleagues. At that time, as members well know, we did not have a united Conservative Party. My colleague from the Reform Party at that time, Dr. Grant Hill, was another member of the House who led the fight to do exactly what we are speaking of, and that is to compensate all victims.

What do we know about what the government has done? We know that it did agree on a $1.2 billion package between federal and provincial governments to compensate those victims in the timeframe of which it speaks.

The government at the time was exaggerating the number of claimants who would come forward. That is its excuse for not compensating all victims. This we do know, that since the fund was set up, the $1.2 billion fund, there is still $1.05 billion left in the fund. In other words, more than enough money to compensate all the victims, not just some but all the victims.

What is so sad about this story is that we do know that the government lawyers have received $70 million out of the fund. They are the same people to whom the government is now listening. They are saying not to compensate all the victims.

My argument would be that the lawyers are looking after themselves very nicely, thanks very much. That is the same legal argument that the government always falls down on when it comes to defending its original position to compensate some, but not all. It is a bogus argument. It will not withstand scrutiny and close examination.

In fact, the Auditor General does not have the power nor the authority, nor does Parliament, to go in and peek behind the curtains in terms of how that fund is being administered. That is another example of how sad this regime is that the present government has set up. The government members all stood up in this House and voted for that, leaving people outside the package.

In fact, we have some members of cabinet presently in this room and listening to me speak who were forced by the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Chrétien, to stand in their place and vote down compensation for all members. It was a motion that came from this side of the House, brought forward by Dr. Grant Hill, to do the very thing that Canadians are saying would be the fair thing to do.

The Liberals are running out of excuses. It is as simple as that. The clock is ticking. Some of these people will actually go to their graves without having received a nickel of compensation from the Government of Canada for a disease inflected on them through no fault of their own. It does not get any worse than that. It is totally unacceptable.

I know families that are basically on the verge of bankruptcy because they were left outside of the artificial time limit that the Liberal government conveniently put in place. That is just fundamentally wrong, but that is how basic this argument is. It is about an artificial time line imposed by the Liberal Government of Canada on some unfortunate Canadians.

I often use this as an example. If a person were infected on December 31, 1985, that person would be outside the package. If the person were infected, for example, on January 1, 1986, that person would be inside. Does that make any sense? None at all and government members opposite know that.

What is annoying and what annoys a lot of Canadians is that they are forced to stand in their place by a Prime Minister to support the government position, knowing full well that they are doing the wrong thing. What does that say about this present Prime Minister and his battle to knock down the democratic deficit, or to do something about it to make this place democratic, so that members of his own government can stand in their place and do the right thing?

Nothing has changed. The present Prime Minister is no better than Mr. Chrétien who imposed the same set of rules on his members at the time. The same crowd, the same group of members on Wednesday evening when we vote on this, will stand in their place and deny the opportunity for these people to be treated fairly, the way that most Canadians would expect to be treated when there is a level of incompetence and, in fact, criminality taking place. Most of us would expect those people to be compensated by the government of the day.

That is what this motion demands. It has nothing to do with the arguments that we are hearing from the other side. Those are simply bogus arguments.

When we see Liberals standing up and pushing back on an issue like this, it tells us that there is something fundamentally wrong with them and in the way they deliver government to Canadians. It talks of their incompetence. It talks of their arrogance and it talks about their basic uncaring, when a government does that to its very members that were democratically elected to do the right thing in this place.

I suggest that all members in this House do the right thing on Wednesday night by standing up and demanding fair compensation for all the victims of hepatitis C. Do what Justice Krever said should be done. Let us follow Krever and do the right thing and compensate all victims. That is the challenge to the government.

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from the citizens of Charlotte County, New Brunswick, who are opposed to the construction of an LNG terminal in Eastport, Maine, U.S.A.

The petitioners suggest that the Government of Canada should take the same position it took about 30 years ago when it opposed and would not allow the transport of dangerous materials through Head Harbour Passage. At that time, a U.S. firm was considering building an oil refinery in the same area as the LNG project is proposed today.

These citizens naturally have concerns about the environment. It is a very dangerous passage. As Canadians, they do not want to allow those dangerous ships through those waters, which would put at risk their fisheries, their marine life and their tourism. It would have a huge hit on the environment and their way of life in that area.

These petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take strong action and say no to the transport of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage.

[Heart and Stroke Foundation, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, February is heart and stroke month. The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada report card for 2005 issues a wake-up call for all Canadians.

Cardiovascular disease accounts for the death of more Canadians than any other disease. In fact, this year over 80,000 Canadians will die. Thirty-five per cent of all male deaths in Canada are due to heart diseases. For women the toll is even higher. Thirty-eight per cent of all female deaths in Canada will be due to cardiovascular disease this year.

Most of us know someone, family or friend, who has experienced firsthand the devastation of heart disease or stroke. One in four, or approximately eight million Canadians, have some form of heart or blood vessel disease or are at risk of a stroke.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada urges all Canadians to make a concentrated effort to live a healthy lifestyle and reduce those sobering statistics.

[Question No. 26, February 18th, 2005]

With regard to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, what is the detailed breakdown of the projects it has funded for the Atlantic Innovation Fund Program, the Business Development Program, the Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Program, the Strategic Community Investment Fund Program, and the Entrepreneurship and Business Skills Development Partnership Program, from October 1, 2000, to October 25, 2004, including: ( a ) the name, address and type of the recipient business, post-secondary institution, research institute or community; ( b ) a complete description of each project; ( c ) the date(s) and amounts of the financial contribution(s); ( d ) whether each entity funded started to repay its financial contribution(s); ( e ) the name and constituency of the Member of Parliament or Minister who signed off on each project; and ( f ) whether the entity funded is still in business?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 28, January 31st, 2005]

Has the government been approached to allow the passage of vessels carrying liquid natural gas through the waters of Head Harbour Passage, and if so: ( a ) when, and by what company or companies; and ( b ) what was the government’s response?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 30, January 31st, 2005]

Regarding the wooden structure to the north of the Justice Building: ( a ) is this building the last of the “temporary buildings” constructed during World War II; ( b ) does the government consider this building to be of architectural or historical significance; and ( c ) does the government plan to preserve the building and, if so, what actions does it intend to take to save this structure?

[Question No. 29, January 31st, 2005]

Regarding the fisheries license buyout program whereby the Department of Fisheries and Oceans purchases fishing licences, boats, gear and training from non-aboriginals in the Fundy region, for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, up to and including September 30: ( a ) did the government hire consultants to facilitate this program; ( b ) what are the names of the individual consultants, their firms and the amounts they were paid?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31, I have the honour, on behalf of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group, to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports.

The first is a report on the Canadian delegation to the agricultural tour for U.S. congressional staffers held in Calgary, Alberta, from September 21 to 23, 2004.

The second is a report of the Canadian delegation to the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce Atlantica Prosperity meeting held in Bangor, Maine, from September 30 to October 1, 2004.