Greg Thompson

[Nunavut Act, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am on the hepatitis C issue again. It goes back to the original compensation package that was announced by the government some months ago.

Many of us are concerned about the package because it only includes those innocent victims from the years 1986 to 1990. I think that most Canadians expect more than that for a number of reasons. We have to realize that these are innocent victims of a tainted blood supply.

Going back to the original Krever inquiry and the report of Justice Krever, he states that all victims should be compensated regardless of the years when they were infected. That is only fair.

As I have mentioned in this House time and time again, Canada by far is the number one country in the world. We are rated as the best country in the world by the United Nations. We are a very fair and a very generous country. Most Canadians want to see that fairness and generosity expressed in that compensation package.

We have had some pretty heated discussions in this House on that compensation package. Up to now those victims prior to 1986 are not being compensated. We do not have any consideration being given to those victims after 1990. We are talking I suppose conservatively about a group of people which could be less than 20,000. The government has led us to believe that the number could be over 60,000.

Unfortunately, the government cannot substantiate that number. One would ask why it would use a number that cannot be substantiated. I think the reason the government did that is that it might go beyond the government's capacity to pay if the number was large enough. That is the sort of convoluted logic in my way of thinking. That is why the hepatitis C association tells us that yes, the government officials inflated the number making it appear as if it was beyond the capacity of the government to pay compensation to those victims. The number is far less than that. Some experts put the number down as low as 8,000 to 12,000 yet to be compensated.

The good news out of all of this to this point, if there is any good news at all, if there is a little comfort we can take in what has happened is that the provinces and the federal government are back at the negotiating table. They are back today as we speak.

I think there is a glimmer of hope that the federal government might come up with something for those victims left outside the package. At the end of the day, it is not the provinces, it is not the provincial health ministers that are responsible for the safety of Canada's blood supply system. Members know that the buck stops at the doorstep of the federal health minister. The federal health minister himself is responsible for the safety of Canada's blood supply system. He is back at the bargaining table with the provinces today.

I am hopeful that a package will be arrived at. We are looking for generosity on the part of the federal government on behalf of the Prime Minister and his government and we are hoping that is what happens in the next couple of days. We are hopeful that that will happen. What we want to see is simply compensation for all those innocent victims of a tainted blood supply system regardless of when they were infected.

[Conditional Sentencing, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak on the hepatitis C compensation package.

The position the government has taken on this package to compensate hepatitis C victims is untenable. It is untenable simply because it leaves too many innocent victims out.

The compensation package as supported by Ottawa, by the federal government, compensates only those victims between 1986 and 1990. That is wrong. I am glad and I am sure all members of the House are to see that these victims are being compensated. The tragedy in that package is that the victims prior to 1986 are not being compensated, nor are the innocent victims after 1990. What I am telling the House is that position is untenable and the Canadian people are making that known from coast to coast.

Canada is a pretty generous country. We are ranked number one in the world by the United Nations. There is no way the Canadian people are going to allow a package that screens out, that discriminates between innocent victims. They want all victims compensated.

The Prime Minister presented a new twist to the compensation package the other day. I am reading directly from the Ottawa Citizen , today's edition, the Prime Minister talking about the compensation package. He is linking drug abusers and AIDS victims into the package. The Prime Minister stated:

What about those who have used needles, who are those who have a problem with...transmitted by sex, and after that, the others?

The Prime Minister does not get the message. We are talking about innocent victims who received tainted blood through our health system. There is something wrong when that happens. I think all of us agree on that. When the Prime Minister clouds the issue there is something wrong with his thinking. What we are talking about is compensation for innocent victims.

We need some movement on this file by the health minister. I have been asking him since the Krever report was released back in November 1997 to act unilaterally, to act alone, as a federal government should, on this issue. At the end of the day we have only one federal health minister and he and no one else is responsible. He is solely responsible for the safety of Canada's blood supply system. It is as simple as that.

We are asking for compensation for all the victims of hepatitis C outside that package already announced. We want the victims prior to 1986 covered and we want all victims after 1990 covered.

[Division No. 178, May 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that I will have a little time tonight to continue my crusade on the hepatitis C story. I do not have to remind the House that it is a very heart wrenching story. Many thousands of Canadians are waiting to find out whether they are going to be compensated. The only compensation package the federal government has agreed to is for the innocent victims between the years 1986 and 1990.

We on this side of the House and some of the members from the Liberal caucus believe that all victims of hepatitis C should be compensated. A group of people who through no fault of their own were infected by tainted blood prior to 1986. They will receive no compensation. There are also victims on the other side of that date. We often talk about the pre-1986 victims but there are also victims who were infected through no fault of their own after 1990. A constituent of mine has been reminding me of that. We often talk in this House of the pre-1986 victims but there are many victims who were infected after 1990.

We are talking about fairness in the compensation package. Canada has been selected by the United Nations as the number one country in the world. I think Canada is more generous than that in terms of what the government is offering. We have the capacity and the financial wherewithal to compensate all victims of hepatitis C. I remind the government that we have to do something for those victims.

When we look at what we have been reading lately in the newspapers, many of us are still pretty distressed by what we are hearing from the government. I was pleased today when I asked that question of the health minister. He is not going to tie assistance and research monies into other areas of legitimate health concern in this country as was reported by one of our national television networks over the weekend. It reported that the government might withhold funding for breast cancer research and funding for the AIDS strategy. That is not the case at all. The health minister told me today there will be no change in the funding of those two areas and other areas.

We are looking for more generosity on the part of the Minister of Health. We have gone after him pretty rigorously in the House and we have to continue to keep the heat on the minister. We know there has been some progress on behalf of some of the provinces. We are looking for a compensation package for all those victims outside the prescribed area of 1986 to 1990. We want victims before and after compensated.

[Health, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that and I appreciate that coming from the minister.

The question today, and we have been pounding away on this for weeks and weeks, concerns compensation for those hepatitis C victims before and after the years 1986 to 1990.

I ask the minister, where are those negotiations leading? Has the minister accepted the fact that all victims should be compensated?

[Health, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is understood that the Minister of Health has had trouble with the concept of compensation for all hepatitis C victims.

It is reported, and I stress the word reported, that the health minister has frozen all new funding for breast cancer research and AIDS treatment. He is saying that he is doing this pending the outcome of the hepatitis C compensation package.

I want some clarification. Is this in fact the minister's position? If it is not his position, what is his position?

[Canadian Nurses, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians are paying tribute to our Canadian nurses. These dedicated professionals are the backbone of our health care system. With compassion and wisdom they care for us when we cannot care for ourselves.

The Canadian Nurses Association, 110,000 members strong, continues to promote its profession and share its vision for the future of Canadian health care. They are fighters for a health care system that ensures Canadians have the highest standards of health care.

The theme for this week's events is “Nursing is the Key” and marks the 90th anniversary of the association. Today is also Florence Nightingale's birthday and Canada Health Day.

Congratulations to Canadian nurses for a job well done.

A recent poll listed the most appreciated and trusted professions. Guess who topped the list? Yes, that is right, Canada's nurses.

[Privilege, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in question period today I referred to a reply given by the Prime Minister yesterday in response to a question on page 6597 of Hansard . In that reply he said “there should be in the statement further compensation for the pre-1986 victims”.

Apparently there was a lot of pressure by the PMO to change that statement in Hansard . I am trying to find out from the government whether the Prime Minister is willing to live by those words. It would mean a great deal to all—

[Hepatitis C, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister in response to a question by the member for Macleod was talking about the provincial minister's statement last week with regard to the upcoming meeting on the hepatitis C compensation package. I am quoting from page 6597 of Hansard . The Prime Minister said “they all said”—referring to the ministers—“that there should be in the statement further compensation for the pre-1986 victims”.

Does the Prime Minister live by those words? Is that a change in position or just more confusion on the part—

[Holidays Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to put a few more words on record with regard to the hepatitis C package.

We know the federal, provincial and territorial health ministers are to meet next week to re-examine the package. We know the package is flawed. The government is very arbitrarily leaving innocent victims in an strict and totally artificial timeframe from 1986 to 1990 outside the package. I believe we have to compensate all victims.

The point I want to make this evening is simply in response to what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health said today. I am a bit concerned because I do not think they have learned anything from the debate that has taken place and the displeasure expressed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast for the package as it presently exists.

They are basically saying that they will not change anything. If one listens to today's language of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, that is exactly what they are saying. Why are they to meet with the health ministers if they are to stick to the original package? What is to be accomplished by that type of stance?

The Prime Minister today tried to twist the words of the premier of the province of Ontario and his recognition of the problem. What I have in my hand is the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister yesterday by the Premier of Ontario.

I want to quote from the second paragraph of the letter. The Premier of Ontario, Premier Harris, states “Ontario is committed to sharing assistance for pre-1986 victims on the same basis as the existing package for those infected between 1986 and 1990”. How much plainer can you be than that? The Prime Minister today stood in the House and tried to twist the words of the premier, but those words are on paper.

What I am saying is that I think he has taken the most reasonable approach that we could possibly take. He is committing dollars to innocent victims left outside the package. The Prime Minister is denying that. He stood in the House today and denied it. There is something wrong when the Prime Minister of Canada cannot accept responsibility for innocent victims and a botched plan on behalf of his health minister.

They are being sacrificed by the finance minister. The only person taking great pleasure in this package is the finance minister. He sits over there with a big cheshire cat grin on his face every time we debate this. Unfortunately it is politics being played out on the front benches of the Liberal government.

The responsibility for Canada's blood supply system falls totally and completely at the doorstep of the federal health minister. The federal government is responsible. What I am asking it to do is to act unilaterally because, unfortunately, not all of the provinces are rich. Not all of the provinces can afford to give more to that package.

As I conclude I want to put this on the record. Is the health minister willing to swallow himself whole to make this package work?

[Points Of Order, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank you and congratulate you for keeping a raucous House under control today.

However, the Prime Minister has taken advantage of the situation. On numerous occasions today he stood when the light was out, his 35 seconds was up and he kept on going. At the end of the day, we lose—