Joe Volpe

[Hepatitis C, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is patently untrue. The mere fact that there were discussions over the course of the last couple of days in Edmonton is a clear indication of the federal government's commitment to listen to everybody and to bring all the parties together to arrive at a solution.

The fact that the working group has received several submissions and has now got them on the table, is working on them and considering them with all the deliberation that they merit is an indication of leadership that is functioning.

[Nunavut Act, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take up where the hon. member left off with the themes of generosity and fairness.

I think he will be among the first to recognize that prior to the actions of the federal government and the minister, there was a reluctance to apply either one of those two terms to the entire process as seen through the eyes of the victims, those he quite rightly calls the innocent victims of a terrible tragedy in Canadian blood history.

He would also at the same time acknowledge that the federal government has acted with great generosity. It has acted with a great sense of fairness. It has acted with great deliberateness in bringing all of the partners together to the table.

He well knows that a mere one year ago these concepts were not even on the table. There was no discussion of compensation. The only issue was how well all the governments of Canada would disseminate information that would allow victims to deal with their sickness, with their disease in relative comfort.

We are now looking at a package arrived at, cobbled together by all the governments, the territories, the provinces and the federal government on, number one, a package of compensation. Equally important and perhaps even more so in the eyes of many is that there is an entire package for additional services for those who have been smitten by this disease.

Most of us have been taken up with the issue of compensating one group as opposed to another but there has never been a distinction on the part of the federal government. The idea was that it would act on behalf of all our citizens.

With due regard to the issue that the opposition have raised up until this point which is the question of avoidability, if governments could have acted differently and did not do so, then there should be compensation. But in all cases there should be at least a series of measures in place to allow people to live their lives as normally as possible under the circumstances.

[Health, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one of the functions of today's meeting is essentially to hear the submissions like the one the member is addressing right now. It would be instructive as well to keep in mind that the numbers Krever accepted were those that had come after exhaustive investigation on his part.

Judge Krever accepted the numbers provided to him by Health Canada and other institutions. After analysing and evaluating each one, he came up with the numbers he gave in his final report.

This House through members on both sides has been asking that his report—

[Hepatitis C, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine the member opposite has ever thought that his theatrics might be clouding his judgment.

The fact that we have a conference attended by ministers at all three levels sitting together trying to fashion out a package that will address all the needs of all the victims and all sufferers is an indication of leadership. If he objects to leadership that involves the federal authority bringing together partners at the provincial and territorial level, he has a different—

[Hepatitis C, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has always and continues to believe in addressing the needs of Canadians as they occur. It also believes in working together with all the deliverers of the health care system and they are the provincial and territorial authorities.

What we have done and continue to do is address the interests of all Canadians in a collaborative effort in order to be efficient and effective.

[Hepatitis C, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has always acted responsibly. I remind the member that when Justice Krever published his first interim report the Government of Canada acted immediately on all recommendations that had relevance under federal authority.

Under that same federal authority, the federal minister brought his colleagues together and together they fashioned out packages that served the short term, medium term and long term interests of both hepatitis C victims and those who need a health care system that addresses need when it occurs.

[Canada Student Loans, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about whether a test existed. But there was no test that was generally accepted in any jurisdiction. It was only when that test was generally accepted and available in a jurisdiction like ours but was not applied that governments failed in their responsibility.

On whether the government refused to do something, that statement ignores the way the system worked. What the member would do in his honesty is indicate that the Red Cross, the distributor of blood and blood supplies, and the provinces which had responsibility for the administration of the blood system unfortunately recognized too late that their decisions not to implement those tests were a cause of greater risk than the benefit they had assumed.

But the member also acknowledges in his argument that there is a need for parameters in which to consider any kind of compensation for damages incurred. Under those circumstances if what he is saying to us is that the parameters he wants to put forward are more legitimate than the procedures and parameters he refuses to recognize, then I think the member should say what those parameters might be.

When all is said and done I think the member opposite will consider what has been accomplished by the federal government's initiative in this regard. We have a package on the table that brings together all the partners who were in a position where they could have avoided a wrong. They are assuming responsibility in the short term through a compensation package and in the long term through a series of procedures put in place to address the needs of victims who will live with this unfortunate and regrettable tragedy forever.

If the member thinks about this for a moment then he will join with me and others in complimenting the federal Minister of Health for his foresight and his dynamic energy on this issue.

[Canada Student Loans, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite will already acknowledge that the federal government has demonstrated enormous leadership on this issue.

Had it not been for the leadership of the federal government and the current minister, we would not even be discussing the package that I know the member opposite accepts. She wants to extend it. She accepts the package and she would give credit to the federal Minister of Health and his leadership for bringing it about.

On the question of accepting responsibility for a regulatory failure, she probably means that the system somehow collapsed. She would probably want to acknowledge that this is a shared responsibility, that the delivery of the blood supply system was essentially a provincial matter as delegated through the Red Cross.

We already know what has happened to the Red Cross. It exists no more. It suffered for its responsibility. The provincial governments have been brought to the table to acknowledge the ramifications that flow from their own responsibility.

Regarding the question of increased funds, this again falls into the area of shared responsibilities. As we speak today, the situation is a little different from what it was yesterday or when the member asked her question about a month ago.

The question of funds has always been mitigated by numbers that people have accepted or not accepted. As I said before, the leadership of the federal Minister of Health in this regard has been exemplary.

It is because of the issues he put before us on the table in parameters that all could understand and appreciate that we have a package to serve the immediate and long term needs of a substantial number of people.

Most important, he is dedicating federal resources and scientific resources to solving the long term problems associated with this terrible disease. I think for that he should be complimented.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House has anything against acting to do the right thing. I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition about what the right thing and the responsible thing is and what this government has done.

Over the course of the last almost five years that he has been in this House, the Leader of the Opposition has had the opportunity to press the last government and the current government to act on this issue. I remind him and other members in this place that his voice was remarkably silent. Notwithstanding his silence, the Government of Canada through its health ministers acted swiftly on the recommendations of Krever.

Indeed, the current Minister of Health moved that his colleagues at the provincial and territorial levels recognize the ongoing issue needed to have their energies for a quick resolution.

But he suggested it be done within the environment of parameters that all can accept, and the Leader of the Opposition says we have to do this on the basis of some fault or guilt we can find and it has to be done through an appropriate system, à la Krever.

I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition is aware that what he is telling all Canadians is that the judicial process which has worked in this country for so many decades is the exact process he is suggesting we use, and that he is not talking about compassion, he is talking about justice. Will he decide for once to tell us exactly whether he is talking about compassion or whether he is talking about justice and fairness?

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is already foreseen how the opposition will vote on every motion and how the government will vote on every motion. That is fine.

A couple of comments made by the member opposite deserve some attention. For the member to suggest that committees somehow work in a fashion that is counterproductive just because other members on the committee do not see it his way does an injustice to what happens in this place. This morning in committee, committee members reinforced the primacy of this place and the importance of the accountability that ministers and the executive of government have to all members of parliament in this place.

Over the course of the last six weeks we have seen member after member pose question after question to the Minister of Health in particular and the government in general not only on health issues relating to the government's broader policies but also general and specific government policies. For any member in this House to suggest that is not a transparent and an accountable way of keeping members of the executive responsible to this House is to do a disservice to this House and to the committees themselves.

For committee members to vote as they see fit on a motion, whether it is properly put, properly worded, whether or not it has merit has no bearing on what happens in this place other than the committee draws its authority from this House. The member would be well placed to recognize that. Perhaps he should withdraw the kinds of statements that cast aspersions on his colleagues in committee.