Preston Manning

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister is obviously out of the loop. Canadians do not want to hear from this health minister again. He is a discredited health minister. The only reason he should be on his feet is to announce a renegotiation of the compensation package or to announce his resignation. Which will it be?

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Harris has shown some real leadership in this matter by agreeing to open up the compensation package and agreeing to pay his fair share.

For a response, instead of the federal government saying “This is encouraging and interesting, we are prepared to sit down and talk about it”, all we hear is another dull non-answer which is the only type of answer we ever get from the Deputy Prime Minister.

When is the Prime Minister and the federal government going to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution?

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first Quebec opened the door and today Ontario has pledged to pay compensation to the pre-1986 victims of hepatitis C on the same basis as the existing package. The federal government can therefore no longer pretend that there is unanimous provincial consent for its position.

This issue is not going to be resolved by more conference calls, press releases or insults. When is the Prime Minister going to take personal responsibility for resolving this crisis by agreeing to renegotiate the compensation package?

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what is edifying. This lawyer in health minister's clothing stood in the House and told the House repeatedly that he has the support of the provinces behind his limited compensation package, when the fact and the truth is that he does not have that support. It is being shredded away every day.

Since the health minister has misled the House on this issue of provincial support for his package, why does the Prime Minister not demand his resignation? Why should we listen to the repeat of these arguments?

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, he keeps referring to his opponents in the provinces as cynical and callous. I will tell the House what is cynical and callous. It is throwing half the victims of hepatitis C out of the lifeboat. It is coercing these backbenchers into supporting a position and then pretending to take the high ground.

If the minister wants to do away with cynicism, I suggest he excise it from his government, from his caucus and from his own heart.

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, real leadership would do three things for these victims. First of all the Prime Minister would get the premiers together and negotiate a new deal. Second, they would confirm the facts, and the facts are what Krever said, that there was a test before 1986 and he confirmed the number of victims. Third, they would instruct the finance minister to find the money to finance this package within the existing spending envelopes by reallocating resources.

Why will the government not simply swallow its pride and get on with the job?

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a real leader would have responded to the provinces with an open mind instead of with insults or statements like this. After all, if anyone has a right to be angry, it is the provinces themselves. They have been bad mouthed in this House with respect to their role. They are the ones that are paying the medical bills for the victims. They are the ones that have had their health care funding cut by billions of dollars by this government.

Is it not true that the real reason for the hold-up here is that the Prime Minister does not know how to help the victims without losing political face?

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Prime Minister has claimed that he could not possibly compensate all the victims of hepatitis C because the provinces would not agree, but every day now another province announces that it is willing to develop a new deal. Instead of responding with hope or encouragement, the Prime Minister castigates the provinces and engages in name calling.

Instead of being petty, why does the Prime Minister not show some leadership and agree to work with the provinces for a new compensation package?

[Hepatitis C, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has run out of excuses. Justice Krever presented the medical and legal evidence for compensating the victims.

Now there are two provincial governments endorsing the principle that all the victims should be compensated.

Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that the only obstacle to a fair and compassionate settlement for these victims is his own ego, his own pride and his own stubbornness?

[Hepatitis C, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister avoids the central issue. Daniel Johnson, the Liberal leader in Quebec, persuaded the Quebec assembly to support the principle that all the victims should be compensated.

It is the principle. If you accept the principle you can deal with the money question, the cost sharing, afterwards. Will the Prime Minister endorse the principle that all the victims of tainted blood should be fairly compensated?