Preston Manning

[Hepatitis C, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's last defence against the government's shameful treatment of hepatitis C victims is crumbling away.

Last night the Quebec assembly unanimously agreed that compensation should be paid to all victims of tainted blood.

This morning the Ontario health minister endorsed the same position. Quebec and Ontario governments have changed their position on this issue.

Will the federal government now admit that its original position was wrong and change its position as well?

[Hepatitis C, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House does not want to hear anything more from this health minister. The public does not trust him. We do not believe his statistics. He cannot even provide the numbers. We do not trust his excuses for abandoning the victims. If this minister had any principles he would have resigned weeks ago. This minister has lost the confidence of the House. He has lost the confidence of the Canadian people.

There is only one question left to ask him. When will he tender his resignation as Minister of Health?

[Hepatitis C, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has now lost all moral authority on this issue, is there anyone in the government who will take up the cause of the thousands of hepatitis C victims the government abandoned last night?

[Hepatitis C, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister think the victims were playing politics yesterday? Apparently the Prime Minister achieved what he wanted to achieve. He proved that Liberal backbenchers can be browbeaten into violating every principle they believe.

The MP for Gatineau actually said he now wishes he never got involved in politics in the first place. The Prime Minister must be—

[Hepatitis C, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister misses the point as usual.

Let us consider the situation of the MP for St. Paul's. She was a founding member of the hepatitis C society. She says she wants compensation for the victims. As a physician she swore an oath to make caring for the sick her number one priority, but she was forced to abandon her conscience, her friends and everything she believed in because of a political decree from the Prime Minister.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why should some oath of political allegiance to the Prime Minister take precedence over that member's oath to care for the sick?

[Hepatitis C, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister is proud of himself today. Let us look at what he has done.

He has abandoned thousands of hepatitis C victims infected because of government negligence. He has driven some of his own backbenchers to tears by forcing them to vote against their best interests, against their own consciences and against their constituents.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Was it worth it?

[Israel, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tonight marks the 50th anniversary of the modern State of Israel. Born out of the ashes of the Holocaust and invaded by five countries on the very day of its independence, Israel has survived and thrived against all odds. Israel at 50 is a remarkable nation where Jews from all over the world go to live in freedom.

In recent years hundreds of thousands of Jews from the former Soviet Union and from Africa have immigrated to Israel, adding their own distinctive character to that growing country. In Israel, Arabs and Jews sit side by side in the Israeli Knesset and all citizens are allowed to practise their own religious and political beliefs.

Perhaps nothing speaks to Israel's spirit more than its national anthem, called “Hatikvah” which means “The Hope”. I call upon all members of this House to join with me in expressing our hope that Israel's next 50 years will be peaceful and prosperous and that she will live in harmony with all of her neighbours.

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government has not only lost its head, it has lost its heart as well.

It is forcing Liberals who got involved in politics to build a just society to be unjust. It is forcing Liberals who profess compassion to vote against compassion. It is forcing Liberals who know what is right in this case to vote against it.

My question is, why is the government forcing its members to vote against justice, compassion and against what they know in their hearts is right?

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is an irrelevant answer to a question that was never asked.

The real arguments come from the health minister. He keeps on repeating that compensating hepatitis C victims would open up the legal floodgates to everyone, but that argument is also false.

Contracting hepatitis C from tainted blood was not some unavoidable accident. What we are talking about is compensating people who became ill because of proven government negligence.

I ask again, in the name of compassion and fairness, why will the government not allow the MPs to vote for these victims?

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tonight MPs have a chance to vote in favour of compensating all those victims who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood.

The health minister says that the government should not accept responsibility for victims prior to 1986 because there was no way to detect hepatitis C in the blood supply before that time. However, Justice Krever says that there was a test available to the government as far back as 1981 and the government never acted.

I ask the government again, in the name of justice, why will it not simply let MPs vote for these victims tonight?