Steven Fletcher

[Health, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what is shameful is how the Liberals have dealt with this issue.

This issue highlights the twin disasters which are the Liberal health and first nations policies. In both it is always the same. The Liberals only act when they are shamed into doing so.

The government has known for months that Mackenzie Olsen's treatment would end, yet it shirked responsibility until the media finally forced it to notice.

Why did the health minister refuse for so long to help this boy?

[Hepatitis C, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, tonight the House will vote on my motion calling on the government to immediately compensate all those infected with hepatitis C through tainted blood, as recommended by the Krever inquiry.

All opposition parties support my motion and I hope the Liberals do too. The last time the House voted on this issue, all the Liberals voted against compensation. Since then they have filibustered at the health committee, delayed debate in the House, all to prevent the vote from happening, but now they can delay no longer.

If the government votes against my motion, then it must explain why it is against compassion. If it votes for my motion, thus admitting that it has been wrong for eight years, it should apologize for the pain and suffering it has caused so many.

I sincerely hope the government will follow Parliament's wishes and immediately compensate all victims.

End the delays. End the excuses. Compassion is needed now. Compensate the victims now.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if a comprehensive strategy is put forward I hope it would include elements that would require Bill C-206 to be redundant. If they decide that labels are necessary, then that needs to be given serious consideration.

The one thing that really struck me during the hearings was the fact that one of the industry representatives said that if it were part of our constructive strategy and it were shown that labels would in fact change behaviour then they would have no objections to doing so. That buy in by stakeholders is important and that may be one of the great legacies of their participation in this process.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting aspects of the bill that struck me as helpful was that the labelling targeted two areas of harm by alcohol consumption that are completely preventable. There is no need for babies to be born with FAS and there is no need for drunk drivers to be on the roads. We all know that each year too many people are killed by drinking and driving. We all know the terrible effect that fetal alcohol syndrome has on the population, especially the most vulnerable part of our population, the children.

Not only is it terrible for a child to have that health challenge at the beginning of life but it is also important that prevention measures are implemented so we do not have to deal with children with FAS. For the unfortunate children who do have FAS, we need to provide the resources to allow those children to live meaningful and productive lives. However that is a heavy drain on the resources in society for something that is completely preventable. It seems that we could do a lot more as Canadians.

Alcohol labels, in and of themselves, may or may not reduce the effects but we know that the existing programs reduce the effects. It would be great to have a program that incorporates the best policies from all stakeholders to ensure that FAS and drinking and driving are reduced to zero.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

I commend the member for Mississauga South for fighting on this issue for so long. His fight against the negative effects of irresponsible alcohol use, fetal alcohol syndrome disorder and drinking and driving, to name only two, has been inspirational.

The member deserves much credit for the momentum building toward a comprehensive FASD strategy. I and the Conservative Party wholeheartedly share his concern about FASD and drunk driving. My party supports the intent of the member's bill but, unfortunately, not the bill itself. Simply put, it has not been proven yet to be the best way to address the problem it seeks to solve.

The eighth report of the health committee recognizes the ineffectiveness of alcohol labelling, highlights the costs associated with it and recommends that the House proceed with a comprehensive FASD strategy that may or may not include warning labels.

The Standing Committee on Health voted almost unanimously in favour of a more comprehensive strategy. In fact, the vote was ten to one.

The eighth report contained reasons why the committee recommended that a label only strategy proposed by Bill C-206 be replaced with new comprehensive FASD and drunk driving strategies. All witnesses and committee members agreed that FASD and drinking and driving were serious problems that demanded action.

We know that these issues cause untold suffering on those affected by them. However very little evidence was put forward to indicate that alcohol labels would be an effective way of preventing either FASD or drunk driving. Labelling certainly works for a variety of purposes but for FASD and drunk driving, given the intended targets of the messaging, labelling may be ineffective.

The implementation of Bill C-206 would have cost the federal government significant dollars to implement and maintain. A diversion of these resources to labelling at the expense of targeted programs may not be cost effective. The implementation of the bill would have likely raised trade and charter questions which would have imposed further costs on the government.

Many witnesses calling for a comprehensive FASD strategy did not feel that the first dollars should be committed to labelling initiatives.

There was constant concern that if the government moved ahead with labelling that it would be able to claim that the problem was addressed and would not feel compelled to do what was really needed. The cost of labelling would have crippled many smaller breweries, distillers and wineries.

A leaked cabinet document indicated that Health Canada was aware of the ineffectiveness of labels in preventing FASD and drunk driving. In the letter, however, Health Canada acknowledged that to not support Bill C-206 would look bad politically.

This is no way to draft legislation. This is no way to govern. Laws should not be justified based on how they will be perceived. Laws should be passed based on sound research and well proven facts.

The majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee told members that established targeted programs currently in place to address FASD and drunk driving had a much better chance at success than warning labels.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that a comprehensive strategy that may or may not include warning labels is the best way to tackle FASD. We therefore support the motion to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Health. The Conservative Party will demand that the alcohol beverage industry play an active role in the new strategy. Although the industry has played a part in previous initiatives, it must do more and will therefore be called upon to take a leading role in a comprehensive strategy.

The committee supported the motion by the member for Yellowhead that the committee call upon the government to present to the Standing Committee on Health a new strategy for the prevention of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder to be developed by Health Canada and its stakeholder groups by June 2, 2005. The motion will be tabled at a later date.

The health minister has indicated that he is serious about preventing fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and has told the House of Commons that his department is working toward a comprehensive strategy for FASD based on proven and established best practices. The Conservative Party hopes that Health Canada will develop, release and implement that strategy as soon as possible and the motion by the member for Yellowhead will hopefully accelerate that process.

As a member of Parliament for Manitoba, FASD is a serious problem. I was also involved with Teens Against Drinking and Driving at a very young age. In fact, the program was set up at my high school so I am aware of these challenges. However I want to ensure that if efforts are made they are not done in a haphazard way but in a manner that will ensure we get the maximum impact on the population that these programs will be targeting.

Therefore I hope that we will work together as a nation to reduce the occurrences of FASD and drinking and driving to basically nothing. Only together will we make that happen. I ask that we all support the member's intent of Bill C-206 but that we wait to see a comprehensive strategy that may or may not include alcohol labelling. We have to do the work required.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to an issue which is contentious and divisive on both sides of the House, and within each party, and within Canadian society, and even within families. The issue is Bill C-38, a bill that seeks to redefine the traditional definition of marriage.

There is no doubt that there are sincere and deeply held feelings on both sides of this issue. In my own riding the overwhelming response has been in favour of the position taken by the Conservative Party of Canada. This is because my constituents, like the vast majority of Canadians, are somewhere in the middle on this issue. They believe that marriage is a basic heterosexual institution but that same sex couples also have rights to equality within society and that this equality should be recognized and protected.

We believe that the Conservative Party amendments speak to the majority of Canadians who are in the middle on this issue. Our proposal is that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. At the same time we would propose that other forms of union, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, civil unions or registered domestic partnerships, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and benefits as marriage.

The middle ground compromise we offer recognizes the valid concerns of those on both sides of the issue. Democracy requires compromise. Where there are differences of opinion and belief, people must come together to resolve the issues that divide them. Bill C-38 offers us an opportunity to meet the democratic requirement, to find a compromise solution through debate and discussion that best satisfies all those who are involved.

I believe that the proposed amendments suggested by the Leader of the Opposition provide the best ground to find a constructive compromise that the vast majority of Canadians will feel comfortable with.

There are clearly three bodies of opinion on this issue within the Canadian public. At one end of the spectrum there is a group which believes that the equality rights of gays and lesbians trump all other considerations and that any restriction on the right to same sex marriage is an unjustifiable discrimination and a denial of human rights. At the other end there is another group which thinks that marriage is such a fundamental social institution not only recognized by law but sanctified by religious faith and that any compromise in terms of allowing same sex couples equal rights and benefits is unacceptable.

Many of these types of unions are subject to provincial jurisdiction under their responsibility for civil law, but there are also federal issues related to rights and benefits. Our party will move amendments to ensure that all couples in provincially recognized unions are recognized and have rights and benefits equal to those of married couples under federal law.

We would ensure that same sex couples have the same rights and benefits as married couples when it comes to matters such as pensions, tax obligations or immigration matters. We would ensure that no federal law would treat same sex couples any differently from married couples.

We believe this approach will meet the needs of those Canadians who believe that marriage is and should remain an institution which, as Justice La Forest said in the Egan decision, is by nature heterosexual, and also those who are concerned to recognize the equal status of gays and lesbians under the law.

The approach is not only consistent with the beliefs of the vast majority of Canadians, it is also consistent with the emerging practice in many parts of the industrialized world. Around the world there are only two countries which have legislated same sex marriage at the national level, Belgium and the Netherlands. In both countries there are some areas related to adoption or marriage of non-nationals of those countries which still make them slightly different from opposite sex marriage.

Aside from that, same sex marriage has only been allowed through provincial or state level court decisions in several Canadian provinces and the state of Massachusetts. By far, the vast majority of jurisdictions have gone the route of recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries.

Among the countries which have brought in these laws are France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Germany, Portugal and New Zealand. I do not think any of these countries, considered among the most progressive in the world, could be considered violators of human rights.

Similarly, in the United States only one state, Massachusetts, has recognized same sex marriage through a state court decision, even though the governor and a majority in the legislature opposed it. Yet in many states, among them Vermont, California, Maine, Hawaii, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, every one of these progressive so-called blue states have brought in civil unions or similar legislative recognitions. It strikes me as a perfectly reasonable compromise for Canadian society to accept exactly the same position as these countries and states.

This Conservative compromise option may not satisfy those who believe that equality rights for same sex couples are an absolute, which cannot be compromised by accepting anything less than full marriage, or that the heterosexual status of marriage is an absolute, which cannot be compromised by recognizing equal rights for other kinds of unions. However, it will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on this issue, who are looking for a reasonable, moderate compromise that respects the rights of same sex couples while preserving the time-honoured institution of marriage.

This compromise is the Canadian way and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer. We believe that if the government squarely and honestly put this option, preserving marriage while recognizing equal rights of same sex couples through civil unions or other means, it would be the option that most Canadians would choose.

The Conservative Party is not proposing a reactionary solution that would violate human rights, as the government alleges. We are proposing a moderate compromise position that would put Canada in the company of some of the most liberal and progressive countries in the western world. In fact, one could justly say that the position of the Liberal government insisting upon an absolutist approach on this issue is on the extreme, is not a reasonable approach and that the approach by most of us on this side of the House is more reflective of Canadian values.

There is no need to go to extremes in this debate. To accept a compromise that respects the will of the majority, upholds rights and preserves our deepest positions, we must accept the amendments that the Conservative Party has moved to this bill.

I have talked at great lengths with my constituents. I have surveyed and polled my constituents. The vast majority support the traditional definition of marriage. I have friends and even family members who are homosexual and even in that community they are divided on this issue.

I believe the Conservative Party is correct to offer a compromise that will satisfy the vast majority of Canadians while respecting the equality of all Canadians. I hope the Liberals and other parties will accept the Conservative Party's position so we can focus on more important issues, such as health care, education, taxation and government corruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is hard to comprehend is the callous and uncaring position the Liberal Party is taking. The member is right: I do not understand how elected officials can treat victims so terribly.

The member raises important points. He is right that last fall all the members, including the Liberal members, supported a Conservative motion to compensate victims. Just two weeks ago, the same Liberal members voted against a very similar motion. Why would they have done that?

The difference is that for one motion, the one in the fall, they prevented it from going to a vote in the House of Commons. They knew that they would not be held accountable in the larger forum.

This time, there is no hiding from the fact that this is going to come to a vote. I believe that is why the Liberals voted against it. They know that they are going to be caught red-handed in their own hypocrisy. They will have no way to get out of it. It will expose to Canadians once again the fact that the Liberals are uncaring, that they are not compassionate and that they are using these victims as a political tool.

Why will the Liberals not support the motion? I think it may have to do more with internal Liberal politics. They do not want to be shown up for demonstrating their incompetence in dealing with issues of state.

Quite frankly, I think the member should be ashamed of himself for supporting the Liberals. I am sure that anyone with compassion, anyone caring, will support this motion when it comes up for debate. I am sure glad that I am in the party that fights for the rights of victims and is caring and compassionate. I am really glad that we will soon form the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cambridge.

The report calls on the government to extend compensation as recommended by the Krever inquiry to all those who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood.

A few minutes ago in question period I asked the minister if the government would support the health committee's recommendation. The response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health was that this motion was passed unanimously by the committee. In fact, this is not the case. The Liberal members on the health committee voted against the report which is being presented today. I am very disappointed that the member would imply that the Liberals supported it when they did not. However, I welcome the Liberals' support when the report comes up for a vote.

This is surely not the first time legislators have gathered in the House to debate this issue. Last fall members debated a motion prompted by a similar health committee report only to have it withdrawn by the government before a vote could be held. This will not happen again. Thanks to new procedural rules adopted less than a month ago, the House will vote on this motion when the debate ends.

The reasons the report is needed are well known to all in the House but they bear repeating. In 1998 the government refused to accept responsibility for anyone infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood and instead created a privately administered compensation fund for only those who were infected between 1986 and 1990.

At the time the government claimed that it was not liable for mistakes and mismanagement outside that time period but since then, new evidence has revealed this claim to be false. Testing was available as far back as 1981, yet documents show authorities knowingly ignored this information. The RCMP has laid charges against individuals involved in this matter prior to 1986.

Furthermore the government stated at the time that there were simply too many victims to compensate. The Prime Minister warned that full compensation would “bankrupt medicare”. We know that this was false as well. There are far fewer victims than previously claimed. The government overestimated the numbers to justify its decision.

For the purpose of clarity, I would like to define the parameters of the upcoming debate. For too long the government has purposely confused two separate issues: one, the fund and any potential surplus it may contain; and two, fair compensation for all victims of tainted blood.

As a result, compensation for forgotten victims has usually been spoken of in terms of the existing hepatitis C compensation fund. The minister himself has suggested that some form of compensation may be forthcoming but any moneys depend on the result of an actuarial audit of the fund due in June of this year. The government's position is clear: Compensation depends entirely on the money in the fund; if there is no surplus, compensation will not be extended.

I would like to state for the record today and for the benefit of the members who will rise after me that in regard to this issue to be debated, the fund and any surplus are not as relevant as the government may lead us to believe. I will state again that the hepatitis C compensation fund and any surplus it may hold are irrelevant to the issue being debated at this time. The fair and just treatment of the forgotten victims is most prominent. The moneys must be found, fund or no fund.

We are here today to encourage the government to finally, at long last, offer a helping hand to those who have been callously neglected for so many years. We are here today to respectfully request that the government recognize that compassion demands compensation regardless of the money in the current fund. Whether or not there is an actuarial surplus matters little when people are suffering, especially as a result of erroneous mistakes made by those entrusted to help them.

What matters is not how the victims are compensated, but that they are compensated immediately. Victims should not be made to wait while the government dithers over what to do. The cruel suspense and financial uncertainty under which uncompensated victims have lived must end.

The government would have Canadians believe that it has already helped forgotten victims. It has deceived the public into believing that help had been provided to forgotten victims through the care not cash program.

Some 300 million federal dollars were committed to the provinces so that they could provide drugs, immunization, nursing care and other services to infected victims not covered by the fund. The sad reality is that not a cent of that money ever reached those it was intended to help. Instead, the money was absorbed into the general health care revenues of each province.

Victims unable to work due to their illness are rendered destitute trying to pay massive drug bills they cannot afford. Yet the government has repeatedly declared the care not cash program as evidence that it cares about the forgotten victims.

Agreeing to re-examine the fund is a tacit admission by the government that it bears responsibility for all victims, including those left out of compensation. Until last year, the government had stated emphatically that it bore no responsibility for anyone outside the 1986-90 timeframe. It washed its hands of the whole affair by declaring the issue to be a matter for the courts.

Last fall the Minister of Health announced a shift in government policy citing changing circumstances, but the circumstances have not really changed. They are still the same. Victims infected with hepatitis C continue to suffer financial hardship and health problems. People are still dying.

The health minister stated last fall that what motivates his government is the desire to help those who need help. If it were truly motivated by this desire, if it were truly a compassionate government, compensation would be extended to those victims immediately and unequivocally.

There is a chance there will not be any surplus or a surplus large enough to cover all the forgotten victims. If the minister is true to his word, he will not crush the hopes of these victims come June by denying them compensation, but will instead offer a helping hand regardless of the surplus size. However, if this is his intent, then why wait until June? Why delay compassion if he is truly motivated to help those in need?

There are two ways to compensate all victims which would guarantee the efficiency of the fund. One is to pay victims out of the consolidated revenue fund. Any surplus in the fund could later be transferred back into the consolidated revenue fund. The other is to compensate victims now from the fund and address the surplus issue later. If the audit shows later that no surplus exists, then the government can top up the fund.

Regardless of the method of payment, all victims should be treated equally. The 1986-90 window is an arbitrary time period created to limit the government's liability. It is hard to justify why a victim infected in December 1985 should be treated differently from one infected in January 1986. In creating this arbitrary window, the government has pitted victim against victim in an effort to limit opposition. This tactic must end. All victims must be given fair and equitable treatment.

My motion has the support of all opposition parties. I hope it will garner the support of those on the other side of the House as well. The last time a vote on this issue took place in the House, many government members rose against their conscience to support the government's position. Some rose with tears streaming down their cheeks, aware of the cruelty they were endorsing. Today those members are unable to hide behind a vote of confidence, but now can freely vote as their conscience dictates. I sincerely hope that they will do so, for no one with a conscience can vote against this motion.

It would be wonderful if an apology to those who have struggled for seven years were forthcoming from across the aisle. Several of these individuals who have led the fight are in the House today. I wish to acknowledge their perseverance in the face of such adversity.

The Conservative Party has long fought this battle. I would like to acknowledge two individuals in particular, Dr. Grant Hill and the member for Yellowhead, for their tireless work on behalf of the forgotten victims.

Canadians have waited too long for the government to admit its mistake, accept responsibility and acknowledge that compassion is the only answer for those suffering. The suffering must end. Compensation must be provided.

I respectfully request that this government do the right thing at last and compensate all victims. Let us not wait until June. Compassion is needed now. Please compensate these victims immediately, I say. It is the right thing to do. It is the will of the committee and it will be the will of the House. I ask that the government not show contempt for the House and that it show compassion for the victims, support the motion and compensate these people immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on Tuesday, October 22, 2004, be concurred in.

[Health, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members on the committee voted against this motion.

The minister fails to realize that while he offers weak excuses victims continue to die. Legal justification may help him sleep at night, but to those who are already affected by this tragedy such excuses are a slap in the face. People need our help now. End the cruel suspense, end the financial uncertainty.

Will the minister act immediately to help those who desperately need the government's help or will the minister let more people die while he dithers?