Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2004

Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, I want to commend the hon. member for his speech and for his work in committee. Although we do not always agree with his methods, we do agree on what we want to accomplish together.

The hon. member is suggesting that we give the minister a deadline. He has to understand that it is very difficult for the minister to work within such a tight deadline. I take it from his speech, his words, and the speeches of other members, that he is pleased that the minister agrees with the principles, that he is moving in this direction, and that he is taking the necessary measures. Nonetheless, the minister must respect the rules of the provincial courts in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and one other province—

[An hon. member]

Nova Scotia.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

He must also respect the rules of the Nova Scotia court.

We must ask the actuaries to calculate what surplus will be accepted by the court. We must negotiate with those benefiting from the trust at the moment, the provinces or the courts. We have to follow these procedures. The minister has already started working with cabinet and officials, indirectly at first, to address the issues. However, giving him a two-year deadline—we would all like a decision to be announced tomorrow morning—is quite difficult.

The hon. member must admit that the minister has already taken a big step and is continuing to do good work.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, yes the minister has our friendship and consideration this evening. I would not want him to think we were not grateful to the minister.

Perhaps I will call a point of order shortly, because I would like, with the House's leave, to have the minister explain to us in detail the connection with the actuaries. Perhaps I just did not grasp it, but I would like clarification that the reason we need deadlines is that we are moved by a passion for restorative justice.

We are making reparation. Unacceptable injustices have been committed. I have confidence in the minister as far as the deadlines are concerned, but we are in early November now. The minister may go before cabinet, and I know that it is necessary to present a cabinet memorandum. I know that the Treasury Board must be consulted. Let us, however, try nevertheless to keep Christmas as our deadline, one I feel is realistic. If the minister were to announce that to us in the February budget, we would be satisfied. He has our complete confidence as far as his willingness to solve the problem is concerned.

If ever he were to do so before Christmas, not only would he have our total confidence, he would also be assured of our everlasting friendship.

[The Chair]

Let's be clear about this.

I am not sure if that is a point of order.

Members may speak more than once this evening. As the evening wears on and if members wish to re-enter the debate, they may do so again. The minister or anyone else who wants to get into it again later on is welcome to do so.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate the member on a very eloquent speech. Obviously he has been very involved and knows the history behind this file.

We know that this government has made commitments and promises in the past and has moved a little bit, but when public pressure subsides they go back to the original position. It sort of ebbs and flows. I wonder why this member has what I think is quite a substantial amount of faith in the current minister to resolve this in a timely manner?

Secondly, I would like to congratulate the member on the timing. I think his suggestion of a firm deadline is a very good one. But we have already heard waffling from the other side, and only moments after he made the suggestion. So that supports the idea that the government may ebb and flow again.

I would be interested in his comments on that.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I know that in this House the temptation to be partisan is part of our natural instincts as politicians.

At this moment, we must trust the minister. First, because he is a young minister—not young chronologically, but young in his responsibilities. I think everyone has the right to a kind of beginner's luck. I am ready to take his word when he tells me that he wants to work for the welfare of the victims by expanding the compensation.

Once again, I think it is better to have a deadline. If we start with good faith as a given, then it is bad faith that must be proven. If in a few months the minister has not been able to deliver the goods, unfortunately, we will have no other choice than to push him as far as we can.

But at present, like my colleagues, I choose to trust the minister and believe that we will be able to settle this issue in a non-partisan way. I want to believe that the Christmas deadline is a good one. Still, if the minister can convince us it is not feasible, we will be patient, but what we really want is for this compensation to be expanded.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I could begin by saying that I think it is a measure of our level of concern and commitment about this issue that, while the rest of the world is riveted on what is happening in the United States, we are here in the House of Commons debating compensation for hepatitis C victims.

Before I continue, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

What the minister has said tonight is welcomed. It shows progress and an openness in dealing with this issue which was not there in the previous Parliament. It would be sufficient in a way if it were just related to the surplus in the fund and the fact that the government is now able to contemplate compensating more people because the initial numbers were either mistaken or exaggerated, however one wants to describe them. However, I also think there is a real willingness on the part of the minister and I hope ultimately the cabinet and the government to see this as something which is the right thing to do in any event.

The real test of that will be if everything goes as we would hope and there is a need for more funds than are in the current fund to compensate all those who may yet come forward once compensation is made available for those outside the 1986-1990 period. It seems to me that the test, ultimately, for the government is whether this is being done 100% on principle or to some degree because there is this extra money, it makes sense and it is morally admirable to use it for these purposes rather than to have it go unused.

We certainly see a difference in the context. I remember, as some hon. members will, the day we had the vote, and it was a matter of confidence. We had a vote on an opposition day motion today and the government lost the motion, but it was not a matter of confidence. It was a matter of the House expressing its will on a particular matter. However, the prime minister of that day said no, that it was not just a matter of the House expressing its will. He said that it was a matter of confidence, and he made Liberal members of Parliament vote against their consciences on this.

There is no point in beating up the current Minister of Health about this, but that is what we experienced in a previous Parliament. I think he might have taken this into account when he decided whether he would engage in a new political incarnation, but that is another matter.

In any event, we have a new Parliament. The government has a chance to prove that it really is different than the last Parliament. We already see signs of that. We see Liberals freed from the authority of Jean Chrétien on this issue. In committee, we were able to have a unanimous vote recommending that the government compensate victims of hepatitis C beyond that 1986-1990 window. I hope we will see the same kind of freedom to do what perhaps many Liberals have always wanted to do. Certainly we knew that at the time. There were people who were tremendously stressed out by the fact they had to vote against their conscience.

I think this is a sign of things to come in this Parliament. Hopefully, we have a new regime. I have lots of problems with the new regime, but it is at least different in a positive way on this score. There are different numbers and a different balance of power in Parliament. As I said earlier today at the press conference we had about this, I hope hepatitis C victims can become one of the first groups of people to benefit from the new dynamic of this minority Parliament.

I hope the Minister of Health will take the advice of my colleague from the Bloc to heart. If he cannot get it to cabinet before Christmas, he should get a recommendation so we can, if possible, move that June 2005 date up. It would be great to have unanimity among the plaintiffs for all groups and the government, go to court with a unanimous recommendation and on that basis move that date up to see if we cannot get things happening faster for these people because they have waited long enough.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his kind words, but I have to point out something to him. He has been in the House a long time. He is a member of the New Democratic Party. He is a good worker and fighter for the party, but he should understand that the minister was also a member of that party for quite some time. He worked in the provincial government. He was the premier, he was a minister and he did a great job. However, for some time he was a free agent. He received an offer to come into the big leagues and he accepted that offer. He is performing very well. To the members opposite, especially the new members, if they work hard and they prove themselves, maybe some day that will get that offer. A little advice, do not swing at every pitch.

It was two Parliaments ago that those very difficult decisions were taken. We might agree or might not agree with them, but I think we are all in agreement on the way to go forward.

It would be unjust to say that there was no caring or empathy for the people who were suffering. We have to look at the $500 million or more that was invested in working with the provinces so that services would be there for those people. Now we are at a new day. We have new capabilities and new information. We are looking very seriously, on a go forward basis, at compensation for those people.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, I was the first to use this metaphor in the House when the Minister of Health was not performing, as well as he is tonight, in question period. It must be something about this setting. This is what we had in mind when we designed this so that we could have a more meaningful exchange than is sometimes possible on the floor of the House during question period. I remember saying that I was beginning to understand why we did not get anything when we traded him to the Liberals, but he has a chance to redeem himself. Certainly, this issue presents him with that opportunity.

To the member who asked the question, I did not suggest that there was not a sense of compassion on that side. I suggested that sense of compassion was repressed by the authority of the prime minister of the day. There was a great sense of injustice that had been done to hepatitis C victims. There was the need to do right by them, and not just those who were in the 1986-1990 category, but also those who found themselves outside that.

Quite the contrary. I was not trying to suggest that there was not that emotion or that attitude. What I did suggest, and the record is conclusive on this, was that the government of the day, for whatever reason, hardened its heart and asked its own members of Parliament to vote as if their hearts had been hardened also. Here we are today doing something that actually could have been done a long time ago.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Chair, this is an interesting subject. Would my colleague comment or agree with me on this? I would have felt much more comfortable if the minister had risen this evening and said that he had been examining this since he received the portfolio, that he knew this concerned the last Parliament because of the number of questions and the amount of pressure that was put on by opposition on this issue and that knowing the now number of dollars in the fund, he initiated this as something to be looked at. I would have felt much more comfortable and I think the victims and Canadians would also felt more comfortable had he done that.

The problem I have is the minister stood this evening and said that cabinet would have to look at this. That means the cabinet has not even talked about it. I do not know how this cabinet will feel about it. I know exactly how the past health minister felt about it because I asked her the questions in a very aggressive fashion, not more than just a few months ago.

There were just as many funds then as there are now. Would my colleague agree with me that there is some suspicion with regard to the sincerity of what is happening? Perhaps it is the new dynamic of a minority government and the pressure that we as opposition can put on this issue now, more than the true intent of wanting to do right by hepatitis C victims.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, what I am trying to do tonight is get beyond that. I am not naive, and I do not think anyone else on this side of the House is. We know it is not signed, sealed, and delivered. But to the extent that we want it to be signed, sealed, and delivered, we would like to nurture the momentum and support the minister to the extent that we feel he truly wants to make this happen. If he is not levelling with the House and if he is not levelling with the victims, then we will have lots of time to beat him up over that. Unfortunately, that would not be all that helpful to the victims, and I hope we don't have to go there.

We have the unanimous motion from the committee, and we may even have a unanimous motion from the House before the end of the week. This is not something the minister is going to do out of the goodness of his heart, even though he may feel that way. This is something the government better bloody well do, because the House of Commons is going to speak forcefully, as the health committee already has, and the House of Commons is going to do so very shortly, instructing the government that this is what the elected representatives of the people want the government to do.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood--Transcona, for sharing his time with me. I will not be able to match his eloquence or his depth and breadth on this subject, but I felt compelled to speak on this issue this evening.

I am appalled, as a new member of Parliament, and ashamed as a Canadian and a parliamentarian that so many years after this original crisis and with so many victims we have still not fully compensated victims of hepatitis C. I am appalled, and I cannot see an explanation for it. I cannot see an excuse for it. There is no reason why these victims have not been compensated. The money is there. The money has been put aside. It is gathering interest, $56 million a year. In a sense, in a very negative and evil sense, we are talking about blood money, money that has come as interest on the principal.

At the same time, 6,000 victims have not been compensated. I do not understand why. I am a new member of Parliament, but all I feel, and I echo the words of the member for Hochelaga, is that we must move quickly, in a matter of weeks, to finally address this issue. I understand that there are extenuating circumstances and it is a complex issue. There is no excuse, though, to my mind, for not promptly and rapidly compensating these victims.

I ran for Parliament because I am concerned about the disconnect that takes place between Parliament and our communities. I have received many letters, as I know other members of Parliament have, about this particular issue. One of the reasons why I wanted to speak to this issue this evening is to read into the record some of the letters that I have received from constituents in my riding of Burnaby--New Westminster dealing with this issue of victims and how they have suffered as a result of hepatitis C.

The first letter I would like to read is from a victim of hepatitis C in my riding who was infected in April 1991 through a blood transfusion after the delivery of a baby girl. After all of that, she has not been able to enjoy seeing her daughter growing up because of the pain caused by hepatitis C. She writes:

Finally I went for treatment for the hepatitis C in August of 2003. Treatment lasted for six months, but for me it felt like I was dying. I experienced weight loss of over 70 pounds, hair loss--I am still almost bald--rashes all over my body, racking pain all over my body, joint pain all over my body, black scars from the rashes all over my body, no appetite, vomiting 24 hours a day and 7 days a week for continuous periods, and diarrhea. To put it honestly, I went through hell. My marriage did not survive. My husband could not take the emotional and physical toll this disease had on me all these years. My family cannot believe how much pain, physically and emotionally, I have had to go through. It is very hard for them to see me suffer.

The second letter is from a victim of hepatitis C from my riding, who was infected in March 1993 through a blood transfusion:

Since contracting this debilitating disease, my health has worsened considerably, preventing me from working and severely affecting my everyday life. Not only am I weakened physically, but as a result of this disease and my disability to work, I must seek financial assistance in order to meet even the basic expenses. Needless to say, the double punishment I have received, infected through government negligence on top of discrimination in compensation, has left me feeling bitter and betrayed.

A final letter that I would like to cite this evening is from the husband of a hepatitis C victim, again in my riding, whose wife died in 1997 after 13 years of struggle with the disease:

My family's loss started in 1984, when my wife Margaret received tainted blood during a heart bypass operation, resulting in her contracting hepatitis C. Her years of suffering ended in her demise on May 6 of 1997, cheating her of a life she so enjoyed, as well as not seeing her grandchildren born after her death.

These are just some of the letters I have received. I know that other members of Parliament have received similar letters across the country. For goodness sake, 6,000 victims in the same situation, with money available now in a compensation fund that has not been allocated to these victims.

I see no reason to continue the suffering. I see no reason and no excuse for the delays. I see no legitimate justification for the continued suffering of these victims.

I rise to speak on this issue this evening to encourage the government. I know the House will fully support that. My colleague mentioned that we are looking at a motion coming forward to this House later this week, and I could only predict unanimous consent for the motion, that this government move rapidly, within a matter of weeks and not a matter of months, to compensate these victims, who have waited and who have suffered long enough.

I believe our function as parliamentarians is to address critical issues. This is a critical issue. I believe that when we have the resources available we must allocate them immediately, not put them in some fund gathering interest, blood money. We need to deal with this promptly. I would encourage the government to deal with it in the next few weeks.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the hon. member a question with regard to the care for cash program that was set up around 1998 by the past hon. member.

This program was set up seemingly to provide for victims outside the timeframe of 1986 to 1990. It was designed to cover the cost of drugs and some of the other hardships these victims were suffering from.

I would say to the member that it does appear now that some of this money, which has already gone to the provinces--and I am speaking more clearly with respect to my own province of Ontario--has now been put into general revenues for health. In fact, the province's health minister, George Smitherman, announced that the money will be used to pay for care that is usually covered anyway.

It seems to me that this money has never made it to the victims. In fact, it appears that it never will. Given that only 50% of the $300 million has now reached the provinces, and given the fact that it seems that a lot of this money is not being used for the victims, I would ask the member if he feels any sense that this money should be given back to the federal government to be put into this fund and to be distributed properly to the victims.

Failing that, I would like to ask the hon. member if he would be comfortable in insisting that the federal government stop any further payment to the provinces and put the money that has been allocated to them into this fund for the victims.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I think the issue here is making sure that the victims receive their compensation. If the money is being held federally, then the federal government has that obligation. We as parliamentarians have the obligation of meeting victims' needs and making sure that money is released.

If the money has been held up by provinces, a similar responsibility comes upon the provinces to deal swiftly with that, so that the compensation can go directly to victims.

I do not believe this is a partisan issue. I believe this is an issue that parliamentarians across all party lines and all four corners of this House and in corners of the provincial legislatures must deal with. I do not think we would see and I cannot believe we would see opposition to making sure at all levels, federally and provincially, the money flows through to the victims finally.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the member a question.

I see a contrast between his position and that of the member for Elmwood--Transcona, in the sense that this member wants to have a more timely resolution to this compensation problem, whereas the member for Elmwood--Transcona seemed to be quite generous with the government, saying we would give them some time and if they do not act appropriately we will essentially go after them then.

This really delays the process. It is just another delay. Quite frankly, I agree with the member that these people need to be compensated as soon as possible. People are dying on a weekly basis. They have suffered far too long.

I wonder if the member could explain the gap between the position of the member for Elmwood--Transcona and his own.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, there is no gap at all. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has been one of the most fervent advocates of compensation. He has pushed relentlessly in previous Parliaments to make sure that compensation is applied to victims.

I support the member for Elmwood—Transcona fully because of his ongoing efforts in this regard. He has been pushing consistently. He has been pushing without a pause. He has been pushing in a very real sense in the House. The new member as well as myself as a new member have certainly seen in previous Parliaments that he has been a leader in this regard, pushing forward relentlessly.

I raised the issue of the victims' compensation this evening particularly in regard to letters that I have received since the election. I think we all agree that compensation needs to be paid and it needs to be paid as quickly as possible. Some of us have attached timelines and some of us have not. The reality is everyone here supports the idea of finalizing this and moving on.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am rising to speak to the hepatitis C issue which we are discussing tonight.

I would first of all like to compliment the hon. Minister of Health for his statement tonight of understanding and support for hepatitis C victims across Canada, and for his willingness to consider the request that has come from those victims who fall outside the January 1, 1986 to July 1, 1990 core group to be included in a program of assistance similar to that offered to the core group.

I also acknowledge and appreciate the support that the government has given previously to those affected by this terrible health tragedy. I have been contacted by persons who are in the affected pre-1986, post-1990 group. They have clearly articulated their challenges living with hepatitis C and the severely negative impact this has had on their lives and the lives of their families and loved ones.

I would like to make reference in an abridged form to a letter I received from a resident of my riding, who in respect of her privacy I shall only refer to as Mrs. E. She wrote:

“I contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986 after a blood transfusion for a miscarriage. Due to liver damage from the hepatitis C virus contracted by this tainted blood transfusion, I underwent the Rebetron treatment. During this time I felt very ill which makes one very weak due to the constant battle of the blood cells in conjunction with the drugs fighting the virus. For example, my husband had to cut up my food. I had to have help bathing and was always short of breath and my lips were a blue colour. I was only able to walk with the help of a cane. I also suffered severe chest pain. My husband and daughter were constantly worried when of necessity they had to leave me alone at home. This ordeal has left me weak and constantly tired and I feel that it warrants response. I feel it is not right to be excluded from the funds set up by the government which excludes those who contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986 as I am as much a victim as those that are being included”.

Hepatitis C sufferers are not the only victims of Canada's tainted blood supply, but they are the only ones who have been subjected to an arbitrary inclusion period. Persons who contracted, for example, the AIDS virus from tainted blood are compensated by the federal government regardless of when they were affected.

With regard to the hepatitis C situation, the data provided to me shows that in the four and a half years since the 1986 to 1990 program has been in operation, a total of approximately 9,000 claims for compensation have been approved. This includes infected persons as well as family members of the infected persons. The hepatitis C compensation umbrella group has estimated that there are approximately 6,000 persons in the pre-1986, post-1990 excluded group who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood transfusion outside the 1986 to 1990 compensation window.

I believe the federal Government of Canada should move to consider as soon as possible, and hopefully well before next June, the expansion of the eligibility for the existing 1986 to 1990 compensation program and assistance, if that is the appropriate term that is decided by the lawyers for the victims, to include hepatitis C victims now in the pre-1986, post-1990 excluded group.

This would provide relatively quick access to desperately needed financial assistance for thousands of victims across Canada. These people need our help and compassion now.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for participating tonight and also thank the previous two members from my own caucus for laying out for us some of the history regarding this issue.

The government had a chance many years ago to make a difference and obviously chose different priorities and we are back at it again today. We have heard stories from members on both sides of the House tonight that should speak to the heart of anybody in this place for them to do the right thing.

Before I came to this House, I was a provincial member for 13 years, having been elected in 1990. Mr. Charles Duguay, a gentleman in my riding, came to my office in 1991 asking questions about hepatitis C. He and a group of people who were affected wanted some assistance. Here it is some 13 years later and he is still coming to my office, although now I am a federal member, and he is still asking me when something will happen. He wants to know when there is going to be some justice. He wants to know when he is going to get some relief. Many of his friends have passed away in those 13 years and if this goes on any longer, it will be him.

The member for Elmwood--Transcona suggested earlier that if the government was really serious about this, it could request the unanimous consent of the House to have this done by the end of this week. From what I am hearing here tonight, it would get that. Would the member agree that the government could and should do that?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am a new member of the House but I have spoken to the groups that have been involved in the hepatitis C compensation umbrella group. I have spoken as well to some of the victims of hepatitis C. I am not here to judge the decisions that were made by previous members of the government in arriving at the package that was determined. My understanding is it was worked out with the lawyers as a result of a judicial decision with regard to the compensation package that was put previously. People in the pre and post group are deserving of assistance.

The people in the umbrella group that is supporting this request and who brought this forward recognize that they are dealing with a sum of money that was allocated for the victims within the core group, the 1986 to 1990 group. It will require discussions, negotiations and agreement with the lawyers on behalf of the current victims to utilize that fund.

It appears that the number of estimated victims is going to fall well short of the original figure of some 20,000. Some 9,000 claims have been paid out already and some of those have been to family members. They are not necessarily all direct victims.

My understanding of the procedure is that we have to get agreement to begin the negotiations and I understand the minister is taking that request to cabinet. Agreement is then required because the courts have determined that certain people have a right to that sum of money. If the sum was arrived at it with a number that is now turning out to be considerably less, hopefully they will agree. The people I have spoken to in the compensation umbrella group believe an agreement would be reached. There are three different jurisdictions for which there has been legal representation that would be involved. The argument is that a substantial fund is available, but in order for those funds to be released, agreement would be required from the judge involved, or at least the legal representatives involved.

This should be done as rapidly as possible. It should not be left until the actuarial figures planned for next June. If representatives of the victims are prepared to agree quickly, we could move exceedingly quickly. It appears that there are adequate funds available based on the actual experience and the numbers that I have seen.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chair, in my riding it is hard to accept that there is a woman between the ages of 60 and 65 who is the victim of hepatitis C. She had to send some 5 to 10 letters to the provincial government to have her status recognized so that she could get medication.

Honestly, the federal government has been dragging its feet in this case. The people who were infected between 1986 and 1990 were entitled to receive compensation for hepatitis C.

This reminds me of what happened to the veterans. Wait until some of them die, then it will not cost as much. This is the same thing. It will not cost as much because there are fewer victims. It has been calculated out.

My question is as follows: is the federal Liberal government ready to stop playing games with human lives? We are talking about people in need. Will the government say that it can pass this in a week, that it can resolve the problem once and for all and that it will help these people? These are people who need care and who need to be recognized like the other people who were infected with hepatitis C.

There is no need to wait for next year's statistics. The people in my riding want results now. They are phoning now and asking why there is discrimination between them and the others. They are wondering if they should have been infected between 1986 and 1990. Is that the difference? It is nonsense. A Canadian is a Canadian.

I would like the hon. member's opinion on this.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think the minister has already expressed my concern, and certainly anyone I have spoken to on the government side has very strong feelings of compassion for those victims. If we are able to do something, certainly a number of people I have spoken with feel that we should do it as quickly as possible.

I have discussed it with our new Minister of Health, since the election obviously, as I am a new member. He has indicated to me his compassion and concern for those victims. He indicated that within his legal ability as minister he will do all he can to respond to this as quickly as possible. That is the responsible thing to do. It is a human tragedy. We want to deal with it as quickly as possible. We also have to deal with it because it is within the legal context of the agreement that was reached. I think we will get the agreement of those people involved to see it change, but we have to move forward on that.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for his discussion points and his speech and congratulate him as a new member. This has been one thing he has been working on since he got here. He has been working directly with the minister. He has been asking a lot of us in the House that it happen quickly and that we go as fast as possible. In the discussions he has had, I would assume that he recognizes the constraints on the minister.

What is the responsible way to go? I assume the member would agree that we would have to respect the court, respect the partners and respect the people currently in the trust. Look at the trust as a first way, as the first area, because there is more than likely an actuarial surplus. We all think there is, but it has to be established. The dates had been set and the methodology when the friendly settlement was reached with the first claims group.

Would the hon. member not agree that the minister, since he has taken office, has been very responsive and is doing everything in the quickest way possible with the constraints that are normal for a position such as this?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I was approached by the umbrella group representatives early in September. I raised this issue with the minister and he immediately responded and provided the information. I became aware of how involved the Ministry of Health had been and its officials in attempting to respond post-election to the request that came forward. The formal request that I am aware of came out in late September. I had been meeting with the compensation umbrella group prior to that.

I believe that the minister has responded within the constraints that he has legally. I have been urging him, as I am sure have others, that we move as quickly as possible. I am satisfied we will do that.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to rise to add to the debate this evening with regard to this important decision. I hope the minister and his colleagues in the Liberal Party are genuine about some of the comments I heard this evening.

This is a new Parliament, a new phase, with a minority government. My greatest hope is that the House will truly reflect the will of the people who put us into office, which is the democratic reform that I sense is necessary in this place. I see this House as somewhat dysfunctional and my hope is that during a minority government we can actually add some democracy to this place. If true democracy breaks out I want to be here. I want to see that actually happening because it is very important. I know we jest about it somewhat, but it is not a funny matter when members of Parliament are not able to reflect the will of the people who put them into office. That is the fundamental right of democracy. That is what it is all about.

This issue has gone on for almost a decade. Victims have passed away during the time that the government in power said it was feeling the pain of the victims and understood the plight and wanted to do what was right. Well, I hope so. I really do. I will give it that option. I am going to lay it out as easily as I possibly can so that the government can truly reflect its words this evening.

I have the privilege of serving as the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Health. At the very first meeting we came to I brought forward a motion that we compensate all victims following the Krever inquiry. Mr. Krever spent four years on the inquiry and said that all victims should be covered, in light of the size of the fund, particularly. The motion was before the Standing Committee on Health and the committee, to the credit of all parties, agreed unanimously to the motion. The motion was then reported to the House yesterday. When it was reported to the House, I gave notice of a motion for concurrence for that motion. That will happen tomorrow afternoon.

Tomorrow afternoon we will ask the government in power and Liberal members, given the words the members of government have spoken this evening, if they would actually put feet to those words, and stand and support the motion that was a unanimous decision of the Standing Committee on Health.

If their true intent is to work as aggressively as possible, and that is what the minister and his colleagues just said, to compensate the victims of hepatitis C outside the window from 1986 to 1990, then it should be a very easy thing for the House to reach a unanimous decision tomorrow afternoon. That would be a great day and a great victory, not for any one party but only one group, those who were victimized.

It is not going to solve their problems, but it is a step toward the fairness of treating them all equally. I think that is what has been overlooked in this entire debate. It is something that absolutely has to happen. As members of Parliament, as leaders, and as legislators we must be responsible and responsive to the needs of those people, in fairness as true Canadians.

I want to bring the potential of tomorrow's motion to light in this debate tonight. I also want to talk about some of the facts of this fund. The fund was set up with $1.2 billion. That is a lot of money. Some $300 million has been paid out of that fund. In that fund, because of interest and so on, there is $1.1 billion left in the fund after everyone is paid out within that window of 1986 to 1990. In fact, it grew $56 million more than it paid out last year.

Therefore, when $1.2 billion is put in and $1.1 billion is left and everyone is paid out within the window, the idea of not having the funds to pay out the rest, when we actually know those numbers, is not valid. The government, at the time it made the decision, said it was not sure how many were actually going to come forward, how many victims were really out there. Its numbers were 20,000 or 22,000 plus. We said those numbers were wrong and we were right, the numbers were wrong.

In fact, through the other fund the minister talked about, $300 million went to the provinces to compensate some outside that window. We know what those numbers are now. We know that there is going to be roughly 10,000 total. Those are estimates, but they are fairly close, and we know what they are. We know that the fund will be able to facilitate paying everyone out fairly and justly.

The reason for not paying out evaporates. It was never there originally. That is my frustration this evening when I hear the sounds of compassion coming from the other side. This has been a fight. These words and these arguments were used for the last eight years since the Krever inquiry reported and they fell on deaf ears. Did the government not believe it?

Even as early as last year I personally challenged the health minister of the day on her numbers. We said that we have the money to compensate and these are the numbers. It was all there, yet the minister refused to hear these arguments and understand them. This evening we are all of a sudden supposed to think that there is a complete reversal, that the lights have come on, and there is a new revelation and new information about the numbers. The numbers were all there. They were there a year ago; they were there three years ago. They were there in 1998 when the House was whipped into a vote that went against those victims outside that window.

What is interesting is that we say there are new members. I know some of my colleagues are brand new to the House and they say it was not their fight back then. Maybe to some degree that is true. We had this debate in the Standing Committee on Health and we started looking at the fact that those who are in power in the cabinet today were here back in 1998 when the decision was made.

I can say the Prime Minister was there. I can say the Deputy Prime Minister was there, the Minister of Finance was there, and the Minister of State for Public Health was there, and the Minister of the Environment was there. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs, National Defence, Human Resources, Agriculture, International Trade, Indian Affairs, Veterans Affairs, International Cooperation, the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers, the government House leader, the President of the Treasury Board, and I could go on and on, they were all there and they are here today. They had all this information over that same period of time.

Forgive me if I sound a little skeptical about what might happen in the vote tomorrow. I am here to lay out as aggressively as I possibly can, and that is what I think a debate should be, the arguments for why we should stop playing games and think of the victims.

I would like to end by thinking about those victims because they are really the tragedy of this whole debate. They were the ones who, through no fault of their own, contracted hepatitis C when the government knew the blood system was faulty and the potential of risk was there.

Some of the problems that happened with this disease have been talked about. They include fatigue, jaundice, nausea, hair loss, unresponsiveness, forgetfulness, trouble sleeping, weight loss, problems with water retention and so on. They are debilitating.

In fact, I want to read part of a letter that I received from a constituent in my riding. It says it all. It was from a woman whose husband contracted hepatitis C before 1986. She wrote:

I was married to a man who had a zest for life, had many friends, was popular in the community through volunteer work, enjoyed sports and loved his job. But because of hepatitis C, he was now shunned by his community. His many friends slowly disappeared and he couldn't play sports any more. He felt that all the years of hard work to establish a good reputation at work had been compromised somehow. But besides the mental damage he had endured, there were the physical changes. After losing 40 lbs. to a weight of 125 lbs., his hair fell out in clumps and his body was covered with rashes and cracks, and bled. He had constant migraines and vomited regularly. When I look in the mirror, this is the man that I had married at one time.

This just a small portion of the countless number of letters that have flooded in from victims right across this nation. It was a sad day when the decision was made in 1998.

Looking ahead, we have an opportunity to correct that. We cannot erase the wrongs of past years. That is beyond our ability to do. However, we can do something for those remaining victims and their families before it is too late. We have the power to do that. The victims are watching. Canada is watching. Let us do the right thing.