Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2004

Committees of the House

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are people here who are excited. This is incredible. I do not know what kind of caucus meeting they had in the Conservative Party today. I do not know if they are quarrelling, but they are all wired. We are here to have a candid debate, a serious debate, with a real concern for victims of this terrible disease.

We want to have this debate, and we are pleased that some members, like the member for Hochelaga and others, want to make the government and the public aware of the lot of those who were not included in the program.

I am happy to take part into this debate, and I am convinced that other members will have a lot to add to it. Once the Minister of Health has ascertained what the actual surpluses are, so as not to penalize anybody, I hope we will be able to put forward a more generous and broader program. This is my hope. In an ideal world, that is what everybody is hoping for.

Today's debate is an opportunity for us to do just that . I know the minister has already made a few comments on the matter, and other colleagues will want to take part in the debate too.

However, I did not like the attitude of the member who spoke before me claiming that some in the House have more moral fibre that others. I believe everyone wants to do their best in this debate. We will participate in a constructive way, keeping in mind all those who are affected. The debate might help raise awareness and remind us that we have a deadline, June 2005. It is fast approaching. The fund administrator will report to us at that time.

We cannot just raid the fund. It would be totally irresponsible. I am quite sure that no member would want us to do that either. The fund is no longer in the government's hands; it it in the hands of independent trustees appointed by the court. I know that many members across the way do not hold the legal process in high esteem. We see it every day during question period from the way they refuse to accept justice Gomery's independence. But that is another debate, and we should not hold it at the victims' expense. It is not part of their tradition. Let us go back to the heart of the debate, which is not at all partisan.

I know that hundreds of victims are following today's debate and are wondering what the government intends to do. Our duty is to tell the truth, to explain the situation as it is and to go over the substance of the agreements. Based on all of that, the health minister will do everything he can to offer more. We will find out what the surplus is and how much money is available. We will surely wait for direction on how to reallocate the surplus.

Just like my hon. colleagues, I am pleased not only to reflect on that program, but also to listen to the non-partisan comments made by all the members. It shows that we are concerned about those who are not covered under the program, while acting responsibly toward those who were unfortunately eligible, since no one would wish to have to make a claim under such a program. We would not wish that on anyone. We have to face the facts and live with the commitments we made to the victims.

It is a responsible approach that will hopefully allow us to grow. In this regard, I rely on the magnanimity of both the health minister and the finance minister so we may continue this discussion and provide assistance to those who deserve it.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is very clever in his use of words. I guess that is the basis of my argument.

Only Liberals could applaud a statement like that. I said he was clever in his use of words and his use of language. The truth of the matter is the file has always been in the hands of the government. The government is the one that set the parameters of the program when it set up an artificial date to compensate victims from 1986-1990. That was deliberate on the part of the government.

The government chose to pick those dates and when it did that, it flew in the face of Justice Krever who said that all victims, regardless of when they contracted hepatitis C, should be compensated. The government knew that the $1.2 billion it set aside would never be used. In fact the legal, actuarial and administration fees have outstripped payment to the victims. Only a Liberal could agree to a program like that.

We are talking about fairness to all victims. For the minister to stand in his place and say that it is no longer in the hands of the government, it never left the hands of the government. It is in the driver's seat. That is why it was elected to form the government. Canadians had some level of confidence that it would do the right thing, but it has failed on this test time and again.

The minister was not in the House. He preceded you and I, Mr. Speaker. He took a little vacation and came back. He missed the intensity of the debate in the House in 1998, when the government had a chance to do the right thing. We brought in a motion to do exactly that, to compensate all victims. Guess what happened? The Liberal government, of which he is now a part, voted down compensation for all victims.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, because you have a great memory for this place and I give you full credit. I always enjoy it when you are in the chair because you take such an interest in debates like this. The history of this place will show that Liberal members stood in their places and voted against that compensation package with tears in the their eyes. That is correct. In fact the Minister of Public Safety today is one of those members who stood in her place and was forced by the Prime Minister of Canada to vote down a compensation package for all victims. What does that tell us about the sincerity of the government to do the right thing?

Why does it not put its good will to the test. Why does it not come back to the House and have that same vote. Last night we had a take note debate. Where else in Canada would one have a take note debate? We come in and politely discussed something. However, all Liberal members should get up and be forced to vote on this issue, whether they agree to compensate all the victims or continue to carry on the way they have.

To add insult to injury there is almost as much money in the fund today as there was the day that the funding was announced. There is a reason for that. I remember Allan Rock at the time stood in his place and said that the government could not compensate them all simply because there were too many and that the government did not have the money to do it. That was his argument.

There are fewer victims than the government imagined there were at the time. On this side of the House, we were telling the government there were way fewer victims and that the money it had put aside would compensate all the victims. It chose not to compensate all victims.

I guess the question is why did the government do it, knowing full well there was more money in the fund to do it then? There is still the same amount of money in the fund. Why not compensate all the victims? This issue is still in the hands of the government. Why does the government not bring this to a vote in the House of Commons and have members stand in their place and make a decision, yes or no, to compensate all victims?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member has raised a good point about everyone wanting to compensate as many victims as possible, and the necessity to look at the amount available in the fund. As at March 31, 2004, there was in fact $865 million. In June the courts will be able to determine the amount of surplus, as is set out in the documents at this time.

When considering that $865 million that remains, the obligations relating to the 9,424 claims have to be kept in mind. This process is evolving. So we could not, responsibly, go into that $865 million, because there are commitments to victims for the period from January 1, 1986 to September 1, 1990.

In June 2005, the court, with the assistance of specialists in the field, can determine the real amount of the surplus and the way it can be allocated. That is the time a decision could be reached.

But to assume today that there is $865 million in the fund that can be used in its entirety for other victims is to neglect the moral and legal obligation to those already included. What will be needed is outside expertise.

I understand the hon. member's wanting to be generous. We all would like to be. A procedure was adopted at the time, however, and was recognized by the court. Consequently we will be in a position in June 2005 to know the real amount of the surplus and what is to be done with it. At that time I think there may be a way to expand the scope of the settlement.

We shall see if this is a genuine surplus, taking into account the commitments to the 9,424 claimants to date. WIll there be others between now and June 2005? We are told they have until 2010 to make a claim, and after that we shall see.

To conclude that the government can unilaterally move in on this fund at this time and turn its back on the commitments made to the others would be irresponsible and a breech of contractual obligations and of what the court has determined. I am sure that hon. members are not asking us today to go back on our word to the victims that are covered under the program.

We cannot do this to the detriment of those victims. I know everyone has good intentions and we all want to help. Seeing this $865 million surplus in the account is heartbreaking, especially when we know that people suffering from hepatitis C could use it. We agree. That is why the Minister of Health has promised to do everything he can, while keeping our word and our obligations.

I trust the court and the administrator. I think these funds were spent prudently and have met the needs of those who have already filed their claims.

I am glad there were not more victims during that period. At the time, the Minister of Health thought there were many more. That is why such a big fund was set up. His advisors told him that the potential number of victims was much higher. We should be glad today that there were far fewer than predicted. That is good news.

At the time, scientific knowledge was not as great. It was thought there would be many more victims and therefore a significant amount of money was allocated. The cut-off date is June 2005; we can decide then what to do with the surplus.

All the hon. members in this House would like this money to be used by the victims. If the numbers are lower than predicted, we should be happy. If there is a way to do better and use these funds for the victims infected outside the recognized dates, let us hope the surplus will help. We all want that.

[The Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Violence Against Women; the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Softwood Lumber; the hon. member for St. John's-South—Mount Pearl, Natural Resources.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the intervention of the member for Outremont, who seemed to think he was in front of a television camera. I must say that he was eloquent. This is obviously because of his past.

First, I would like to remind the House of a number of facts. In the 1980s, two viruses contaminated blood supplies: the HIV virus and the hepatitis C virus. It is important to remember that, as a result, 10,000 people in Canada contracted hepatitis C, some 1,000 contracted the HIV virus, and half of these people died.

Our colleague and health critic for the Conservative Party of Canada was quite right to remind the House that parliamentarians sitting on the Standing Committee on Health were very well advised to ask for a review of this file.

This is the thrust of the motion today. We are asking that the unanimous report of all parliamentarians who sit on the Standing Committee on Health be adopted and not only that this report be adopted unanimously, but that it be votable.

I must say, however, that I do not agree with the hon. member for Outremont when he suggests that we can completely disregard history. I am sure that the hon. members who were in this House in 1998 will remember John Nunziata, an active member of the so-called rat pack, and he was not alone. There was the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who went overboard at that time. It was not easy to deal with the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. We even recall rat pack t-shirts up for sale.

That having been said, we understand that this is a non-partisan issue. There is no doubt about that. But the Liberals cannot be changed. It is just not possible that this government decided to turn its back on one of the most humanitarian things that could have been done under the circumstances, that is, not to discriminate on the basis of chronology.

The Canadian Hemophilia Society told the government that 20,000 people was way too much in terms of traceback. We know that, as far as the traceback efforts to identify those who received blood transfusions was concerned, the figures were inflated. Minister Allan Rock even commented at the time that expanding the compensation program would bankrupt the health system.

Sadly, we must remember that the Liberals lacked compassion during the period in question. We are seeking today historic reparation, and this is an opportunity for all parliamentarians in this House. The issue may not be a partisan one, but do not expect us to act as if those infected before 1986 and after 1990 had already been included in the deal back in 1998, because that it not true.

I would like the hon. member for Outremont not to forget that, among the determinants of health, there is the noise caused by railroads. I hope that, as parliamentarians, we will be able to pass legislation before Christmas to give the Transportation Agency more power to ensure that hepatitis C victims can enjoy some peace and quiet, because right now there is also an issue of quality of life, and noise plays a role in that.

Now, with respect to the trust fund of $1.1 billion—that is a considerable sum of money—it is true there is an element of visibility in here for the government. Yet, of this $1.1 billion, $800 million has still not been used.

I really hope that the government will act very quickly, and this is the thrust of the report that was unanimously adopted by the Standing Committee on Health. We are asking for a two step commitment. We want the Minister of Health to consult with the cabinet before Christmas and to say publicly, because he will have consulted with cabinet and Treasury Board before Christmas, “Yes, in principle, at the cabinet table, we have voted for the extension of the compensation program”.

Then we will come to terms with the various imperatives. If the court does not allow us to act before June of 2005, we will understand that. Members will recall that these questions were decided by the courts at the request of Justice Horace Krever, from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

What we would like to see now is a clear commitment from the executive, from cabinet. This is what our very reasonable report is all about.

Second, we have to think of this. Why did the tainted blood scandal happened in the 1980s and 1990s? It happened because there was no control over the blood supply system. The situation was the following. The government relied on the Red Cross and its reputation. The idea was that the Red Cross having such a good reputation worldwide, it was not necessary to have a regulatory control. This should get us thinking about what happens when the public authorities are not taking their responsibilities properly.

It was only in 1989 that the House of Commons amended the schedule to the Food and Drugs Act, giving us a minimum of control over blood products. Before 1989, there was no control whatsoever by any public authority.

Of course, we cannot rewrite history. We understand that the Red Cross had a great reputation and credibility at that time. However, this should get us thinking about what it means to abdicate one's responsibilities.

I have no doubt that all members in this House want to extend compensation. I have no doubt about that. We cannot ignore the fact that, historically, the government has not been as sensitive toward the people who were infected. That being said, it has the opportunity to correct a wrong. It is true that, yesterday, I commended the health minister for his speech. During question period, in response to a question that I asked him, the minister said that the member for Hochelaga had recognized that the government was prepared to take the right action. I am willing to say that, if the government recognizes that compensation must be expanded, all Bloc Québécois members will certainly be very pleased with this decision. That is not a problem. However, we will congratulate it in the name of this transcendence, this broad thinking and this generosity of soul, since this is the attitude that must be taken in a file such as this.

However, it would have been advisable for the cabinet to address the issue much more quickly. How is it that we are not seeing a much clearer commitment from the Minister of Health?

That being said, let us work for the future and hope that, before the adjournment in December, such a commitment can be made. I know that all parliamentarians will work on this.

When we held this historic vote in 1998, the compensation plan was comprised of six categories. In the first one, as soon as antibodies were detected in the blood, one would receive $10,000. Depending on the seriousness of the case, one could receive cumulative compensation of up to $250,000. We will also recall that the government added, in conjunction with the provinces, an amount of $300 million to provide care for people who were infected during the period between 1986 and 1990.

Consequently, this is an issue of public health, compassion and responsibilities.

As parliamentarians we have simply delayed too long in putting this matter behind us.

The impatience comes, we must admit, from the fact that everything was documented. Justice Horace Krever was a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the highest court in Ontario. He had chaired a commission of inquiry into access to confidential medical documents in Ontario. He documented the abuses and prejudices that victims had suffered and what a responsible compensation scheme should look like.

Justice Krever chaired a royal commission whose terms were discussed in cabinet. We know that a royal commission must be authorized by the Privy Council. We cannot say that it was not serious or not binding. In 1995 the commission tabled its report.

We will remember that Justice Krever earned his reputation. In fact, some intervenors, among them the former minister Pierre-Marc Johnson, the Red Cross and Thérèse Lavoie-Roux went to the Federal Court seeking to mark out the powers of the inquiry.

As we remember, the Federal Court decision was that the Krever Commission could not find people criminally guilty for their actions, but that it could make recommendations. This Federal Court jurisprudence means that, today, the powers of royal commissions are limited in this area and it has left vestiges in the arguments surrounding the Gomery commission at present.

I repeat, it is a question of compassion, humanitarianism and responsibility.

Last Friday, I spent the morning in Montreal, on the avenue du Président-Kennedy, named for the Democratic president assassinated so unfortunately in Dallas, in November 1963. I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and spent the morning with them. They are volunteers. The Canadian Hemophilia Society was founded in 1953 and devotes a research budget of half a million dollars to finding out a way to get answers, through R&D, to all the illness involving the blood coagulation factor.

In the early 1990s, the Canadian Hemophilia Society was visionary because it told the government that its predictions were exaggerated and that there was no logic in making two classes of citizens. All of these victims were affected equally by their unfortunate circumstances.

A person who goes to the hospital emergency department and ends up being given blood products is not being treated carelessly or cavalierly. One expects public health authorities to control the supply, circulation and distribution of blood and blood products.

It will be 10 years ago next week that the Krever Commission started up, under Justice Horace Krever. Hon. members need to realize what it means to live with Hepatitis C. There are varying degrees, of course; not everyone is affected in the same way. But we need to keep in mind what it means in terms of resistance, fragility and worries surrounding the most ordinary of daily acts.

The volunteers of the Canadian Hemophilia Society are very courageous to get involved as they have. I have had a chance to talk about this with François Laroche, who comes like me from the Quebec CIty area, from Beauport.

They have always remained hopeful that the government might eventually review its decision. I hope that this will come to pass. I am confident that the Minister of Health, a former NDPer from British Columbia, will waste no time getting a brief to cabinet so that we may have something solid to go on.

I was happy yesterday to hear the Minister of Health refer to his determination. Since the Krever Commission, there have been five different health ministers. They could have settled this, and it would all be behind us. I know we can be assured that, by Christmas, cabinet will have been informed and the Minister of Health, with the support of everyone in this House, will be rising from his place to commit the entire government to this undertaking. When the Minister of Health rises from his seat to announce that the cabinet has adopted a resolution to allow compensation to be expanded to include victims from before January 1986 and after June 1990, I know that all hon. members will feel that our actions over the years have had results.

I can assure you that all Bloc Québécois members want to act in a non-partisan way on this issue. However, our desire to act in a non-partisan way will not make us forget history. We will not revive actions and policies that should not be revived. We would now like to remind the House again that this is a matter that warrants the full attention of all parliamentarians.

I will conclude by talking for a few minutes about the compensation of the HIV victims. You will recall that a federal-provincial-territorial agreement had been reached. They were talking about 300 people, which was not a lot. These people were given $30,000 lump sum, providing they agreed not to sue the government. It is still rather sad to see that these people are getting benefits, which to this day have not indexed. They have been getting the same benefits for close to ten years now. We all understand the effect of inflation and can appreciate that these people's purchasing power has shrunk significantly.

This is less widely known than the tainted blood and compensation issues. However, it requires our attention as well. When I met with Mr. Laroche, Mr. John Plater and Mrs. Ostrowski last Friday, I was told that there was some catching up to do in this area.

In short, we hope that the government will roll up its sleeves and announce a public commitment by Christmas. We will of course respect the prerogatives of the court. If the deadline of June 2005 is the one to be respected, so be it. However, we would feel much more comfortable if the executive were to make a much stronger commitment than what is being made now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and then I will have a question for the hon. member.

He has been talking about a non partisan approach. I am in total agreement with him, but we should pick our words carefully for fear of going a bit astray and becoming partisan.

For example, we could consider setting up a trust, and we could have a unanimous motion in committee, with the support of the Liberals, the socialists, the separatists, and the opportunists. This motion would be to the effect that, with an eventual surplus in the fund, we could compensate more people and get into the question of who can receive compensation. We all agree on this. We want people infected before 1986 and after 1990 to receive compensation. That is what we all want.

But we cannot do as we wish, and the hands of the Minister of Health are tied. He explained that to the House last night. The transport minister gave the same explanation today. Funds in the trust do not belong to the Government of Canada or to Canadian citizens.

The minister or the Privy Council cannot access these funds on their own. They must follow the rules of the trust, as established by three courts of law, namely the Court of Quebec, the Court of British Columbia and the Court of Ontario.

There is a trustee, people who act on behalf of those who are receiving this compensation. So, we set up a trust, which acts on their behalf and which makes the investments that generate the funds. Consultants will tell us in June—it will come sooner than we think—what the surplus is. We believe there is a surplus, we all agree on that. But what is the real actuarial surplus? We must take into consideration people who may still be eligible for these funds, people whose needs will increase in the future, people who may collect compensation for another 70 years. So, what is the surplus after all these things have been taken into consideration?

It could be $400 million or $500 million. I do not know and we are waiting for the answer. Then, we will have to work with the claimants, the trustees, the courts and the provincial governments to make recommendations on how to use that surplus.

I think the minister's wish has been clearly understood. We definitely know what he wants from all the members of the Standing Committee on Health, in a non-partisan context. But I do not think we really want to use expressions such as “before Christmas”, “earlier” or “immediately”, in reference to the implementation of the changes. We want to do it at the earliest opportunity. If that means we have to follow the procedures and if that takes us to the month of June, so be it.

I am asking the hon. member what he thinks of the other assistance and compensation that were provided. Because let us not forget that assistance was provided to victims. Work was done with the provinces, in research and development, and also with the Canadian Hemophilia Society. The trust is working with them, since they are receiving funds from these $525 million, funds that are used to help these victims.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I invite the parliamentary secretary to be very careful, because I cannot detect any hint of partisanship in my remarks. Moreover, I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has a vivid imagination. I invite him to recognize the value of what I am saying. I believe all the members of the Bloc Québécois in this House work in a non-partisan way.

Like the parliamentary secretary, I recognize that when courts hand down their decisions, there is something restrictive about them. I understand the meaning of the word “trust” very well. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health must agree with me that when the review of the actuarial surplus is complete, arguments can be made to enlarge it. That is what we are talking about.

In any case, before going to court, the cabinet must make itself clear on this issue. I am simply asking that a commitment be made to do this before Christmas.

June as a deadline is feasible, but for the victims, every day and every week count. For them, June is the middle term, not the short term.

I agree with the secretary that the health minister is acting in good faith, is eager to solve the problem and wants to be known as the minister who extended the compensation. I trust him.

Nevertheless, the health minister needs to understand that our quest for justice has made us very cautious, since the government has never acted before. Everything is in place for the government to act. I trust the minister, but do not ask me, as a Bloc member, to abdicate my responsibility. We will put pressure on the government. We will act intelligently, courteously and according to parliamentary rules. Yes, we will exert pressure, because we know that, in politics, you have to see it to believe it, and so far we have not seen anything.

Now, good faith is presumed, and bad faith should be proven. Yesterday, the health minister said “Trust me”. That is what we are going to do, but we hope that there will be a clear commitment, not that we want to push him. I am very much aware that the minister is to be “handled with care”. However, we will exert whatever pressure is needed to get results.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would make a comment and then I would like to ask a question of my colleague. I would like to congratulate the member for Hochelaga for his humanist, humanitarian and humane position and for his compassion toward the victims.

This is how he always speaks, whether in meetings, in caucus or elsewhere. Indeed, it is always the same discourse, unlike that of the member for Outremont, who thought that he was in front of a camera. His was a legalistic discourse, short on humanity.

It is important to recall the position of the member for Hochelaga, who has always maintained that the federal government had responsibilities, could pay and still had control over the file.

My question for him is this: is the stubborn and legalistic position of the minister that there is an agreement, that we cannot move before 2005 and that we cannot do anything, not an obstacle to solving this issue?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words. He has caught me a bit off guard. I was not expecting such praise. I sometimes think it should come from both sides of the House but public life being what it is, my expectations are not too high.

That said, more seriously, I think that the Bloc members understand that we are seeing a minister who wants to take some action. We are hopeful that he will act. Not only do we wish him good luck, but we are ready to recognize that the minister is new to this House and that he is entitled to a honeymoon period when he needs our trust in him, and he has that.

It is true that when funds are in a trust, there are a certain number of legal constraints. Obviously, we want the government to press its case once the actuarial review provided for in the agreement between the trustees and Crawford Adjusters is complete. Moreover, I am convinced that all members of this House will do the right thing and that this minister wants to go down in history as the person who found a solution to all this.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The minister has received a lot of compliments from colleagues on all sides of the House on his open-mindedness to this very important question that the health committee has brought before us.

The report from the committee urges the government to extend the compensation outside of the window. Under the agreement, which the member talked about and which I know he is familiar with, my understanding is that with regard to the disposition of any surplus the agreement presently provides for four potential uses: reinvesting the money; returning it to contributors, including the Government of Canada; increasing payments to existing beneficiaries; or spending the money on activities that would benefit the beneficiaries, for example, research.

The agreement in fact is not silent on the disposition of surplus, but extending the window does not seem to be one of these items, although I think through the utilization of one of the other ones we may be able to still do that. I know the minister will have to consider that.

Does the hon. member know whether the health committee considered the current provisions of the hep C agreement, whether it had any position or concern about the fact that the determination of surplus was not scheduled until 2005 and whether there was any mechanism by which a determination of surplus could be accelerated?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, the members did examine the agreement, of course, because they are professionals. Second, I understand that, in court, prosecutors will be able to make arguments like the ones we have been discussing for the past two hours.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 28 the Standing Committee on Health submitted a report to the House, which reads as follows:

That this Committee...urge the government to extend compensation to all those who contracted Hepatitis C from tainted blood; further that the managers of the fund, the Hemophilia Society and other relevant witnesses be invited to meet with the Committee on this subject;--

Today there is a motion to concur in this report. It is very timely in view of the fact that last evening there was a take note debate on this important matter.

I had an opportunity to follow the debate and I reviewed some of the debates of the members. I was quite taken by the extent of the support for the statements by the hon. Minister of Health on this matter. I want to put on the record what the minister said because I think it is important that members be reminded of the attitude and the position that he has taken. On Tuesday, November 2 in the take note debate he said:

For as long as I have been in public life it has been my view that we the elected legislators do our job best and Canadians are best served when we reason together constructively and respectfully. This is even more so when an issue is tough, when it evokes strong passions and when, as in the case of the suffering of victims who have been infected with hepatitis C through the blood system, it appeals on so many levels to that basic human compassion and decency which I know motivates all members in the House.

That is a very important characterization of the position that the minister has taken, not only in that debate, but in the work he has done since taking on his responsibilities.

I was here during this period in which we dealt with the hep C issue. I remember the emotion. Quite frankly, we have seen it today. Members, and even new members, have been moved to plead for some compassion, to have a conscience, to deal with the health and well-being of Canadians. That is our job.

I understand the passion, and it is important to recognize that members feel very strongly that this may be the right thing to do, but the important thing is that we take all appropriate steps to examine the options and to do whatever can be done.

One of the members in the debate, and even again today, made the allegation that the Government of Canada knew the blood was tainted and yet took no steps whatsoever and that the government apparently knew about the surplus and did nothing over all these years.

That is really not the case. The members will know that as a consequence of the consideration of the House of Commons at that time, a settlement agreement was agreed upon. It laid out some fairly explicit terms and conditions under which the fund would be operated.

With regard to the operation of the fund, the minister laid it out quite nicely last night when he said that the government was not in control of the funds. The government is in an arm's length relationship under a trustee and the fund is operating in accordance with the agreement.

It does mean though, and as I indicated in the question to the previous speaker, that the agreement has some provisions in it which address the possibility of the existence of a surplus and the possible disposition of any surplus.

Members know that potential claimants under the prescribed window can make claims against this fund for another seven decades. The amount of the benefit that might be payable depends upon the nature and condition of their particular consequences as a result of hep C.

Given those facts, it is very difficult to estimate what might be the claims over the next 70 years. It might be a little difficult to determine what other things might happen. In terms of the $1.118 billion available in the fund, members know that not all of that has been used. However it is clear that any determination of a surplus has to anticipate claims over the next 70 years.

The beneficiaries prescribed and defined under this agreement are clear. It is a window. That was a very difficult decision to make. Members can refer back to the emotional debates in the House and to the questions in question period as the members considered this. Points were made with regard to what the starting point had to be with regard to the window.

Is there a surplus? Well, the trustee of the fund will at least be making an attempt to determine whether an actuarial surplus is projected by June 2005. That may then bring into play the discussion about whether there is any opportunity to do something else.

As I have indicated in my previous question, the original agreement contemplates four potential uses of the surplus: reinvesting the money in the fund; returning it to the contributors, including the Government of Canada; increasing payments to the existing beneficiaries; or spending the money on activities that would benefit the beneficiaries as defined, for example, on research.

To the extent that the agreement currently would permit any surplus money, under certain circumstances, if it were actuarily determined, then the moneys could theoretically go back to the Government of Canada. Then, of course, the agreement would not cover those funds any longer and the government may very well be in a position to make a further initiative with regard to hep C victims outside the window. That is something that would have to follow a process.

I asked the member for Hochelaga, since he is on the health committee, whether he was aware of any provision under the agreement where the date the actuarial determination of a surplus at June 2005 might be accelerated. I think that is a very good question. I do not know. I am sure that people are looking at that now.

I suspect, having read the debates and followed and watched some of the debates last evening, it would be the consensus of this place that we take every reasonable opportunity to assess the options and do whatever we can. I think that is reflective of the hon. minister's statements to the House. He came here in good faith. He listened to the debate. Members were very generous in their praise for the minister in that he was so open-minded on this. The minister, in this regard, has been very clear. All members should be very pleased that we are able to deal in that environment.

This is not a matter of who has more conscience, nor is it a matter of who wanted to do something and who did not want to do something.

As members can see, there is not only the settlement agreement, there is also a pre-1986 and post-1990 care package, an undertaking initiative and the hep C prevention, support and research program, all of which came out of the work that members did back at that time.

The members who raised this in the health committee, which represents members from all parties, have taken the opportunity to bring this matter to the House with their unanimous recommendation that we look at this. For that reason, it is important that we carry on this debate.The fact that we are having this debate again today after a full take note debate yesterday is reflective of the care and concern that all hon. members share in this regard.

There is some question as to why some people were left out. I guess the question would be: What was the thinking behind that decision not to extend compensation outside the 1986 to 1990 period?

Having looked at some of the details and the data, I have learned that in 1986 most blood banks in the United States implemented surrogate testing to screen blood for non-A and non-B hepatitis. Canada did not implement surrogate tests. Canada implemented direct tests when they became available in 1990.

The federal government, the provinces and territories took the position not to compensate persons infected with hepatitis C through the blood system before 1986 or after July 1, 1990 because the Canadian blood system was deemed to be technically as safe as possible. Instead, the federal government agreed to transfer $300 million over 20 years to assist the provinces and territories with hepatitis C health care services. That is concisely the underlying thinking about why people in Canada who contracted hep C and HIV through our blood system during the period outside of 1986-1990 were not included in this package.

I am not sure whether or not it is useful for us to debate some of the logic about what happened back then knowing that since then the Red Cross has had a role change. We now have Canadian Blood Services. I am not sure whether or not it is going to help us to debate whether or not surrogate tests, had they been adopted in Canada, would have been a reliable way to determine whether or not there were problems with the blood products that were available.

I am not sure if there are legal questions here about whether or not any cases are pending or someone is suing the government because during the period outside of the window where compensation or benefits were available there was a basis for a legal proceeding. I am not aware of any. Legal advice has said that under the circumstances, because there were no tools to definitely determine what the problems were at the time, there was no basis for doing more than we had done notwithstanding the fact that the United States had been looking at surrogate testing.

People have been talking about a surplus and I can only suggest they are speculating at what might be available. Of the $875 million deposited by the Government of Canada, payments of approximately $387 million have been made to about 9,500 approved claims. The fund still contained $865 million as of March 31, 2004. The 9,424 claims breaks down to 4,452 approved claims for people infected through the blood system, 46 claims by persons secondarily affected by a spouse or prenatal exposure, and 4,926 claims by family members for loss of support.

It must be recognized that payments out of the fund may continue, as I indicated, as much as 70 years either to new claimants who have until 2010 to apply or for continuing payments to those who have already qualified. Claimants could be making claims for additional compensation as their disease progresses because there are different levels of benefits available.

Hon. members would agree that there is some question about what the extent of the surplus will be, if any, after an actuarial determination. These things take time. It is not within the hands of the government at this time but within the hands of a third party pursuant to an agreement to which the federal and provincial governments are party. Work will be done to determine what options may be available.

To the extent that any benefits would be extended for any other purpose and outside of the window, how do we determine the benefits that might be payable or the aggregate value of the claims? This has to be determined. How does the aggregate value of those claims relate to whatever the surplus might or might not be?

In that case, it is probably an important question for the health committee to consider. The health committee had passed a motion that the managers of the fund, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, and other relevant witnesses be invited to meet with the committee on the subject and that a report be tabled in the House, if necessary. I think it is going to be necessary.

It is extremely important that the health committee continue its work on this important question, that it does apprise itself of all the relevant details pursuant to the settlement agreement, that it deal with the facts to the extent that they are known with regard to those outside the window, and that it talk to the other stakeholders, whether it be the Canadian Hemophilia Society, Canadian Blood Services and any other relevant witnesses so that parliamentarians are fully aware. I know that members will look forward to receiving such a report from the Standing Committee on Health.

I want to close my comments by thanking all hon. members for their thoughtful input into this process. This is one of those subjects which I believe transcends partisanship. I think that there is a strong consensus in the House to seek whatever options may be available and to deal with them. I am hopeful that with the continued work of the Standing Committee on Health, with the work that the minister will be doing and has already started to do, that this question will not be moot in this place, but indeed parliamentarians will be able to work toward the right solution for an important issue.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my friend on the other side of the House that the difficulty with everything he has spoken about is the timeframe. I have people in my constituency who have contacted me over a period not of days, weeks or months, but years. It has been years that I have had the privilege of representing them in this Chamber. People have been living in pain and discomfort, and many of them have been in virtual agony for years. It is not only them but their families too. What they hear from the member is more talk and more study.

I understand the concept of this government or any government having a responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada to ensure that the funds are properly disbursed, to ensure that they are responsible with the funds entrusted to them by the taxpayers of Canada. I have no difficulty with that as a concept. I would expect that of a government.

However, as I hear him talk and talk, and I see the continued inaction on the part of the Liberals, I say shame on them. This is not a partisan issue. To that extent I agree with it. However, it is the Liberal government that made this decision in past Parliaments. It is the Liberal government that has made the decision to continue to drag this out. Surely, if we have had this period of time, there is enough information for it to have an idea of what is going on.

There is an additional problem. Even when the funds do get into the system, the distribution is also completely gummed up. We are talking about the lives of Canadians that must be enriched and enhanced. I do not understand how the government can continue to talk and talk.

I do not know what answer this member can give me, but I would like to know, is there some kind of a deadline to this talk? Is there some point at which the people who have been suffering and who have been inflicted by hepatitis C are finally going to be able to purchase the resources they require? Are the funds ever going to get to them, or God forbid, are they going to be dead before the funds get to them?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand where the member is coming from. I believe he is referring to hep C victims who are within the window that is covered and outside the window. There is no question about it. I think the minister made it very clear. His attitude toward this is concerned with the health and well-being of all Canadians regardless of any dates. He has made that commitment.

It is not a matter of somehow flipping a switch and making something happen. We have an agreement. We have an administrator who is the one who receives applications for benefits and in fact has sent letters of rejection to some people. It is in the hands of a third party.

To the extent possible, we have to find out what are the provisions of the agreement that perhaps can be reopened and how can that be done in a way which does not jeopardize the benefits to settle the claims with regard to the beneficiaries as defined, and to determine what surplus there might be and the extent to which any benefits might be extended to others.

It takes some time to do that. It is not just simply, let us do it. We have to do it properly to ensure that we do it right and that it gets to the hands of all Canadians who need it.

I think that is the will of the minister. I think that is the will of all hon. members of the House. I understand the member's concern. I am not going to debate with him whether or not there are people who need the help. That is a given. We accept that. This is not a matter of sensitivity or conscience. It is a matter of parliamentarians doing the right thing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the report of Standing Committee on Health just tabled. I want to start by reading the precursor to report because it is important:

That this Committee, in recognition of the recommendation of the Krever Inquiry and the large surplus in the federal Hepatitis C compensation fund, urge the government to extend compensation to all those who contracted Hepatitis C from tainted blood.

It goes on to recommend that further witnesses be called.

We have to look at the facts. The system that has been set up has not worked for the victims, and that is the reality. It is now 2004. If someone were a victim of what happened in 1986, that person may not have had justice. The problem the opposition has right now is the way in which the government has handled the legislation, the process and where we are at right now. We sense urgency required for the victims.

It is important to quote from the Krever report, which states, “The compassion of a society can be judged by the measures it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy on its members”. It does not matter what party members were in at the time of the debate or what party they are with now. Can we as elected officials say that we have met that standard? I think all of us have failed. We have to push forward fair compensation and ensure that those victims get justice.

A previous cabinet minister, who spoke earlier today, said that we would all like to be generous. It is not about that. This is about justice. There is a difference in those two things. That is what gives the discomfort about this file.

The government is still on the issue of generosity. People have been victimized because the process of which we have custody over has not protected them. And it is not about blame. It is about correcting an error. It is not generosity will help those individuals. I guess I have some difficulty with the current file and the way it is done.

I forgot to mention, Madam Speaker, that my colleague from Winnipeg North. I am splitting my time with her.

I spent about five years of my life working on the AIDS committee of Windsor and Essex County. I worked for individuals who had contracted AIDS, or HIV or hepatitis C. There was a difference in the quality of life of those individuals who had family supports and those that had none. Some had economic support and some had nothing at all. It was not just about the individual and how they would deal with situations, whether it be at work, or in society, or in their social life or as the conditions affected them. It also related to their communities.

I would like to start with that by mentioning an individual who was mentioned in previous discussions of the House of Commons. Her name is Susan. We need to talk about the people who are affected by this. Once again, it is about justice, not generosity.

Susan's husband suffered a heart attack and a stroke. He had a blood transfusion. He recovered completely from the stroke, but contracted hepatitis C from the blood. He was a sports coach for children, a strong athletic man, but now he is constantly ill. He is pacing himself to work to support his family as long as he can despite being seriously ill, as he has no other financial option. That affected everybody. It affected him as an individual, as a father and as a sports coach in the community. It is not about generosity to restore and try to provide some assistance; it is about justice.

We need to look at some of the issues of why we need to advance assisting the victims. There are lots of good reasons. The first reason would be medically sound. It is obvious that people can care for themselves if they have some compensation that will provide them the medicines as well as the treatment necessary to deal with their condition. That is a big benefit for those individuals and the people around them. It is legally compelling. At a certain point in time, as Justice Krever mentioned, “The compassion of a society can be judged by the measure it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy that is on its members”.

We went through a process where the victims had to sue for compensation. They had to go through an arduous process to ensure that they would receive the support. At the same time, we went through a process, and we had recommendations that were ignored. Coming out of that, we have some of the things about which the government was warned. We have legislation that puts us where we are today nearly 20 years after some people were affected, necessitated largely by federal regulatory failure.

We knew our blood was vulnerable after we did the investigations and after we learned of incidents such as using blood from U.S. prisoners to treat patients in our system. We know we did not have the proper things in place. We then set out measures since then to correct that. That has literally brought down institutions, like the Red Cross. These are strong institutions that had good historical pasts. They had model boards of directors and were involved in the community. They were very much affected by this, and we still did not have the proper processing for this.

Sound finances is another reason we should do this. We know approximately $80 million is available. We know we still need to compensate the people properly. At the same time, we have heard time and again from the government since 1995 that it does not have the money to do a number of things, However, year after year it comes in with surpluses.

Often we talk about compensation measures that go directly back to communities and to individuals. There is a direct benefit there. The government has pleaded poverty on a number of different occasions and because of that it has been unable to afford to do the right thing. It would like to but it cannot because the cupboards are bare. We know that is not true. We know we will have greater funds again.

It was also brought up at one point that this would be a threat to our medicare funding and that it would set a precedent. I argue this is a very unique situation that does not create a threat to our medical system. Canadians want us to do the right thing. They do not want us to delay any further.

It is very generous in terms of the comments the Minister of Health has received and as well in some of his statements. What Canadians are really concerned about is whether this will be another smokescreen for delay. We would all like to trust the process and the system, hear the witnesses and have the delegations come forward. However, how long will it take and at the end of the day will it get the net objective. The net objective should be justice for the people who were affected. That should be the primary concern, not generosity.

The other thing is we should have a system that is politically transparent. It was uncovered that people were not getting the benefits they were intended to get, as had been laid out in the process. We need a system that is more transparent. That is very important.

There is social justice. The country has been built on a foundation that when people are victimized, we find restitution. We ensure that they will have a better future. The Canadian government and the people stand behind them. Have we stood behind these individuals? We have not. Although Joey Haché did receive compensation, he resorted to crossing Canada on his bicycle to draw attention to those suffering from hepatitis C. This is a 15-year-old boy who gets transfusions all the time. We have not handled it well. That is why we need due diligence at this point.

Justice Krever supported this. He said:

I therefore recommend that, without delay, the provinces and territories devise statutory no-fault schemesfor compensating persons who suffer serious adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products.

We should have done this before. It is about time we do it today. It is no longer about generosity. I think that is where the discomfort affects opposition members. This file should be about justice. It obviously has not worked very well. There have been many problems. Let us fix it. Let us get it right and have a sense of urgency.

We all know the sensitivity in the House. Every day there are questions about whether the government will stand or fall. People will continue to be victimized if we do not advance this at the fastest pace possible. That takes trust, and the government has not earned that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the discussion on the matter of hepatitis C compensation.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the present Standing Committee on Health. The member for Yellowhead has taken a position today in the House, reflecting the work of that health committee. The member from St. James has also participated based on the camaraderie and cooperation that has been enjoyed by members at that committee. That committee has chosen to take on a very important issue, following remarks made by the present Minister of Health to look seriously at the question of compensation for hepatitis C victims who fall outside the period of 1986 to 1990.

The Minister of Health has said publicly that he is prepared to look at it. He said so again last night in the House. However, he has not put any kind of time limit on that commitment. Nor has he indicated that he is prepared to move forward on that issue, regardless of the amount of money that is left after victims in the period between 1986 and 1990 have been compensated.

We still have a very important issue to deal with in this place. We still have an outstanding matter that must be addressed so Canadians can feel confident that we have not missed this opportunity or been negligent in our responsibilities as members of Parliament.

Let us look very carefully at what the report of the Standing Committee on Health report says. It calls upon the House to look at the fact that:

...in recognition of the recommendation of the Krever Inquiry and the large surplus in the federal Hepatitis C compensation fund, urge the government to extend compensation to all those who contracted Hepatitis C from tainted blood; further that the managers of the fund, the Hemophilia Society and other relevant witnesses be invited to meet with the Committee....

These witnesses would be invited to further give explanation and enlightenment on this matter.

The committee has looked at this issue. It is recommending that compensation be extended now to all victims of the hepatitis C tainted blood scandal, prior to 1986 and post-1990. These people were infected through no fault of their own because our health care system failed them. Our government of the day did not take seriously the tests and advice that were available. It did not take seriously the mandate to show compassion for anyone who had been failed by our health system.

Today we got some indication that the government is looking at it. After six or seven years, we finally have enough interest on the benches of the Liberal government. We may be able, collectively and cooperatively, to deal with this unresolved and sad chapter in our history. We do not want to lose that moment. We do not want to let the good work of the present health committee disappear. We do not want to see the Minister of Health proceed without the full benefit of this chamber and the feelings of all members of Parliament.

It is critical that we deal with the report of the health committee today so we can give good advice and clear direction to the Minister of Health and to the government of the day. We cannot afford to let the minister yet again give rhetoric and platitudes and provide no follow-up action.

We are not questioning the compassion of members on the Liberal benches. We are not questioning the commitment by the Minister of Health. We are saying, based on the track record of this issue and based on seven or eight years of neglect and lack of compassion for those who have suffered all this time, that we are not going to let anybody off the hook. We are going to ensure that there is follow-up to this action.

We must remember 1998, when the Liberal government of the day under the direction of the minister of health at the time, Allan Rock, decided not to compensate all victims but to follow some abstract notion of when a certain test was available and therefore to compensate victims only in a certain period of time. It did so against the advice of Justice Krever, against the advice of learned professionals like Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards and against the emotional pleas of the victims of this tragedy.

Today we want to see that corrected once and for all. It is important to recognize that during that period of time the government chose a regrettable path that left at least 400 victims of the tainted blood tragedy, who have now died, with no compensation and no compassionate care or assistance through a most difficult time. Thousands of others have seen their quality of life deteriorate without any kind of recognition of the incredible tragedy and travesty in their lives.

I urge the government to support the work of the committee. I would move, seconded by the member for Cambridge:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering the motion to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Health.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their place?

And more than 15 members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2) the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.

(Motion withdrawn)

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it absolutely alarming, when we want to do what is right by the victims who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood, that the minister, who sat in his seat last night and suggested in a take note debate that he wanted that too, would sit in the same seat today and vote against a motion in the House that would urge him to do exactly what he said he wanted to do. I find that amazing.

From my hon. colleague's perspective, what does she think the minister's motive was in doing what he did just a few seconds ago in the House? I would like to ask for her perspective on exactly what happened and why the motion she put forward to extend hours to limit debate on this actually happened.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, like the member for Yellowhead, I am shocked at the response by Liberal members to our constructive suggestion to continue sitting until this matter is resolved, a matter that has been outstanding for seven years, during which period of time at least 400 victims of hepatitis C have died without any kind of compensation from the government.

I say shame on the Liberals for not allowing further debate on this constructive report by the Standing Committee on Health, which was adopted by all members of the committee, including the Liberal members. Now, suddenly, they find they cannot live up to their commitment yet again. They have once more told the victims of hepatitis C, “Sorry, no can do”.

I want to remind all members of the House that the same reasons for wanting to see compensation back in 1998 hold true today. They are summarized, as said so well by Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards at the time, “Compensation for all hepatitis C blood injured Canadians is medically sound, legally compelling, necessitated largely by federal regulatory failure, financially sound, not a threat to medicare funding, not a precedent, politically transparent, socially just and endorsed by Justice Krever”.

We are simply asking the government, the health minister and all members of the Liberal Party in the chamber today, who stood in the House last night and said over and over again how compassionate they were and made a commitment to follow through on this issue, to finally follow through on their words, to show real compassion and do exactly what Justice Krever has asked us all to do, which is to show that the compassion of a society is judged by the measures it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy on its members.

We ask the government to show that compassion by ensuring that we do everything we can to reduce the negative impact of a decision taken by those who were negligent in their duty many years ago and to show that we are making a just response to a tragic period in our Canadian history.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Madam Speaker, what a bunch of hypocrites to pretend that they want to deal with the hepatitis C issue. The minister stood in this place last night and said that he wanted some closure to this issue by doing the right thing.

I want the member for Winnipeg North to comment on how hypocritical the government and Liberals members are to pretend they want to do something and then at the end of the day do absolutely nothing.

[Some hon. members]

Shame, shame!