Debates of April 23rd, 1998

Supply

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke talked about how this would force many hepatitis C victims to go to court and how the government would use money defending itself.

Would he comment on the fact that the government is using taxpayers' money to defend itself against taxpayers and the position that puts taxpayers in when going to court to defend themselves against the government and supplying the money to their opponents so they can fight them?

I also have another question if it is appropriate. I know there are certain rules in the House and I do not want to go against those rules. Approaching it from the other side, could the hon. member comment on what impact he thinks the speech he just made had the single Liberal listening to it?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer his second question first. It is ironic that all opposition parties raise this issue. We raised it yesterday and for months and months now. Yesterday we gave the government notice in the House that there would be a very special debate on the hepatitis C issue.

The media looked at it. The rest of the country is looking at it. Ironically I find one Liberal member in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know that this would be of interest to all, but I think the hon. member also knows that it is improper to refer to the absence of others. I think that is what he is in effect doing.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Come on, Randy, tell us who it is.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have made the argument that the member is referring to the presence of one but the effect of that, as he knows, is to refer to the absence of the others. I know he would not want to do that. It would be a breach of the rules.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I make no attempt whatever to say there is only one Liberal in the House.

The issue concerns everybody in opposition. This is not something where the government can sweep it under the table and hope it goes away. It will just not go away. It has to learn that absence does not make the parliamentary heart grow fonder. In fact it is just the opposite.

The other issue my colleague asked about was paying the bills for this. This is ironic. Why is it victims across the country, whether it is hepatitis C victims, victims of crime or victims of virtually everything in our society, end up footing the bill and fighting for rights the government has arbitrarily given to others? The cost will not only be enormous personally for some of these people. There will be the costs to government, court costs, judicial costs and the cost of legal aid lawyers. It will go on and on for years. Yet the government steadfastly says that is okay, that it is their problem and not its problem. It is a sad case for victims of hepatitis C.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I stand on behalf of the New Democratic Party and thank the Reform Party for its motion today. I also wish to thank publicly all hepatitis C victims and AIDS victims in Nova Scotia.

However I have a slight concern. I will be corrected if I am mistaken, but we certainly do not like the idea of a two tier compensation system for hep C victims.

Having said that, I would like to ask if they believe in a two tier health system. In Alberta Bill C-37 is now about to become legislation, which will do erode the public health care system. Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, leave it to the NDP to bring something like that up when we are talking about hepatitis C.

The issue of health care is another issue that we have gladly debated in this House from time to time. What the NDP should do today is focus on a very important issue that is over there, not over here. The NDP would be very wise in this House today to try to understand the situation as it is.

We have thousands upon thousands of people who have arbitrarily been excluded from compensation by a government that cannot justify it. We have victims across this country who have been arbitrarily shut out of a system by a government which is wrong. The NDP would be very wise to maybe expand its horizons. The House would be better off as well.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the previous two interventions and to the questions and answers associated with them. I am more relieved now that we are back in focus. I thought initially, without being sarcastic, that the issue was no longer one as indicated by the motion but rather one of wrangling about parliamentary procedures.

It is important that on an issue like the one before us today we think in long term vision, we look at the errors of the past, we try to reconstruct and go forward.

In dealing with the complex issue of assistance for those Canadians infected with hepatitis C during a time when the blood system could have responded differently but did not, it is important to point out that all Canada's governments, the territorial and provincial governments of all partisans stripes as well as the federal government, have taken decisive actions to ensure that such tragic events do not occur again. It is a point that should be kept in mind as we debate the issue over the course of this day.

It is also important to keep in mind that public faith and confidence in blood safety have suffered as a result of past events. We should not exasperate that. Canadians need reassurance that the blood supply, the blood system today, is safe and effective in Canada as it is in any other country. That is what I would like to speak about today, the progress made by governments to resolve the issue of confidence in blood safety.

I am pleased to inform the House on how governments, this government in particular, are working together with partners to build a new, safe and integrated blood system. In speaking about that progress, I will be speaking about partnership. Restoring confidence in blood safety and building a better blood system hinges on bringing many partners together to achieve a common goal. Partners and stakeholders are essential to any effective national system. This spirit is our guide in building a better blood system where all stakeholders can have confidence that they play a role and have a voice that will be heard.

In Canada, as elsewhere, governments, consumers, those harmed, their families, specialists, scientists and others have all been working to ensure safer blood supplies and better systems of delivery.

In Canada we have made a great deal of progress in designing an appropriate structure for our new blood system. Working closely together with our provincial and territorial partners who own and operate the blood system as a part of their health care systems, we are well on track with transition plans.

A transition bureau has already been appointed. The bureau is working hard to ensure that the new Canadian blood services is up and operating as soon as possible with a target date for September 1998. Of course many operational details still have to be worked out. However, all those involved are committed to making the transition as smooth, as seamless and as safe as possible.

Canada's new blood system is a product of consensus and partnership among all key stakeholders. This is only right because the blood system belongs to each one of us.

By continuing to work together partners and stakeholders will achieve a new system in which we can all take pride. This is not just a technical or management exercise. Rebuilding confidence means earning respect and the good faith of blood donors, consumers, patients and all our citizens.

Mr. Justice Horace Krever's commission provided a clear assessment for Canadians about what went wrong in the 1980s and how we can ensure that it never happens again. Justice Krever set a path that governments and stakeholders are following. The way he has shown was drawn from what he heard during the extensive hearings of the commission and his careful deliberations on the events of the past.

One way we can show we have learned from the past is by building a system with all the feasible safeguards to ensure the past does not happen again.

Throughout the course of public hearings of the commission consumers, transfusion medicine specialists and management experts identified many deficiencies in the old blood system. They identified flaws as a lack of systematic, co-ordinated and rapid response in the face of emerging safety risks. They saw a lack of accountabilities for safety and governance. They saw rigid financing arrangements that did not reflect the focus on priorities of safety. They observed a fragmentation in blood science and research and development. Governments saw all this as well.

The Government of Canada took a lead role in bringing provinces and territories together to discuss ways to solve these problems. We asked consumers and scientists to join in the discussion. We consulted, we listened and we considered options.

Last September at a meeting in Fredericton, Canada's health ministers built on the substantial progress that had already been made and made a decisive step forward in the creation of a new, single agency to manage Canada's blood system.

The new Canadian blood services moved a step closer to becoming fully operational by September 1998. That agency will be responsible for managing all aspects of an accountable, fully integrated blood system. It is based on four key principles that government set out for the new blood system in 1996, principles which partners and stakeholders endorsed with enthusiasm.

First, the safety of the blood supply is of paramount importance if we want to earn the confidence of Canadians.

Second, a fully integrated approach is essential if we are to have a clear and coherent system in which all participants work effectively and co-operatively.

Third, accountabilities must be clear so that people inside the system and outside it know who is responsible for action.

Fourth, the system must be transparent because it needs to operate in full view with its windows and doors wide open for public inspection. All those involved in the planning of the new blood system will examine his advice carefully.

Let me say a word about Quebec. So far, Quebec has decided not to be a part of the blood system plans. Quebec is pursuing its own efforts to incorporate the blood system operations in its health care system.

Ways to collaborate with the Canadian blood system and the new blood system can be discussed. Of course blood and blood products used by patients in Quebec have to comply with federal regulations for safety and efficacy, the same as anywhere else in Canada.

What role does the federal government play in the new blood system? The role is quite different from that of the provinces and the territories. The provinces and territories are responsible and accountable for the national blood program. They set funding, broad health policy objectives and ensure the overall integrity of the system. The Government of Canada is supporting them as they manage the transition to the new system. This is very much in keeping and consistent with our role in pursuing better ways to improve and enhance the health of all Canadians.

For that reason, the government agreed to provide a grant of up to $81 million to support the start-up of the new system. Will the Government of Canada play other roles now and when the system is up and running? Of course.

Blood safety is a priority for the government and the government will continue to work to make blood as safe as it can be.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think it is fair to say that the hon. member's time has expired. It is time for questions and comments.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion today is pretty specific, to decide whether members of Parliament agree with compensating all the victims of hepatitis C as Justice Krever suggested.

I listened carefully to the member's commentary and I have not heard much on the actual motion. I would like to ask him a direct question.

Does he believe that Justice Krever's recommendation should or should not be followed?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because it allows me to remind myself and everyone else that the motion gives us an opportunity to address the entire issue.

Like the member opposite, I was a little dismayed that we were not addressing the issues as he presented them or had begun to present them but we were talking about procedures.

Since he has raised the question of the relevance of Judge Krever's impact on the motion today, I regrettably could not finish so that I would have satisfied his question prior to its being raised.

I will take the opportunity to do that now. I want to advise him that in dealing with Judge Krever's very comprehensive report one must take into consideration the nature of risk in a complex biological substance such as blood and blood products. Canadians understand that even when safety is at its highest, the very nature of blood means that we can never let our guard down.

Judge Krever advised Canadians that because of the nature of blood there should never be complacency about safety. How to make a safer, better system which is prepared to face new and emerging threats to safety is one of the key challenges facing all those involved, including governments, scientists, medical and technical specialists, patients and donors.

Health Canada is a regulator of the blood supply system. Health Canada regulates blood and blood products under the Food and Drugs Act and the department conducts national disease surveillance. Those roles preclude active involvement in the operation of the blood system, but as a regulator Health Canada is committed to the same high standards of accountability, openness and transparency that we expect from the provinces and territories in the operation of their blood systems. Canadians deserve no less.

Let me describe some of Canada's recent efforts to strengthen the blood safety system, which is directly relevant to the member's question. First, Health Canada has established a blood safety council to advise the government on matters of blood safety and to be a source of information and guidance on such matters from a national perspective. Consumers sit on this council.

Second, the department is working actively with other partners to reduce risk of bacterial contamination of blood. Third, it is developing a regulatory framework that will take blood regulation forward into the future. It has an expert advisory committee on blood regulations to provide expert input on specific blood regulatory matters. Fourth, disease surveillance capacity related to blood safety has been strengthened. A blood-borne pathogens unit has been set up and improvements in field epidemiology have been made. I am happy to say that today Canada has a stronger capacity to respond to new and emerging blood safety risks as a result of such improvements, improvements recommended by Judge Krever. This is evidence that the government attaches great importance to blood safety.

Members want to know that the government is working to identify potential new threats to the safety of our blood supply and that it is ensuring that never ends. The government will provide a million dollars a year to the Canadian blood services, money that will be specifically targeted for blood science, research and development. That funding will keep Canadians in the forefront of blood science and maintain Canada's position in international blood research.

I know members want me to use the rest of the time to point out that in the new system Canadians are building, better science will be there to support strong and effective regulations. It will be there to help the system meet the highest safety considerations and it will be there out in the open for all stakeholders to review.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for questions and comments has expired.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning in support of the Reform motion, which states “That this House urges the government to act on the recommendation of Justice Horace Krever to compensate all victims who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood.”

When my leader made me responsible for health upon my arrival here in 1993, the tainted blood scandal was one of the very first issues I had to look into. I did so with great compassion for the victims of this tragedy. There are no words to describe what has certainly been one of the worst scandals of modern day medicine in Canada.

Since 1993, the Bloc Quebecois has asked more than 100 questions about the inquiry into the tainted blood scandal. These questions were always intended to advance the inquiry presided by Justice Krever. Parliamentarians will recall that this inquiry ran into some roadblocks. These roadblocks were not always set up by people outside this Parliament. The government of the day seemed intent on throwing a monkey wrench into the process so as to stifle the tainted blood inquiry.

The blood inquiry has gone on for four years and cost $15 million. We also know that documents that could have been very useful to the inquiry were destroyed and that this did not seem to worry the government unduly, because those who destroyed the documents have gone unpunished.

There were also the attempts to block Judge Krever's efforts through the courts. These attempts were never justified, any more than the sometimes extreme comments made about the inquiry.

In November 1996, the Prime Minister maintained that the law prevented him from disclosing documents that included transcripts of cabinet deliberations in 1984, the time when scientists were sounding warnings about the discovery of a dangerous new virus in blood banks.

We are being told that only those who contracted the disease between 1986 and 1990 are being compensated because, although that was when the facts were known, preventive measures had not been taken. We know that there were cabinet transcripts setting out the situation as early as 1984, so why were these documents not disclosed? One could suspect that they contained evidence that the government was starting to realize back then that the hepatitis C virus and other viruses were contaminating blood.

Under the current program announced by the federal and provincial health ministers in Toronto on March 27, the federal and provincial governments are going to contribute $1.1 billion to a compensation fund for hemophiliacs who contracted the disease, but only if they did so between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990.

This fund will also be used to help those individuals infected by a spouse or parent during this period, as well as those who contracted HIV from a spouse or parent infected by blood or blood products.

Of this amount, the federal government's share will be $800 million. The provinces will put up the other $300 million, and will contribute an additional $1.6 billion over the next 30 years for drugs and various forms of health care.

In my opinion, this represents an enormous effort, in these times of tight budgets and cuts to federal payments to the provinces.

The program is restricted to victims who contracted hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990, because the Red Cross and the governments did not take advantage of tests available, in the U.S. in particular, during that time. Prior to 1986, there was no effective test for detecting the disease, which was not known in the form hepatitis C takes today. The governments therefore acted in accordance with what was known at the time.

In my opinion, this program and the governments which signed it were in good faith. Now, however, with a bit of hindsight, we see certain signs that could enlighten us as to the birth of this program and all that could be added to it. We should keep in mind that the provinces will have to spend another $300 million, in addition to providing all health care services and drugs required, at a time when they have just experienced extraordinary cuts to the Canada social transfer.

[An hon. member]

Extraordinary cuts.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

As my colleague has just said, these cuts could even be called extraordinary.

When a government, which is also one of the key parties with responsibility in this entire affair, turns up with a zero deficit and a budget surplus which will probably be $20 billion by the end of 1998, I believe that finding a few million dollars to distribute among all hepatitis C victims is no big deal. Regardless of what may have happened, these people were contaminated through blood and need support.

Since coming to power, the Liberals have reduced the deficit—I want to refer to this again and I am going to provide figures—mainly by passing the buck to the provinces. Between 1994 and 2003, this will amount to $42 billion out of the coffers of Quebec and the Canadian provinces. That amounts to 52% of the cuts imposed, while the federal government's share amounts to barely 12%. This is an eloquent first clue as to the financial situation of the governments.

By the year 2003, Quebeckers and Canadians will face an additional $30 billion in federal cuts to health care, education and social assistance. The provinces, obviously, are going to have to figure out how to absorb them, as it is they who will have to bear the burden and not the federal government. In the meantime, the federal government is coming up with budget surpluses, and by 2000—and I say 2000 advisedly—the employment insurance fund will have accumulated an excess of $25 billion on the backs of workers, the unemployed and the sick.

The representatives of the governments that agreed to compensate the victims of Hepatitis C as humanely as possible did not all start off on the same footing in terms of their ability to pay.

The tainted blood scandal in Canada is a national tragedy, which appeals to Canadians' and Quebeckers' sense of compassion. The point of the exercise is not to point the finger, but more importantly to provide justice to the victims of a tragedy of unprecedented proportions.

This government prides itself on taking full responsibility for the safety of Canada's blood system. It can and must set up a special no fault program. Then, afterward, the issue of setting up a more extensive no fault system should be debated by Canadians as a whole.

For the time being, I invite all Liberal members in this House to support this motion to make it clear to the government that it has a moral and financial responsibility to correct an incredibly unfair situation.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has tragic implications. I have been involved for six or seven years for the simple reason that one of my constituents, Mr. Saumure, is an innocent victim and is fighting over this issue. I think everyone in the House knows that.

I was deeply touched by Mr. Saumure's testimony. Two of his brothers died of that terrible disease.

We must vote on this motion and anyone who cares would want all those who were contaminated to be covered by a compensation agreement. After all, they are innocent victims in all this.

In my opinion, the initiative should come from the provincial health ministers. If the provincial health ministers—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could I please continue?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I would ask members to recognize the hon. member's right to put his question or to make his comment.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if provincial health ministers took the initiative, I am convinced that the federal health minister could open the door and reconsider the whole issue.

It was rather difficult to get the provinces to approve the agreement that was signed. If the Minister of Health rose in the House and said he would consider the possibility of compensating the other victims, the provinces would most certainly say that he should foot the entire bill. This is a fundamental issue for everyone concerned.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

All this shouting is absolutely useless. What is needed is a consensus between all governments on this issue. We have a bunch of whiners on the other side, the NDP—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Gatineau has the floor.