Mr. Speaker, with your permission I will be splitting my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.
The federal Minister of Health and the ministers responsible for health in every province and territory have been handed one of the most difficult decisions anyone in government has ever had to make. It is a task that members of the official opposition should be grateful they will never have to make. The ministers had to look into the eyes of people who contracted hepatitis C from the blood system before 1986 and say to them “You will not be receiving compensation for your suffering and the suffering of your families”.
The decision addresses a time when Canada's blood system could have reacted differently. But governments could not have protected the people who received blood tainted by hepatitis before 1986 any more than they could have protected the very small number of people, for example, who are unaware that they are allergic to anaesthetic and die on the operating room table.
The Reform Party has argued that the Minister of Health made this decision because he does not care about human suffering. The Reform Party has tried to suggest that the Minister of Health lacks sympathy for all the people who suffer from hepatitis C.
This is the same Reform Party that has championed two tier medicine. This is the same party that wants one health care system for the wealthy and another health care system for low and middle-income Canadians.
Let us also not forget that this is the same Reform Party whose leader has labelled groups representing battered women as “special interest groups” and refused to even meet with them.
These are the people who are questioning the integrity and the compassion of one of the most decent human beings sitting in this House of Commons, the Minister of Health. It is one more cruel irony in this tragic course of events.
I apologize for the partisan tone of these remarks, but one of the things that makes me most uncomfortable about this whole debate is the political opportunism of some members of the Reform Party on this issue. While we feel deep sympathy for those who were infected before 1986 we must recognize that governments cannot compensate for every harm suffered by all individuals.
Like other Canadians, I have confidence in Canada's health care system. I trust that doctors, nurses and other practitioners are well trained and will do the very best they can with the technology of the day. But when I go into the hospital I go in with the knowledge that nothing is 100% guaranteed.
In 1977 I had a Caesarean section and a beautiful baby was delivered. I went into shock, lost a lot of blood and was given a choice between taking blood or taking an iron infusion. I was articulate and coherent enough to take an iron infusion, but had I been unconscious the doctors would have given me a blood transfusion. I have lived until today to watch that daughter grow up. Medical technology at the time could not possibly tell me whether blood was dangerous or not, but I would have been more than pleased to take the extra 21 years. That is the risk we all take when we undergo severe and traumatic occurrences in the hospital.
The whole issue of compensation for harm caused through the health care system is complex. It requires a thorough and thoughtful debate. The decisions we make today regarding hepatitis C will have serious implications for the future of public health care in Canada. When is the government responsible when Canadians become sick? There should be a clear connection between the harm suffered and the inaction of governments.
Testing for hepatitis C was not done in Canada until seven years after a reliable test was available and used in the United States. The compensation package is an acknowledgement of responsibility for the government's inaction at that time.
Governments cannot protect Canadians from infections they are unable to detect. Therefore, governments cannot accept financial responsibility when people become sick from these unknown, insidious diseases.
What can government do for innocent victims? Government can provide the best possible health care to Canadians. It can put more money into medical research in order to help victims but also to prevent a tragedy like this one from occurring again.
That is why I applauded the finance minister when he increased funding for the Medical Research Council.
I want to take this opportunity to encourage the federal and provincial health ministers to move forward on pharmacare initiatives so that those who suffer from hepatitis C and other diseases will not have to worry about the cost of drugs that will help them manage their illnesses.
As I said earlier in my remarks, I hope that the Reform Party, which is sponsoring this motion, will follow through on what it has started. I hope it will now recognize that Canadians sometimes become ill through no fault of their own. When that happens they require the best possible health care regardless of their ability to pay. I hope the Reform Party will join me in encouraging the government to ensure all Canadians have access to affordable prescription drugs.
In closing, many members of the official opposition have referred to their experiences in talking directly with Canadians infected with hepatitis C and with their families. I have also spoken with the victims of this tragedy. Some of the people I have spoken with will not be compensated because they were infected before 1986 and after 1990. I feel deep sympathy for them as individuals. When I talk with the parents of those children who are sick I cannot help but think of my own children.
However, as a legislator and as a government member I know that we have to make a decision that is fair and that is in the best interest of all Canadians. The decision that was taken by health ministers of all governments, representing four different political parties, is right and it is appropriate. It acknowledges a time when something could have been done to reduce the number of infections and was not.
For those who will not be compensated, we owe to them what we owe to all Canadians: universal and accessible health care and a commitment to continually strive for more new and better ways to deliver health care more effectively and more efficiently.
Whether this be a free vote, a whipped vote or whatever it is, my conscience is clear. I look forward to the vote on Tuesday. I will have no difficulty supporting this health minister's decision and the decisions of the health ministers across the country.
This health minister has more integrity and soul in him than all the members of the opposition. I have no difficulty supporting his decision.