I would like to have a chance to answer. One has to do with the responsibility of the government with regard to what could have been done and was not done. One has to do with a much broader issue, the no fault issue.
On the first part, time and again not only the Minister of Health but many of my colleagues have explained the reasons the ministers of health throughout the country agreed to limit the period from 1986 to 1990. However, in terms of no fault, I refer my colleague to the Krever report on page 1044.
I will read it because I think it is being interpreted in a very dubious way. The Krever report is simply saying, as it states on page 1044:
I recommend the creation of a no-fault scheme for blood-related injury.
Then a bit further on it states:
The provinces and territories of Canada (not the federal government) should devise statutory no-fault schemes that compensate all blood-injured persons promptly and adequately—
The debate we are having here concerns a no fault philosophy that ought to be debated first and foremost, if we follow Krever, at the provincial and territorial levels.