Debates of April 23rd, 1998

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, I find, as usual, that a debate on such a sensitive and emotional issue requires very careful reflection. I am moved, as I am sure all other members are, by the example of Chase and others. I have a very close friend in my riding who is a cause for some serious concern.

I think the debate would be helped along by recalling a couple of things. If I am wrong perhaps the member opposite will correct me. First, the offer that is proffered for victims to consider is based on the acceptance that those who were infected at a time when governments could have done something different and did not, that this is a case where they ought to then come forward with a package similar to the one that we have addressed.

Second, perhaps in this specific case it might be worthwhile to remember that 1987, if I heard the member correctly, is a date that is included in that particular package.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the member has a question he should get to the question instead of going into all this material he never got through before. If he can preface his remarks and get to his question, I think that is the point of the questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I know you will accept that this is a time for questions and/or comments. I wanted to reflect on the date that the member gave us in his presentation. It was a good presentation and one that deserves consideration by all members. I was trying to be helpful by giving an indication that 1987 falls within those parameters. If I did not hear that correctly or if there is an error then it might be helpful to the people concerned to correct that. I do not mean this to be trivial or partisan. It is an important thing to keep in mind.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, the question again goes to the problem that the government is having with dates. The point here is that the date does not matter. It is arbitrary. It is a legal argument.

I thank the parliamentary secretary, who has been sent here to be a marionette today for the minister, for again stressing my point that the date does not matter. Young Chase was infected in 1987. Does it matter if he was infected in 1986, 1985, 1984 or 1980? Why should it matter? Can he explain that to me?

Today we heard from a medical doctor on this side of the House who said that he has practised for some 25 years. He said there was testing available in 1958. Why did the government not choose to take 1958 as the date? The fact is it is an arbitrary date.

I question the member as well on the government's inflated figures of some 50,000 people. The member wants to ask me questions about a date I gave him. We have questions to ask him about the dates he has given us.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, how does the member who has just spoken feel about the fact that the government would rather give grants of millions of dollars to replace tobacco company sponsorship than compensate the victims of its own negligence?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Madam Speaker, I touched on this point a little in my presentation. It seems other things that would appear to be more politically sensitive in the lives of Canadians have more importance to the government and the parliamentary secretary. It is a terrible shame.

I would hope to see the government move like the Irish government did. Now would be the time to do it because this government's decision is wrong. It is just wrong. It is morally wrong, but it has the power, the opportunity and the ability.

My arguments today focused on a young person who is in a terrible situation. The government should reflect on such people. Members of the Liberal Party should reflect on such people.

On Tuesday night when everyone stands to vote the majority of Canadians will be with this side of the House and not with the Government of Canada, which will tell its elected members of parliament to act like the parliamentary secretary has acted today, like a marionette for the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I thank you for providing me with the opportunity to participate in this very difficult debate.

Governments created the Krever commission to examine all the information, to hear from many witnesses and to report on findings of fact about the blood tragedy of the 1980s. Justice Krever's final report is a comprehensive and exhaustive examination of the events. He recognizes the significance of the period 1986 to 1990 as a time when the Canadian blood system could have responded better with appropriate risk reduction measures.

After fully examining the facts Justice Krever advised us that rather than waiting for full scientific proof the Canadian Red Cross could and should have acted in a way similar to what occurred in the United States in 1986.

On the issue of the blood supply in general there can be no doubt of the government's continuing strong commitment to resolving the problems associated with Canada's blood system and to restoring public confidence. We fully understand the need to take appropriate action to rebuild public confidence in the blood supplies.

Any solutions must be governed by three principles. First, the safety of the blood supply must always come first. Second, a fully integrated approach is essential. Third, accountabilities must be clear and the system must be transparent.

The key to success lies in the proper governance of the system. That means we need an effective system of accountabilities, management structures and processes that control the safe supply and use of blood and blood products.

As we move toward a new system for regulating and safeguarding Canada's blood supply, it is important that we discuss thoroughly the details of the new system.

Questions have been raised about the role of the regulator during the transition of responsibilities for governance to the Canadian blood services. Let me review some of the basics.

The regulator's role is to set the standards for safety of the blood system and to ensure that they are met. Over the past several years Health Canada has taken decisive action to improve blood safety, and blood safety will continue to be a priority for the department in the future.

Health Canada regulates the collection and manufacturing of blood and blood products. Health Canada has a comprehensive approach to improvement calling for co-ordinated initiatives in many different parts of the department with the cumulative effect of overall strengthening and improving the blood system safety.

Health Canada is involved in strengthening standard setting and inspection of the blood system, in improving the development of test kits used in blood safety and in facilitating public health intelligence with an emphasis on bettering blood science.

Each of the individual improvements noted contributes in its own way to ensuring that Canadians continue to have a supply of safe, effective blood and blood products when they are required.

The regulator must provide guidance to the operator on how to meet these requirements. Health Canada is in the process of developing guidelines on the regulatory requirements for blood establishments.

Health Canada is also working with the blood transition bureau to advise on regulatory issues during this transition and is working closely with the bureau to communicate regulatory requirements.

Health Canada will also continue to provide guidance to the blood transition bureau and will evaluate any submissions according to established standards.

These are urgent matters and Health Canada fully recognizes that urgency. It has therefore made a strong commitment to give such evaluations top priority. Health Canada has undertaken a major initiative to improve the surveillance and investigative capacity of Canada's public health system. Blood science and blood borne infections, old and newly emerging ones, are at the forefront of this initiative.

The department is building the capacity to answer basic medical and scientific questions by taking an approach guided by principles of consensus building, priority setting, expertise and strong national and international linkages.

Health Canada has established a blood borne pathogens unit to carry out consensus planning, development surveillance, investigation programs, design projects and activities to address the needs that are identified.

Health Canada is building a network of experts and information to include federal, provincial, academic, professional, clinical and public communities to focus the extensive research capacity that exists in Canada on the demanding questions that remain in the blood system.

The goal is to co-ordinate a consortium of research agencies in Canada, including the Medical Research Council, National Defence, Health Canada's national health research and development program, the National Research Council, the Networks of Centres for Excellence and the private sector so that priority applied research agendas for blood borne pathogens can be developed.

This strategy of consensus building will help all partners move beyond collaboration toward total commitment and achieve consensus answers to urgent questions about blood borne diseases.

The department is forging strong international links to ensure that Canada's public health intelligence keeps pace with developments in other parts of the world, putting Canada's various health protection partners in a strong position to trigger effective scientific action.

Over the past several years Health Canada has proven by its actions in areas which fall under its responsibility that it is committed to keeping Canada's blood system safe and of the highest quality.

The year 2000 problem, a central information management issue facing many organizations, is being addressed diligently through several contingency plans. Health Canada has also made a commitment to expediting reviews of information related to the implementation of the year 2000 compliant system.

The initiative of Canada's governments to take action on the national blood system marks an important mutual commitment to achieve a common goal, and that is ensuring the safety of the Canadian blood system and supply.

Health Canada carefully monitors developments at all levels in the blood system. The department will continue to regulate any changes that fall within its jurisdiction. It will take the lead to direct changes which in its view will further strengthen that system.

In his interim report Justice Krever advised Canadians that “safety is an absence of risk”. He also said “safety is an absolute and can never be achieved”. Health Canada believes that all of partners and participants in the national blood system have to strive constantly to reduce health risks and ensure the blood supply is as safe as it can be.

The department has shown leadership on blood safety and it will continue to take an aggressive leadership role in making Canada's national blood system second to none.

We can see from this brief review that Health Canada is taking the necessary steps to ensure that the transition to a new blood system is smooth and successful, and that we will have a system in which all Canadians can have confidence.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. He was talking about now and in the future. What we are talking about is compensation for the victims who were infected through a system that was supported by the federal government of the day.

I have a question for the member. Can he stand in the House today and say that he does not believe the victims before 1986 should be duly compensated?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

As he knows, as all members of the House know, and indeed as all Canadians know, this is a very difficult decision. This is a very tough decision. This is a decision fraught with a great deal of emotion. It is clear that it strikes at the heart of all Canadians. We very much appreciate that.

The point is, though, on tough decisions like this one sometimes tough decisions have to be taken. An issue like this one sometimes requires that tough public policy decisions be taken in a manner that I think is fitting with what the majority of Canadians believe.

In answer to the hon. member's question I simply want to say a tough issue like this one sometimes requires tough decisions but is in the interest of the broader public policy.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us 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.

The motion raises fundamental questions and merits careful and thoughtful analysis, but let me say at the outset that as a physician before I became a member of parliament I share the pain and anguish of all patients with hepatitis C. In fact I have always shared that philosophy as a medical doctor.

The compensation package announced jointly by the federal, provincial and territorial governments last March 27 for Canadians infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system from January 1, 1986 to July 1, 1990 amounted to $1.1 billion: $300 million from the provinces and territories and $800 million from the federal government. The federal contribution represents 73% of the total compensation package.

Let me at once say that the government has not abandoned hepatitis C patients infected before and after this period, just as we would not abandon other patients whose diseases are also a result of treatment procedures, which always carry elements of risk. Our health care system will continue to look after them as the various levels of government across the country are committed to deliver the health care service we are proud of.

We will continue to be imaginative and perhaps we can challenge the Medical Research Council of Canada to conduct focus research to accelerate the discovery of a treatment for hepatitis C, to challenge our medical scientists and to provide them with the resources to do the particular type of research.

I am confident that provincial and territorial governments across the land will not sit idly by. They will be challenged even more to hasten their positive considerations of enhancing home care and pharmacare programs that will benefit hepatitis C patients as well as all other patients suffering from any type of illness.

The motion before us suggests that we should adopt the recommendation of Justice Krever to implement a no fault scheme for this group of patients with hepatitis C. Let me call to the attention of the House that Mr. Justice Krever made this recommendation for hepatitis C patients not because he did not care or neglected other non-hepatitis patients. Mr. Krever in fact made this recommendation for hepatitis C patients only because, as he said in his report on page 1045:

I acknowledge the force of argument made by among others the Pritchard Report that it is difficult to treat blood related injury compensation differently from compensation for other health care injuries. Given my terms of reference, however, it is not for me, here, to consider for any injuries other than those that are related to blood therapy.

It is clear from this statement by Justice Krever that what Justice Krever was suggesting was a no fault scheme not only to compensate patients with hepatitis C but also non-hepatitis C patients as long as their diseases are a consequence of tainted blood.

Earlier this morning I heard arguments from the opposition that it will not open the floodgates as though they were arguing that let us not worry about the other kind of patients. Let me state very clearly that even Justice Krever would like a no fault scheme for all those other types of patients without hepatitis C. Justice Krever said so in his concluding statement also on page 1045 in chapter 39 entitled “Financial Assistance For Blood Associated Injury” of his report:

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

Canadians will note from that quotation, and we in this House have a duty to particularly make this observation, that Justice Krever's challenge for such a plan is addressed to the provincial and territorial governments. He did not include the challenge in the challenge to the federal government as quoted in his report. The basis for this argument is to reduce the impact of blood related tragedy on Canadian citizens “to give some thought to the question of appropriate relief for those affected by the inevitable events”.

I am inclined to support such a recommendation. I am persuaded that in our current legal system the primary mechanism for compensating someone who has been harmed through the fault of others is a civil action for damages and that those in breach of duty to exercise reasonable care resulting in harm are negligent and therefore have a duty to pay. That civil tort process is a lengthy one.

I must underscore again that Justice Krever's recommendation is for all types of patients, not only hepatitis C patients who suffered injury as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products.

This House has not made a policy decision on this fundamental recommendation of Justice Krever. To make a no fault policy change only for hepatitis C patients, desirable as it might be from my perspective or from the perspective of others, is premature and would be unthoughtful of other non-hepatitis C patients equally injured by the blood system and perhaps injured by treatment procedures other than through the blood system. We have not in this House held that debate.

If members opposite would only be respectful and listen to the debate I am quoting from Justice Krever hopefully they will gain some pearls of wisdom. When they are worried about the rationale of this debate they begin to distract me but they cannot distract this member of parliament because the truth speaks for itself.

We cannot be selective for hepatitis C patients only because this is the group of patients who have captured the public consciousness at this time. Where were they before? Did we hear from the opposition before on this issue?

Let me come to the testing of blood donation for alanine aminotransferase, ALT, as noted in Justice Krever's report, volume I. The use of ALT to reduce the incidence of post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis, most of which would later prove to be what we now know as hepatitis C, by 40% was first reported by the New England Journal of Medicine in April 1981.

But in June of the same year the Krever report stated: “The United States National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's ad hoc committee on ALT testing recommended against the implementation of ALT testing in favour of further study of its efficacy”.

It was only in February 1986 in the same report that: “The United States Food and Drug Administration's blood products advisory committee recommended that all blood donations for transfusion be tested for both ALT and anti-HBc, an antibody to the core of the hepatitis B virus, as surrogate, that is substitute, tests for non-A and non-B hepatitis”.

Madam Speaker, since my colleague shared his time with me and he only used seven minutes, perhaps you can give me the additional three minutes beyond my time.

I should also note from Justice Krever's report that it was only in July 1984 that the German regulatory authorities required that all products distributed for use in Germany be manufactured from ALT tested plasma.

Consideration of ALT testing in Canada had not been ignored. But Justice Krever noted in his report the editorial in the December 1984 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine by Dr. Alter and Dr. Holland who were investigators in the United States National Institute of Health study, and I quote from his report on page 642: “They did not, however, endorse the recommendation that ALT testing be implemented, and they said that the true efficacy of surrogate testing could be proved only by a randomised trial that compared tested and untested blood. By 1986, however, no such study had been undertaken”.

I would like to get unanimous consent to continue.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a medical practitioner from days of old, as I am. He has chosen to look at the specific issue of the ALT testing, when it was and when it was not available. That is a debatable question.

The government's main argument for not going down this road is that a precedent would be established that would cause an outpouring of frivolous medical claims. Since the precedents of HIV sit in front of Canadians and since the precedents of compensation for thalidomide sit in front of Canadians, does the member see any evidence of an outpouring of frivolous medical malpractice claims because of those compensation programs or can he find any evidence in international experience of such a precedent setting case showing an outpouring of frivolity when it comes to medical malpractice?

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, when I develop public policy and participate in that process, a more fundamental question is not whether because there will be no floodgate of other cases we can do this for this group of patients. A more fundamental medical question requiring the utmost humanity is to consider all patients equally whether they seek damages or not. That is why the recommendation of no fault by Justice Krever to me is persuasive. But my submission is that the motion before us is premature because it is only focused on a group of patients, not on all other patients equally harmed by blood treatment.

Medical situations are complex and require a rational basis at all times. It is always a tenuous balance between risk and benefit. So I must say that the scientists of the day face a serious dilemma. But let me say in reply to the question that the compensation package announced by the territorial, provincial and federal governments is a response based on careful, sensitive and thoughtful considerations of all the facts and information at hand.

I know that no value of compensation can extinguish the pain and agony of all patients, whether they are included in the compensation package or not. I share their pain and their anguish, as my medical colleagues and other members of Parliament do. But I remain confident that they will understand this announcement was based on a public policy that is thoughtful and careful and fair.

I repeat, the motion before us pre-empts a thorough and careful debate on the whole issue of a statutory no fault scheme for compensating persons who suffer other serious consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products as recommended by Justice Krever or, for that matter, as a result of other treatment, not necessarily blood components or blood products.

That is why in specific response to the question of my medical colleague, now a colleague in parliament, it is not so much the worry about the floodgate of cases, important as it may be. We should consider all patients, even those without hepatitis C. For the opposition to now say we must compensate patients with hepatitis C because they suffered blood related injury, but not those other patients—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member from Reform asked him a pointed question. In the interest of time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister should give a pointed response so that other colleagues can ask questions as well.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member was listening he would have understood that I was answering the question pointedly. The question can be answered pointedly in the context of the greater whole. We cannot be simplistic in medicine. I understand his difficulty, but unfortunately the member was trying to be simplistic in his approach. Life is not a simple entity.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish at the outset I could say it is a pleasure to rise today to address this issue. I am afraid I cannot. In fact, it is a bloody disgrace what has happened in this country.

This government has made what it deems a firm decision and is sticking to that position. I certainly agree with my hon. colleague from the NDP who raised the point of order that the hon. parliamentary secretary has decided to finish his speech instead of addressing the question so aptly put to him by my colleague from Macleod.

I too had intended to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. The hypocrisy of the hon. member is incredible. Back in 1993—

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a very sensitive issue like this, I was told in high school that in the rules of debate when you become personal you have lost the argument.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not think that is a point of order. I think it is a matter of debate.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I was about to point out when the parliamentary secretary intervened with his bogus point of order was that when he sat as vice chair on a special subcommittee he was quite effusive on the fact that all victims of HIV, regardless of when they contracted the disease, should be compensated. Now he stands in his place today with a completely different story because the victims happen to have hepatitis C. If that is not hypocrisy I do not know what is.

Sitting in this Chamber and listening to the debate today, I have heard about all the legal and bureaucratic answers that I care to. It is at times like this that I am convinced there are far too many lawyers sitting on the other side, too many lawyers concerned about the many legalities, concerned about setting a dangerous precedent, concerned about the dollars and cents. They are worried about the bottom line rather than being willing to do what is right, because this is the right thing to do. This government damn well knows it.

Because I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I do not have a lot of time left for my presentation today. However, in the time I have left I would like to read into the record just one of the many letters that I have received as the member of parliament for Prince George—Peace River. I believe that this particular letter speaks for the tens of thousands of innocent hepatitis C victims whose only fault was that of trust. They trusted that the blood system in Canada was safe.

This letter was written on April 21 of this year. It reads:

Mr. Hill,

I am writing to express my appreciate for the article you wrote for the Alaska Highway News on April 20, 1998 titled “Grits' health care policies a bloody disgrace”.

On February 26, 1997, I found out that I was infected with Hepatitis C from blood received after the birth of my son on September 27, 1982.

My life has not been the same since. Each day is a challenge, dealing with extreme pain, exhaustive fatigue, constant medications and the frustration of being forced to change my life because I can no longer live the active lifestyle I enjoyed.

Besides the physical manifestations of Hepatitis C, many people are unaware of the emotional havoc such an illness wreaks. It has been a constant strain on relationships with my family and friends. I daily face my partner's pain and frustration at watching my physical health deteriorate and my emotional battle with the frustration of feeling so angry and helpless over my lack of control of how this disease is affecting my life.

Last October, I had to send my 15 year old son to live with his father in Vancouver because I am concerned about him having time to adjust to his new living situation while I am still alive. I have talked to him about the pride and joy I felt at his birth but it breaks my heart to still see him feeling guilty, like his birth is causing my death. My 18 year old daughter has moved back in with me to help provide physical and emotional support.

My mother, who lives in Manitoba, can't speak to me on the telephone without crying. Her faith and prayers have been an inspiration to me. My brother died of cancer on October 26, 1997. I held his hand as he died, him promising to be there to meet me on the other side soon. I miss the close relationships I had with my sisters. They have stopped confiding in me because they feel I can't handle any more “on my plate”.

I have learned that learning you have Hepatitis C is difficult for many others to handle. I am blessed with supportive close friends but other friends and acquaintances don't call any more. I am sure you are quite aware of how fast “word of mouth” travels in a community the size of ours. I also realize that many people are ignorant and afraid of Hepatitis C and its transmission. But that isn't much consolation for the pain of feeling like a “leper”, when others in the community cross the street to avoid being close to you or put themselves between you and their children.

All that is enough, without the feelings of being a burden to family, worrying about how I can financially manage yet another trip to Vancouver for health care, how my children will manage their further education without my support and the constant sense of frustration at no longer being able to work, for the financial and self-esteem benefits of feeling like a contributing member of society.

In the Peace River area, we also have to contend with the expenses of travelling to major centres for medical care. I am trying to see the bright side of that, by knowing I can see my son when I have to travel to Vancouver for medical care. My limited income because of my inability to work and the expenses of my travel have prevented me from being able to pay for his travel to visit Fort St. John during his Christmas holidays and Spring Break. I had no choice in this situation. I have joined a class action lawsuit because I have been forced into a situation of having to fight for compensation.

I want to also express my sincere appreciation of your speaking up for my compensation rights when I feel my weakest.

If you wish to truly represent me in Ottawa, please continue to push for compensation for ALL Hepatitis C victims.

And if you have a chance to speak to [the Health Minister], please ask him to explain to my children how come their mother's life is not considered as valuable as another's.

I talked to this young mother last night on the telephone from my home here in Ottawa and, while she agreed to let me read this letter because I felt so strongly about it, as it did express the views of so many, tens of thousands of victims, she did ask that her name be kept confidential out of respect for the privacy of her children.

I know my two constituency assistants in Fort St. John are watching this debate today. Every day it seems they hear from people like the author of this letter, innocent victims who phone, fax, e-mail and drop by my constituency office. There is nothing that they nor I can do to really help these victims. They certainly lend a sympathetic ear and I try to be the voice of those victims in Ottawa. Other than that there is precious little we can do to ease the suffering.

The reality is that it is up to the people on the other side of this House to do something to ease that suffering. It is up to the health minister and the Prime Minister. When the vote comes down on this motion to compensate all the victims that have received this terrible disease through tainted blood, it is up to the backbench Liberals to break ranks and vote with their conscience and with their heart. For God's sake vote for these victims.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Prince George—Peace River on a great speech. He is absolutely right, in terms of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister who is in the Chamber.

The point I want to make is simply this. It brings out the worst in members of parliament when they are not allowed to vote freely on an issue which rests solely on the conscience of the member. I want to remind the Canadian people, and I know the member for Prince George—Peace River knows this, that the parliamentary secretary when he was a member of the health committee in 1993 wrote a dissenting report recommending that an inquiry into the tainted blood scandal be launched. That was done. Justice Krever has reported and now the parliamentary secretary is denying the very thing he supported.

I guess in the real world we would call that swallowing yourself whole. The parliamentary secretary swallowed himself whole on this one. Unfortunately that is because the Prime Minister is holding the big stick over him because he happens to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada. Sadly, there are only about two of them who showed up today to debate this: the parliamentary secretary to the health minister, who is waving the big stick over him, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

I would like the member for Prince George—Peace River to comment on the presence of these two and the outrageous defence of the indefensible. Perhaps the member could comment on that.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you not find it more in order that the person alluded to in the question is the person to respond?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member knows that in questions or comments the questions or comments are supposed to be on the speech of the member who has just spoken. I think, in this case, the hon. member for Charlotte, with great respect, did refer to the speech of the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

Of course, the parliamentary secretary, unfortunately for him, was the subject of discussion in both speeches.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member is quite correct. Issues such as this and debates such as this bring out the worst in some members. I guess, to offset that, it brings out the best in some members.

We can clearly see today by the comments which have been made and by the speeches, some great speeches, where people's hearts are on this issue.

The government can continue to display the hypocrisy it displayed in the past. It can continue to hold firm to this position of two tiered victims of tainted blood, or it can do what is right. It has the opportunity to do what is right.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in his speech suggested that to compensate all hepatitis C victims who got their disease from tainted blood is premature. That is what he said, not once but two or three times during his presentation. I would like him to face some of these victims, look them in the eye and tell them that it is premature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his wonderful speech.

The question I have is that the new deputy minister for health apparently will be Mr. David Dodge. I am quoting directly: “There are more important things here than money”. Will he not agree that obviously this government has boiled this entire compensation package down to resources and finances only?