Debates of May 5th, 1998

Supply

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a procedural question for the member for Charlotte. The Reform Party treats an opposition day motion as a free vote. We give a recommendation and members will vote according to how they feel.

I wonder how Conservative members will treat this non-partisan opposition motion today. Will they treat it the same way? Will they be voting freely without whip constraint? Will they be voting with their hearts, will they be voting the wishes of their constituents?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly vote with our hearts in the right place with regard to this motion. I hope members on the other side can do that. There were a lot of them squirming in their seats just a week ago when they had to vote to deny compensation for those innocent victims.

I hope the Prime Minister allows his people to vote with their hearts today. I am sure that if the parliamentary secretary and even the minister spoke with their hearts, and just a bit with their minds, they would have voted with us on this side of the House, as I am sure Mr. Speaker would have done as well if you were in that position.

This motion before us today is good and we have to continue debating this issue. I believe at the end of the day this House will overwhelmingly, at least on this side of the House, support that motion. I know we certainly will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus and all members at least on the opposition side of the House to propose a very constructive suggestion for the government.

We present this motion in good faith and in the spirit of co-operation with the belief that if we all work together we can make a difference. I sense the frustration that the Conservative health critic has just expressed. We are beginning to feel that same sense of frustration having listened to the parliamentary secretary's comments pertaining to this very constructive suggestion. We will try again, throughout the course of this day, to put before members of the Liberal Party the rationale, the testimony, to help them understand that the time has come to overcome this impasse, to put aside the past history on this issue, to do what is right and to act on behalf all blood injured Canadians.

We hope today marks the turning point. As my colleague from Saskatchewan said, if we have a second chance let us use it. Let us not drop the ball. We have the opportunity to make a difference today in an otherwise sorry chapter in this history of this country.

We have had five weeks of emotional, difficult debate in the House. We have had five weeks of personal testimonies on the steps of this building. We have heard heart wrenching stories from those people who are suffering from the disease of hepatitis C through no fault of their own and who are affected by this serious issue. They are looking for compassion and justice. We know we have to end this chapter and get on with making a difference for all blood injured Canadians.

Yesterday the Minister of Health gave us a light of hope when he said he was prepared to convene a meeting, in short order, of all federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health. That was an important step. We took hope yesterday. Today we want to see that hope become a reality. We would like to see the government open the door a little further. We hope the parliamentary secretary's comments are not a reflection of this government's attitude and approach today.

Today the parliamentary secretary said a couple of very disturbing things. I hope he will rethink his statements and his position on those matters. He said that those people affected by the failure of our blood system, the victims of this tragedy, were consulted.

The reason we have made this motion today, presented this constructive suggestion to include representatives of the hepatitis C society and the hemophilia society, is they have not been consulted. They were not included in the development of the agreement that limits compensation to the period of 1986 to 1990.

Yes, there were consultations earlier on. Many months ago the Minister of Health expressed to all those affected that he was willing to listen and do the right thing. We have it in writing. We have documentation from the minister showing his concern and compassion. But we also know that five weeks ago when this decision was put on the table at the federal-provincial ministers meeting of health, they were not included. They were left out of the process. They were not in the loop.

For the record and for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary, let me read briefly from a letter dated April 20 signed by Jeremy Beaty, president of the hepatitis C society. In that letter he asked specifically for the government to consider the viewpoints of the those affected by the tainted blood scandal:

As representatives of the largest hepatitis C through transfusion group in Canada, we ask that you provide funding for independent legal representation to enable our society to access professional advice that is based on social justice and compassion, on behalf of all hepatitis C transfusion victims. This is an issue you can immediately address, and show clear good faith, through a willingness to assist us in our efforts to reach a just resolution.

There is a clear indication on the part of the Hepatitis C Society, which includes all victims of this tragedy and which certainly encompasses the feelings of the Hemophilia Society, that they have not been included. They need to be included. They want to be part of the discussions. We have before the House a very positive suggestion to do just that.

Let us not forget today the contribution that members of the Hepatitis C Society and the Hemophilia Society and all blood injured Canadians have made to this parliament and to this country.

It is hard for us to imagine what they have gone through, the roller coaster ride they have been on, the ups and downs, the hurts and the hopes. Today let us not hurt those victims once again. Let us give them some hope and at least show good faith that we as members of parliament will work together to ensure that the deal is opened up, the question of compensation is re-thought and that they will be at the table.

Let us be absolutely clear that we are not trying to get political mileage out of the suggestion as the parliamentary secretary suggested. At the outset he tried to dismiss our efforts in the House and tried to cast aspersions on our intentions as trying to divide and conquer. For once in the House we have some solidarity. There is support from all quarters. We are working together to do the best thing, to do what is right. Let not the parliamentary secretary diminish those efforts. Let us instead hold up this solidarity as an example of what our democracy can be and what inroads we can make when we work together.

We hope that today the parliamentary secretary will talk with his colleagues and will check with the Minister of Health who gave a very clear indication yesterday of re-opening the file, of rethinking this entrenched, intransigent position, and of accepting full responsibility for the fact that these people were poisoned through the blood system which is clearly under federal regulation. It is that federal regulatory body that failed. It is the responsibility of the federal government to acknowledge that failure and to work co-operatively with all the provinces and territories to come up with a meaningful package that ensures that all who were affected by this disaster, by this crisis, by this tragedy are able to receive some financial assistance, some compassionate relief, some compensation for the havoc that has been wreaked upon their lives.

To conclude, all of us in the House recognize that the measure of a society—and I believe Justice Krever said this as well—is in the dignity and the respect that we confer upon the most vulnerable in our society, the most humble members among us. Let us today make the right decision. Let us hold up this parliament and this nation as a shining example, a beacon of light for compassion, concern and justice.

I wanted to indicate at the outset of my remarks that I would be sharing my time with the member for Halifax West. I understand my 10 minutes is about to lapse. However, before I pass over this opportunity I would like to make one final comment and that is that this has been a very trying time for everyone. Most of all, it has been a heart-wrenching period for those affected by this very sad chapter in the history of this country.

The onus upon all of us is to acknowledge that what we are dealing with is a failure of the federal government to ensure that proper regulations were in place to protect our blood system. That is not to say there is not a will on the part of all provinces and territories to co-operate and to work out solutions to ensure that the financial plans and programs are in place to assist everyone. It is to say that we need leadership from the federal government and, most of all, we need compassion. Let it happen today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her presentation on this issue. I would like to indicate and reiterate for the record that indeed the Minister of Health did indicate yesterday during question period that “Today's development is a new one. The ground has moved and an important partner has changed its position”, referring of course to the province of Ontario, a major province of our Confederation.

I was not present for the earlier part of the debate, but I am sure we all share the point of view that this government is known for its compassion. I think the hon. member would agree that had it not been for the federal Minister of Health the issue of compensation for hepatitis C patients would not have advanced.

In 1990 I started speaking on the issue of HIV infection and certainly this has been a preoccupation of this government.

I agree this is a non-partisan issue. It is an issue that calls on good public policy and policy that is imbued with reasonableness and compassion at all times. We have to put this together. The challenge for us now is how to creatively approach this issue.

With respect to the motion before us, I certainly would agree to a consultation with and the involvement of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada. I have consulted with my constituents. Patients have called me. When I explained to them the position of the government I must say, without hesitation, that they agreed with the position the government has taken.

I assured these individuals that we have not abandoned the other patients with hepatitis C. In fact we have taken an approach of compassion for all of them, contrary to the Reform member who only alluded to the victims infected from 1981 on. When we say all, we have to speak of all.

I would like to say that I am prepared—and I cannot speak for the government—to work in a very non-partisan fashion as we approach this very delicate issue to address in a creative way the needs of patients with hepatitis C, even those who were infected before 1986. We will have to approach this in a very creative, non-partisan and careful way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul. I want to assure him that we on this side of the House are questioning the individual positions of Liberal members. We are not questioning their ability to feel compassion or to apply the right values. What we are saying is that those values have not been translated into public policy and the decisions by this government to advance an agreement that is limited in scope, which creates two classes of victims, is not grounded on the values of compassion, concern and justice.

We have presented today a resolution that is in the spirit of non-partisanship. It is in the spirit of co-operation to encourage all players to get back to the discussion table and to include those who are most directly affected, those who live and breathe these issues day in and day out, as well as to consult with members of the Hepatitis C Society, the Hemophilia Society and all blood injured Canadians to get advice on how the financial needs of all blood injured Canadians can be achieved. That is the right thing to do.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is similar to that posed by my Conservative colleague. This is an NDP motion and I presume the NDP would be supportive of this motion. However, if there were a dissident, if someone decided not to, would they be forced to vote against their conscience on this issue or would this be a free vote for the NDP?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to put all of this into context. We are all united on this motion today and we have been unwavering in our support throughout the past five weeks for a compensation package that includes all blood injured Canadians.

Our support goes back to September 1996 when my leader and other members of my caucus agreed to support members of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada in their petitions to the government for full and fair compensation. Our position has always been clear on this. We will not change our position. We will stand united with one voice because we believe it is the right thing to do.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise to speak on our motion. I will read the motion again because it is very important to understand exactly what we are debating and exactly what this motion is asking. It reads:

That this House strongly urge the government to press for the invitation of representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Health Ministers in order to provide advice on how to address the financial needs of all those who contracted Hepatitis C from the federally-regulated blood system.

While I am honoured to speak to this motion, at the same time I am somewhat saddened. I am saddened that we in this day and age, we in this country of Canada, we in this House of Commons have come to the point where we have to debate something which we would expect would be a normal thing to do for those who have compassion and caring. It is sad we have to debate something that should automatically follow, fairness to our fellow human beings.

Before I entered politics, when I was approached to become a politician, I had to think long and hard about it. I shared with so many Canadians a cynicism about the political process and what we can really do within that process. I received wise counsel from my wife, my children and people close to me. They said “We need people like you in politics. We need people who care about other people. We need people who will not sacrifice or compromise their values. We need people who will not put money or themselves first, but who will put others first”.

The more I thought about that the more I realized it is important that if we feel we have something to contribute to society we should move forward. We should put that forth in such a way that politics will not change us, but that we may have a changing effect upon politics. That is the reason I chose to enter politics. Since then I have constantly said to people that if they ever see me changing from the kind of person I am, to remind me so that I may always remember from whence I came and the primary purpose for being here, which is to serve others.

There are two principles that seem to be working at odds in the issue of hepatitis C: the principle of economics versus the principle of compassion and caring for others. The principle of economics is ruled by the head. We figure out how many dollars we have, we think about our bank accounts and we concentrate on that bottom line in our budgets. But the principle of caring for other people is ruled by the heart. It comes from the heart.

It is very important on this issue that we allow our hearts to rule our heads instead of the other way around. We have heard arguments in this House in which the rule of economics has become the bottom line. We have heard that we cannot afford to compensate all victims, yet we know that the auditor general has found a $2.5 billion surplus. So we can rule that out right away. We need not be concerned with the economics. We should now be looking at doing what is right. We should be looking at what our hearts tell us as we deal with this issue.

It is important for us to remember that we are indeed building the future for our children. We are making history today. We are setting a stage that generations down the road will look back upon. They will look at us and judge us by what we have done with respect to this issue. We want to build a future that our children can be proud of.

Our motion calls for an invitation. There may be a lot of argument today about the cost and about setting precedents, but our motion calls primarily for one thing. We are asking that the victims, through their representatives, have an invitation to the table so that they may be there to address the issue and be part of a decision that will certainly impact upon their lives.

The motion emphasizes and underlines the need for communication, the idea of people having a say in decisions that affect them. We see far too often today that one of the problems of our society is that we do not communicate with people about the decisions that affect their lives.

We see it with respect to young people and the decisions we make around scholarships, the millennium fund and so forth. Quite often decisions are made without input from those who are to be affected by these decisions. We see it with respect to our aboriginal peoples. Decisions are being made at tables and first ministers conferences when the aboriginal people are excluded from those meetings. We see it so often in many aspects of our lives. We see decisions being made about programs that affect fishermen and people who are struggling to find a way to earn income but they are not invited to the table.

Today we are emphasizing the importance of communication on a very important issue. We are saying those victims should be invited to the table so they may have a say in this matter.

Halifax West constituents care about this issue. Many of them have approached me and asked my stand on the issue. They have expressed full support. They feel that the victims should be compensated and compensated fairly.

Two things have struck me since I have come to the House of Commons, two things that kind of stand out for me, two things I find hard to get used to because they do not seem to balance one with the other.

The first is how we approach question period. I have spoken about this matter before. When we are doing the nation's business quite often it is very confrontational but also quite often very disrespectful. We do not respect the opinions of other people. We do not listen properly. We are constantly yelling while people are trying to talk and express their views. That bothers me. I hope it will continue to bother me because the minute it stops bothering me is when I have started to let politics change me rather than bring the change to politics I hope to bring to politics.

Another thing that impresses me favourably is that we open each session of the House with a prayer. The Speaker says a prayer. I am not sure how many people listen to the words of that prayer, but it asks for God's guidance as we do our deliberations on the nation's business. The stark contrast is how we then proceed to move into question period and everything that takes place there seems to fly in the face of the prayer that has been said in terms of what we hope to do in the House.

We need to think in terms of the heart. That is very applicable to the issue we are dealing with. We need to think in terms of the prayer when we open each session.

I pray that as we deal with this issue all members of the House may give thought to doing what is right in the eyes of their Creator, in the eyes of the God who put us on this earth to serve Him and to serve our fellow man, so that we may let our hearts rule as we deal with this issue.

The money element is not that terribly important. For example, when I first started to work many years ago I worked as a welfare officer. I was responsible for assessing applications from single parent families, from the disabled, from many people in circumstances beyond their control.

I was told on the first day on the job “When you go out to do an application, make sure you never, ever give any one of your clients money out of your own pocket because you will be setting a precedent”. We have heard that word quite often during this debate.

Armed with my rules and regulations I went out on my first case. The first case I had was one young lady who came to the door with three children, a baby in her arms and two children clinging on to her legs. She looked at me and said “Mr. Earle, can you lend me some money because I don't have any money to buy milk to feed my baby. I can't feed the children”.

She took me to show me her cupboards and her cupboards were bare. Her refrigerator was bare. I looked at this woman, at the baby crying in her arms and at her hungry children standing there, and right away the first rule went out the window. I reached into my back pocket and gave the woman some money. As I walked away from her home I thought I may never see that money again, but the feeling I got in my heart far outweighed any concerns I had about losing the money.

The reassuring part was that about a month later I received a phone call in my office from this woman. She wanted me to come and visit her. I went to visit her and the very first thing she did as I walked through the door was to repay the money she had borrowed to get food for her family.

The money will take care of itself. We have to let the heart rule in this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member opposite on a very emotional and passionate intervention. I remind him that people on this side of the House are no less sensitive or compassionate. As I said in my earlier intervention, we let our actions speak as loudly as our words.

We have in the past through the Minister of Health engaged all victims of this terrible tragedy in consultations. We have kept them involved and have considered all their needs. They were brought to the table, which led to the package that has received nationwide attention over the course of the last month and a half.

I may be a little unfair here and I will do a mea culpa if I am. The member and the member who preceded him wanted to draw attention to the fact that all of us share a particular responsibility. His colleague, the member who preceded him, was very forceful in indicating that the federal authority bears full responsibility for the tragedy. I know members on the opposite side of the House want to reflect on the way the blood system worked.

Yes, there is a federal regulator. The provinces, as they know, are directly responsible for administering the health care system. The Red Cross at the time was responsible for co-ordinating and delivering the blood system. Together they had a responsibility to the public for the safety of the system.

I know members on both sides of the House when they quote Krever will remember what he said in the interim report, that what Canadians wanted was a system that was accountable, transparent and, above all, safe.

When we are talking about responsibility I know members on the other side want everyone to remember that this is a shared responsibility and words like fully do not enter into the conversation, into the dialogue, and should not be part of the rhetoric.

What should be part of the debate is the important steps taken by the federal authority starting from the interim report of Krever to move immediately and forcefully on all aspects of the report that related to the federal responsibility to ensure that we have at the very beginning confidence in a blood supply that was to be as safe as any other in the world. We started doing that a couple of years ago and have continued on that basis. That should be a priority.

We should also ensure that the accountability is transparent and that everybody understands where it comes from. I know members on the other side, even when they are prone to rhetoric in the House, which I imagine is the proper place for it, will not want to forget where the lines of responsibilities lay and will lie.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I certainly wish to assure him that my remarks are more than rhetoric. My remarks come from the heart, as I am sure his do.

I also take comfort from his remarks where he indicated that the government had involved the victims up to this point. If that is the case, it certainly lends support to the fact that he will see fit to support our motion. The motion simply calls for a further involvement of the victims by bringing them together at the table so they can have a say in their future.

Also the motion is very clear with respect to the fact that the meeting involve federal, provincial and territorial health ministers. It will involve all parties as well. I thank the hon. member for his comments. I certainly urge him to support the motion because it will further underscore what he said about the involvement of the victims.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.

On behalf of the government, I wish to inform the House that it is our intention to support the motion introduced today by the party of the hon. member for Halifax.

Had I worded the motion myself perhaps I would have written it a little differently in the sense that I think I would have preferred wording which would have suggested that the representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada be invited to a consultation or meeting immediately prior to the ministers' meeting in order to leave no ambiguity that the ministers may want to meet among themselves. I think that is understood in the motion although it is not quite clear.

The provincial ministers in any case would want it that way. However the motion is that we urge the government to press. It is not definitive in any case. In that regard we are prepared to support the motion in question.

I would like to say a few words about the excellent work done so far by the hon. Minister of Health.

My colleague, the Minister of Health, has worked tirelessly on this issue and I can say that it is because of his efforts that there is an offer today for Canada's hepatitis C victims.

I would like to offer him my full support and tell him that he has my personal support, as well as that of all my colleagues, I am sure, for the excellent work he has done to date.

We know of the very caring nature of the Minister of Health and how he fought very hard for the package offered to the victims of hepatitis C. We know a consensus was achieved which the minister supported and defended on the floor of the House of Commons.

It is a spirit of solidarity when ministers of health of different political stripes arrive at a consensus. I am not saying what position he personally took to arrive at that consensus but that does not matter in a sense. It is like a cabinet decision in the sense that once the consensus was achieved he defended it. He did it valiantly. He did it brilliantly. He did a fantastic job.

We have a situation before us today, notwithstanding the commitments repeated several times over, where some people are now gravitating away from that consensus.

Such is the case. Ontario has decided to do something outside the consensus established and announced it in a press release yesterday under the name of the premier of the province.

That consensus has been breached but not by the federal government. To a degree it has been breached or at least it is not the same as what it was before.

Therefore the Minister of Health indicated that he is willing to have a meeting with his counterparts at the provincial level and that meeting presumably will take place in the not too distant future. He indicated his willingness to meet with representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada.

I should add that the Minister of Health told me that he met with representatives of the hepatitis C victims group on a dozen or so occasions. This in itself shows the very strong commitment by the Minister of Health to helping these individuals.

In recent days, we have had many questions in the House from members across the way. In some instances, we were told to cut health spending at the same time as we were told to come up with more money. This is typical of the Reform Party members. They demand that the government cut transfer payments to the provinces, including those for health, slash aboriginal benefits, and so on, all the while claiming to be the defenders of the less fortunate. The Canadian people do not believe a word of it.

On the other hand, we had messages that were certainly contradictory when it is known that the provincial and federal arms of some of the other political parties were giving messages that were different.

Be that as it may, the members of the House have asked a number of questions on the floor of the House, as is their right. I do not deny that. I have been in opposition long enough to know that it was my right to ask questions when I was there. I think I exercised it on a few occasions, if I can put it that way.

Today that is no longer the issue before us. The issue before us is different. It is one of identifying whether, as I raised moments ago, the consensus that existed and that was supported by all ministers still exists.

In one case, we know there is some deviation. Now that consensus is no longer the same, is there a need for a meeting of ministers? It is our opinion that this would certainly serve a very useful purpose.

When such a meeting is held should the Hepatitis C Society of Canada be invited? Our position is yes, but we think the meeting would have to be held somewhat separately from the one that would follow.

All ministers would have to arrive at a new consensus, if there is a new consensus. I have no way of prejudging the result. Nevertheless, reading the motion in the broad sense as I think I am doing, giving the benefit of how it could be read, then we are prepared to support the motion in the name of the hon. member for Halifax.

I will wrap up, because I know there are several members wishing to speak today to this issue, which is a very important one for all of us. There is not a single parliamentarian, I believe, who does not have hepatitis C victims in his or her riding, just as there are none without cancer or AIDS victims among those they represent.

We all have constituents living with very difficult medical conditions, and suffering as a result of those conditions. Naturally, we all sympathize, and wish to come to their assistance to the extent that finances permit and to the extent that the necessary money is available.

In the meantime, I am pleased to repeat what I said earlier, which is that the government intends to vote in favour of today's motion, in the hope that the discussions between the Minister of Health and his provincial counterparts will be very productive and that the meeting will take place in the near future.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP which moved the motion we are debating today, we welcome the government's support for the motion. We think this contributes to the progress we have been trying to make in the last few days on this issue by pressing yesterday for the minister to have a meeting, given the new circumstances, getting that commitment from the minister late yesterday afternoon so that we could then proceed to have a different motion before the House today from the one we had planned. Earlier we had intended a motion calling on the government to have such a meeting.

We received the commitment that there would be such a meeting and then we went on to move a motion to help influence the nature and hopefully the outcome of that meeting by moving this motion that the representatives of the hepatitis C society be invited to any upcoming meeting.

I think the government House leader has interpreted the motion correctly. It certainly does not mean to preclude in any way that the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health cannot meet on their own in the final analysis to determine whatever consensus we hope there will be for compensating all the victims of hepatitis C. It is very important that they do meet with the representatives of the hepatitis C society in that context so that the victims have a direct opportunity to put their case before the people who will be deciding any future arrangements for compensation.

I am sure that one of the people most happy about this in the House of Commons today is the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health because he will be saved any further embarrassment of having to stand in his place hour after hour avoiding answering questions as to how the government was going to respond to this motion. I am sure he is greatly relieved and he will be able to sort of untwist himself from the various positions that he managed to take.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating the parliamentary secretary for all his hard work not only today in the House of Commons but every day and for the interest he has in the health of Canadians, on informing himself about all the issues involving health, on answering questions in the House, on his faithful attendance in the House of Commons, on his work generally here and in committees and even throughout the country as he assists the Minister of Health. He has done a superb job. I extend my congratulations to him as well.

I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona for clarifying the intention of his motion. I think that is helpful. I am sure everyone duly noted the context in which the motion was made. This will certainly assist the ministers of health.

We have to recognize one thing, however, even on the passage of this motion. This would urge the government to press for this invitation and it is certainly our intention to do so once the motion is passed. But it does not say that the premiers would agree to it. That is a different matter. They will have to answer for themselves in that regard.

We intend to follow up and do that which is in the motion, with the clarifying element that was brought to our attention by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary did give an interesting speech this morning which was not down the government line. In fact, it was somewhat negative on this motion.

I wonder if we could ask for unanimous support of the House for the parliamentary secretary to come back now and give a second speech where he can support the motion. He certainly did in the first one.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had previously thought this was a serious issue. On our side of the House we still consider it a serious issue. I hope other members consider it a serious issue. Unfortunately it appears that one member does not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in favour of the motion presented.

On March 27, 1998 the federal government, the provincial governments and the territorial governments announced financial acceptance and assistance to people infected with hepatitis C during the 1986 to 1990 period. Yesterday the Government of Ontario offered compensation for pre-1986 individuals and is exploring possible legal avenues to require the federal government to meet the responsibility for its share of the total hepatitis C costs.

The provinces, territories and the Red Cross were the operators of the blood system in the 1980s. The provinces and territories are also responsible for the operation of their health insurance plans and the delivery of health care services. The federal government is the regulator of the blood system. This role has recently been confirmed and clarified by Justice Krever in his final report. In addition, the federal government has taken a leadership role in rebuilding what was clearly a flawed system by acting to ensure the emergence of new forms of governance in this area and new forms of risk management.

In addition, far from abandoning its responsibilities in the area of blood and blood system management, the federal government has taken a leadership role in negotiating the emergence of a new blood system with a new governance structure. As part of this effort, the federal government felt a responsibility to turn its attention to the issues of the past. Following the release of the final report of the Krever commission, it took upon itself the role of leading the settlement of hepatitis C claims in the 1986 to 1990 period.

In doing so it moved to accelerate the settlement of claims from victims for this period and to smooth the transition for the new blood system. This government has been consistent, forward thinking and diligent in its efforts both to help victims and to reassure Canadians about the future of the blood system.

In redesigning the system and in dealing with the issue of hepatitis C, the government has had the benefit of many conversations with consumer groups and others. There has been extensive consumer involvement in both processes. The Minister of Health has met on many occasions with representatives of groups such as the Canadian Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Society of Canada. These consultations have been a source of many new ideas. Their importance has been recognized in the decision to involve consumer groups in the negotiated court approved settlement process announced on March 27. As a government we will continue to do so in the interests of all Canadians.

I want to speak about the New Zealand experience. New Zealand has a no fault accident compensation scheme. It came into force in April 1994 and the relevant act was amended in 1982 and again in 1992. Originally the scheme compensated for all injuries resulting from any accident without any regard to fault, including medical misadventure. While original the no fault scheme was relatively generous, in 1992 it was changed. Amendments were introduced to exclude hepatitis C infections from the list of compensation events because it did not meet the standards established for medical accident or something that was severe within a period of mishap and therefore rare.

In the same year changes in program administration led to lump sum awards being replaced by an independence allowance for non-financial losses of up to $38 Canadian per week tax free.

The New Zealand Hemophilia Society obtained an extension for hepatitis C claims until June 1995 but as of that date New Zealand's no fault scheme no longer covers hepatitis C infections.

I draw the attention of the House to the independence allowance cited above, in particular the $38 per week. This is not a large amount of money. No fault schemes like this one strike a balance between the range of conditions that can be factored into the scheme and the affordability of it. In the evolution of New Zealand's scheme awards, though they cover a range of conditions they became small and common types of mishaps with gradual onset and chronic impacts like hepatitis C and have therefore as a result disappeared from that scheme. We should perhaps take this history of New Zealand into account.

Equity requires inclusiveness and inclusiveness limits affordability unless benefit levels are driven down to very low levels as in New Zealand's case.

When equity is put aside and the focus is only on the specifics of a particular diagnosis, there is capacity to contemplate higher level awards as in the case of Ireland. Sooner or later a scheme that runs on these grounds will face the challenge of its own internal inconsistencies, and there will be a tendency to drive out certain specific high cost conditions by redefining the basis on which the no fault scheme applies.

At the end of the day, unless policy and program are carefully designed, one is left with a no fault scheme that applies to severe and rare conditions and is characterized by benefit levels that are small marginal add-ons to income. We need to note that is certainly most important.

While Justice Krever documented these various scenarios in some detail, his report contains little analysis of the incentive structures around the world with both for cause and no fault schemes.

Canada like most other countries has much more experience with for cause schemes than with no fault schemes. While there are many calls to reform the justice system, the details of tort law are sufficiently worked out that courts can render justice when cause and effect are well defined.

The federal government and its partners in the March 27 announcement placed relevance on just these processes to render justice in a very sensitive area. As to no fault, there are serious and important issues of equity that will have to be addressed in this area before a sustainable scheme can even be possible. Doing no fault on the fly is a recipe for disaster, I would suggest, especially in the medical area.

Even in New Zealand where it gave no fault a sustained effort, the problems have been numerous and the administrative difficulties immense over the years.

If Canada is to proceed down the no fault route it must be on the basis of a sustained debate about the merits of no fault in many areas and a careful analysis of the many implications that no fault carries. We will not head up the blind alley New Zealand has travelled, at least I would hope not.

Today in New Zealand commentators are pointing ironically to Canada as an example of how things could have been done differently on hepatitis C. Canada's leadership has been recognized abroad.

One of the most important parts of the national debate about blood has been the involvement of consumers in the process. Their input remains critical to the refinement of our policy. Ministers in this government, especially the Minister of Health, had extensive consultations with representatives of groups affected by the blood crisis, as did ministers in other jurisdictions.

The consumer perspective was an integral part of the process of negotiation and consumer representatives were apprised of developments throughout the process. Representatives of groups such as the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Society of Canada met regularly with a variety of politicians and their views were fed into the process at various points. This will continue. It will be an integral part of the process and I support that.

The blood system is ultimately about people, altruism and equity, not federal-provincial relations, not partisan politics, not political advantage. As soon as we come to realize this we will all be better off.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

I rise today to speak in support of the NDP motion before us. I must say I am very glad to hear government members will be allowed to support this motion. It is about time the Liberal government did something positive for all hepatitis C victims.

For the Canadians who contracted hep C from tainted blood and are now sick or dying what I say in the House are merely words, and as they will say they are not looking for words but actions.

I cannot possibly convey in the few short minutes I have here the pain, the suffering and the humiliation these victims have had to endure over the past some 20 years. However I will read into the record a letter that speaks volumes, far more than anything I could say. It is a letter from a victim's perspective. This gentleman lives in my riding. I met with him over the weekend. I have had conversations and correspondence with him before that. His name is Floyd Hubbard. He wrote the following to me on Saturday:

I contracted hepatitis C through heart surgery in 1983. I've been on Interferon for 7 months, which has caused me to have a heart attack. My enzymes went down, but I've never been so sick in my life. There were days when I thought I would die and days when I wished I would.

This is the medical treatment you (Liberals) say you'll help us get. Well I for one don't want it again. I had 15 years on vitamins and minerals and herbs, plus a changed diet.

If I had to choose treatment I would choose a naturopath, a masseuse, or to go swimming in a steam bath. In other words, natural healing now if you're going to help us get this. That is better than Interferon, the only treatment for Hep-C.

The other day I asked my doctor if I could get him to fill out a form for my disability income tax credit. He didn't think I was entitled to it. I had to beg. Do you know how this feels? Today it takes me hours to shower and dress. I know I'll probably need a wheelchair soon as I am going downhill fast. I was a capable husband. Now I'm so sick my wife and I sleep in separate beds. No wonder there's so many marriage breakdowns. I was also a good father. Now my children and grandchildren are afraid they'll give me their colds and viruses. I hardly ever see them. This is a disease of loneliness, shame and isolation.

I had a good paying job, a 12-acre farm and a business. It's all gone as a result of this disease. What do I have left? Not even my pride, you (Liberals) took that away on Terrible Tuesday when I watched the democratic vote that took place with the Liberals. We are led to believe we all have one vote; you, Mr. Prime Minister, took mine away from me. I couldn't believe I live in Canada, “Glorious and Free”.

Mr. Hubbard is more than just one of thousands of Canadians who contracted the hep C virus through no fault of their own. He has been victimized twice, first by a federally regulated agency that allowed poison blood to be pumped into his veins, and second by an uncaring and cruel government which refuses to accept responsibility for compensation.

This past Friday and Saturday I probably went through one of the most difficult times in my short life as a parliamentarian. I met with about two dozen other people who have been infected with this disease in a couple of meetings in my riding. It was very difficult to sit and listen to what they have gone through and to realize how they felt about what happened on this day of shame last Tuesday in the House. The common theme in all of their talk is the hope that they would not be forgotten.

They said “Let us into the discussion. Let us sit around the table with people who are making decisions concerning the well-being of our lives. Let this not just be a deal that is struck by politicians. Let us in”. They said “Give us a compensation package for all. If it is not for all then it should not be for any”.

Even people within the 1986 to 1990 window were telling me that they would not accept the compensation package unless it was given to all victims of the tainted blood scandal. Then they said something else important that has not been injected into this debate heretofore. They said “Compensation should be on the basis of wellness. It should not just be a lump sum that is simply given to people who have hep C and then forget about us”.

Right across Canada, as in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, there are many others in the same boat. It has become to many of them an abandoned boat void of government compassion. All this time we have seen Liberal members across the way hiding behind a rock of intransigence, failing to recognize that they need to do the right thing.

Let us not dwell on this rock of cruelty. The events of the last few days show us that perhaps the rock hard Liberal defence of stubbornness and stupidity is finally cracking. With the provinces slowly coming on board, the last line of government rationale is turning out to be papier maché instead of rock solid reasoning.

Though it appears government resolve in the matter is waning there are still signs that Liberal backbenchers are not permitted to think for themselves in this matter.

Let us take for instance what happened at the health committee this morning. A few weeks back I requested through the clerk of the committee that health committee MPs, a non-partisan group of representative MPs from all parties, meet in order to invite the health minister to appear. I want to personally extend my thanks to the NDP member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Reform members for Macleod and Wanuskewin in signing on to the initiative.

It was my belief that the meeting would have allowed for better questioning of the health minister concerning the hep C compensation issue, that perhaps we could finally get to the bottom of why this window is so narrow.

What happened at the meeting this morning? Did we get our answers? No. We got a repeat of last Tuesday's vote, only worse because not only are Liberals denying compensation for those outside the timeframe but now it seems they are unwilling to let the minister come to the committee to answer questions.

In effect, Liberal members decided to hide behind a rock of silence. When it came down to the vote it was once again the solidarity of the opposition against the solidarity of government members, and the chairman had to cast the deciding vote because there was a tie.

I am glad to hear that the members of the Liberal Party are to support the motion. I am glad they have all been consulted on the matter ahead of time and that indeed they will all individually give the motion their support. That will be quite a change from the day of shame last Tuesday.

Beyond that the party across the way really needs to examine its commitment to accountability. That is the bottom line issue. Indeed, how can they look their constituents in the eye and say to them they represent their point of view in parliament?

In closing, I will be voting in support of the NDP motion. In this regard my actions in the matter will speak far louder than words. It is time to do the right thing and to vote to help all victims of hepatitis C contracted through the tainted blood scandal. Prove to Canadians that we are truly caring for them and that the Liberals across the way are truly the custodians of health care and not the undertakers for those left out of the government's compensation package.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is already foreseen how the opposition will vote on every motion and how the government will vote on every motion. That is fine.

A couple of comments made by the member opposite deserve some attention. For the member to suggest that committees somehow work in a fashion that is counterproductive just because other members on the committee do not see it his way does an injustice to what happens in this place. This morning in committee, committee members reinforced the primacy of this place and the importance of the accountability that ministers and the executive of government have to all members of parliament in this place.

Over the course of the last six weeks we have seen member after member pose question after question to the Minister of Health in particular and the government in general not only on health issues relating to the government's broader policies but also general and specific government policies. For any member in this House to suggest that is not a transparent and an accountable way of keeping members of the executive responsible to this House is to do a disservice to this House and to the committees themselves.

For committee members to vote as they see fit on a motion, whether it is properly put, properly worded, whether or not it has merit has no bearing on what happens in this place other than the committee draws its authority from this House. The member would be well placed to recognize that. Perhaps he should withdraw the kinds of statements that cast aspersions on his colleagues in committee.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad for the hon. member's diatribe on the committee structure. Unfortunately, the very reason the motion had to be made in committee was that we on this side of the House did not feel we were getting the answers. We look upon the committee structure as the court of last resort for us so that we can finally get answers. I reiterate that once again it was the Liberal majority up against the opposition, and the Liberals stonewalled it.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain. The new position of the Government of Canada is not a position it took willingly and freely. It is a position the government has been shamed into.

I have been listening very closely to the parliamentary secretary and other members from the government side. I listened very carefully to what the Minister of Health had to say yesterday following the decision of the Premier of Ontario.

I have yet to hear the minister or the Government of Canada accept the principle that all innocent victims of hepatitis C ought to be compensated. I would like to ask the hon. member whether I am correct in stating that the government has yet to accept that principle.

The Minister of Health is now saying that he is prepared to attend a meeting of health ministers. It seems to me that a prerequisite of having any credibility whatsoever in attending such a meeting is the admission, the understanding or the acceptance of the principle that all victims should be compensated, that all victims should have access to a compensation package.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. This is exactly why we wanted to open this question up at committee.

We wanted to get the minister in to ask him these hard questions. We wanted to ask why there is this narrow window of 1986 to 1990 when Justice Krever and other authorities on the subject have told us that hepatitis C was in the blood system prior to 1986. In 1981 Dr. William Moore of the Red Cross laboratories told his own officials that he was concerned about hepatitis being in the blood supply. He said “Here is a test that has been used in other countries. Use it”. They denied him that. It was not used.

The government cannot get away from the fact that the Minister of Health is the custodian of the country's health care system. He is the top regulator. The minister has to take responsibility for it. Health ministers in those days could have taken responsibility for it, put a stop to it and we would not have this tragedy today. That is where the liability lies. They are not accepting it.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion before the House and to add my voice in urging other hon. members to do likewise.

For weeks the issue of securing fair compensation for all the victims of tainted blood has been front and centre in the House. The health minister and the Prime Minister presented legal, financial and accounting arguments against expanding the compensation package, but weightier arguments based on the concepts of fairness, compassion and morality have also been presented with many of them being provided by the victims themselves. These arguments led to expanding the compensation package for victims of tainted blood. We on this side of the House are pleased to finally see some small movement in this direction by the government.

The principal objective of the official opposition in this whole exercise, and it is reflected in the NDP motion before the House, is simply to get fair compensation for all those who contracted hepatitis C as a result of defects in the federally regulated blood system. The objective is not to drag the government down and thereby score political points. The objective is to simply do the right, fair and compassionate thing for the victims of this tainted blood tragedy.

Daniel Johnson, the former Liberal leader in Quebec, is to be commended for his initiative in raising this issue in a new way in the Quebec legislature. Premier Harris of Ontario is to be particularly commended for his leadership in this matter. Not only has Premier Harris declared that the compensation package should be renegotiated but he has also agreed to bring more money to the table.

We feel therefore that the time has come for the federal government, in particular the Prime Minister himself, to start showing some real leadership on this issue and to drive it to a fair and compassionate resolution. In our opinion the exercise of this leadership involves three things.

First it involves the Prime Minister himself convening a national federal-provincial meeting in order to resolve this injustice. We agree that the victims of tainted blood themselves should have input to this meeting, which is the thrust of the motion before us. We also believe that this meeting should be convened by the Prime Minister because the federal health minister has lost all credibility on this issue. To coin a phrase, he has hit rock bottom.

Second, federal leadership on this matter should involve directing the Minister of Finance, who has been strangely silent throughout all of this, to develop a plan for financing the federal portion of an expanded compensation package by reallocating funds within the existing federal budget.

Third, in order for the federal-provincial meeting alluded to by this resolution to be successful, the federal government must clearly and publicly abandon three arguments which the health minister and the Prime Minister have been using over the past few months to fight any expansion of the compensation package. These arguments need to be identified and abandoned now because if the government continues to maintain and advocate them, the federal-provincial meeting envisioned by this resolution will not be successful. Let me be specific.

First, the Prime Minister must fully and frankly abandon the argument that there was no test available prior to 1986 to detect hepatitis C in the blood supply. This is a false argument.

Justice Krever said clearly that such tests were available. My colleague has already referred to Dr. Moore of the Canadian Red Cross national reference laboratory proposing a test to help screen donors for non-A and non-B hepatitis as early as May 1981 and the New York Blood Centre was testing for hepatitis C in 1982. The government must acknowledge that its 1986 line in the sand was drawn there primarily for political reasons which are simply not acceptable to the Canadian people.

Second, the government must abandon the argument that compensating all victims of hepatitis C who contracted the disease through tainted blood will somehow open the floodgates to compensate everyone and anyone who becomes ill for whatever reason. This too is a fallacious argument.

No one is asking the government to compensate everyone who becomes ill regardless of the circumstances or the causes. What we are requesting is that the government compensate people who became ill as a result of proven government negligence, negligence established as a result of a thorough, objective, scientific and judicial inquiry by the Krever commission.

Third, the government must abandon the argument that somehow compensating all victims who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood will be fiscally irresponsible. The official opposition finds this argument both hypocritical and false.

It is hypocritical coming from Liberals who normally have no hesitancy about spending public money on anything, particularly when it is other people's money. It is also false because there is a way to increase the federal compensation for victims of tainted blood in a fiscally responsible manner. There is a way to increase the federal compensation for victims of tainted blood without increasing total federal spending, or taxation, or unbalancing the budget.

The finance minister should be directed to find the money, not through any spending or taxation increases but by reallocating resources within the existing spending limits. Possible sources of funding include the $7 billion in savings proposed by Reform to the finance committee during the budget, debate and the finance minister's so-called $3 billion contingency fund.

In other words, the federal government should approach the funding of this expanded compensation package in exactly the same way that a Canadian family faced with an unanticipated family crisis would face the problem. If the family had no additional sources of revenue, the only way to cope with a crisis like this would be to reallocate funds, to take money from some other purpose and apply it to dealing with the crisis.

This is precisely what the federal government should do in this case. If it needs help in applying the novel concept of fiscal responsibility within existing spending limits to this situation, the official opposition would be more than happy to offer that help.

In conclusion, I want to pay tribute to all the victims of hepatitis C who have persisted in presenting their case. They have persisted in the face of intransigence from the leader of our country, and the Minister of Health who is supposed to be the guardian of the health care system, and the intransigence of the government itself. These people are persistent despite their illness and lack of resources.

This resolution before us today acknowledges their persistence and gives them standing at the federal-provincial meeting. May I suggest that the greatest tribute we can pay to these people is not through resolutions, through speeches or through press releases but by simply doing the right thing. In this case doing the right thing involves providing just and compassionate compensation for the effects which this terrible tragedy has had, is having and will continue to have on their lives and on their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House has anything against acting to do the right thing. I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition about what the right thing and the responsible thing is and what this government has done.

Over the course of the last almost five years that he has been in this House, the Leader of the Opposition has had the opportunity to press the last government and the current government to act on this issue. I remind him and other members in this place that his voice was remarkably silent. Notwithstanding his silence, the Government of Canada through its health ministers acted swiftly on the recommendations of Krever.

Indeed, the current Minister of Health moved that his colleagues at the provincial and territorial levels recognize the ongoing issue needed to have their energies for a quick resolution.

But he suggested it be done within the environment of parameters that all can accept, and the Leader of the Opposition says we have to do this on the basis of some fault or guilt we can find and it has to be done through an appropriate system, à la Krever.

I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition is aware that what he is telling all Canadians is that the judicial process which has worked in this country for so many decades is the exact process he is suggesting we use, and that he is not talking about compassion, he is talking about justice. Will he decide for once to tell us exactly whether he is talking about compassion or whether he is talking about justice and fairness?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a pretty short memory, or perhaps we should say a selective memory.

He might recall that during the period the Krever commission was carrying on it was the government that attempted to stonewall that commission. It particularly endeavoured to prevent that commission from getting cabinet documents that might have implicated Liberal cabinet ministers.

The period Krever was talking about, 1981 when the test was available, was when there was a Liberal government in power. I suggest the official opposition has pressed this point during the Krever inquiry. It was the government that resisted our inquiries.

In our view the government has not done the right thing in response to the member's question and no amount of apologizing after the fact, no amount of legal gobbledegook from either the minister or other members, no amount of spinning the story, no amount of trying to now appear to be on the side of the premiers when the government a week ago was castigating them in this very House as being opportunistic, callous and cynical; no amount of that type of thing will remove from the government's record the fact that it acted in this case not with compassion and not with justice but it acted in precisely the opposite fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition a very simple question. Out of respect for his position as Leader of the Opposition of Her Royal Majesty and at the same time out of humility, can the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge once and for all and say the right thing, that it was this Minister of Health who advanced this issue of compensation for the victims of hepatitis C in Canada by convening the ministers of health across the country to the table?