Debates of May 5th, 1998

Supply

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member across the way with his hockey analogies and what not.

We have really sunk low in the House when the Liberals are comparing our economic situation and our health system to that of Russia, a country that has gone through an economic and political meltdown.

The Liberals say we have the best health care system in the world. Who are they kidding when they dare to compare it to Russia? They say that our compensation on hep C is better than what the Russian people are getting. What type of comparison is that? That is stooping as low as they can go to draw an analogy between what Russia has done for hep C victims and what Canada can do for hep C victims. The difference is we have not had an economic and political meltdown. We have a budget surplus. These are things Russia could only dream of in decades.

As well, they had the audacity to talk about this not being a solution that the lawyers came up with.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the Reform Party is about one speaker too late. I think the hon member was referring to a former speaker's remarks. I did not make any comment with regard to Russia. But let me make a comment with regard to the Reform Party, the oh so pompous men and women of compassion who are going to solve all the problems.

Where was the same Reform compassion when its members said they would cut $3.5 billion from social assistance, $3 billion from old age security and $5 billion from the employment insurance program? Where was their compassion when they said they would cut $3 billion from provincial equalization payments and where was their compassion when they said they would dismantle the Canada pension plan and ignore the future of Canadians? That is not a party of compassion. That is a party that is misleading the Canadian people on this issue and many—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Resuming debate.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. members for Mississauga West and Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford who were referring to people in the opposition as opportunists. Actually we are fighting for those people who we feel within our hearts should be treated equally. Because we stand in the House and fight for those people who are not being treated equally I cannot believe anyone would say that all those who do that are opportunists. Not in this case.

As the hon. member from the Reform Party just stated, some compared Canada with Russia or Germany. I do not know if the hon. member has been to Germany, but I have been to Germany. I was invited there by the German government to look at unification. I was asked to go to Romania as well. Canada is known to be the best country in the world in which to live. All those countries look to us and they would expect Canada to take a leadership role in treating our people equally. They would not expect to ever see Canada have a two tier system for people with hepatitis C.

I can imagine that around the world people have been watching us and wondering what has happened to us. Talk about opportunists, when the Liberals were in opposition they fought the GST. They fought the free trade agreement. They signed the NAFTA agreement so fast after they got elected that we could not even blink. Talk about opportunists. The opportunists are over there on the government side.

I do not believe there is anyone in this House who has not made some mistake in their life. Once a person admits that they have made a mistake and correct it, they become much taller and more respected. None of us is perfect. The Liberals have made a mistake. The Minister of Health has made a mistake.

The Prime Minister told the provinces to put their money where their mouth is. One province has already said “ We are going to put our money where our mouth is”, and that is the province of Ontario. I want to thank the province of Ontario very much for taking the leadership role. I give credit also to Mr. Johnson in Quebec. At least he said that everyone should be equal. Now Mr. Filmon is saying the same thing from out west. Everyone should be equal. I know some of them will have a difficult time finding the money at the provincial level, but somehow we have to come up with a formula that is equal for everyone, not just for those from 1986 to 1990.

I want to say to the member from the NDP who brought forward this motion that, yes, we support the motion. We thank him for the motion. We do feel that representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada should be at the meetings. They are the ones who can discuss this and they are the ones who can bring forth points. They can tell them it comes not just from the heart. They are the ones who are suffering.

They should have been at the table the first round. That is where they should have been. I think if they had been at that table we would not be where we are at today. We would not be having this kind of debate.

If the Minister of Health does have a heart—and sometimes I question it in this House—how could he look at those people with hepatitis C and say that we have a two tier system? “Sorry, you got this in December 1985, but we are only going to look after people beginning January 1986”.

I was pleased to see the actions taken by the Government of Ontario yesterday which compelled the Minister of Health to reopen the file. He said it was closed. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the minister did say “This file is closed. We're not going to do another thing”.

All along, all we have wanted on this side of the House is for him to do the right thing for the people who are sick through no fault of their own. He refused, but he is saying now that he will open the file. He will open the door, but we realize today in listening to government members that he is just going to open the door a crack. He is not opening the door all the way. I cannot believe it. I am hearing members speak today and things are not changing in their minds. One member got up and said it should still be just for those from 1986 to 1990. The Liberals are still saying the same thing.

We are going to continue to push the Minister of Health to start showing some real responsibility on this issue by committing to a deal that will include all of those innocent victims when he goes into this meeting with the provincial ministers and their territorial counterparts. There are, according to him, 20,000 to 40,000 Canadians left outside. But our critic, the member for Charlotte, today said that no one knows the figure. Some people say it is 6,000 people. Some people say it is 10,000. But the minister keeps saying it is 40,000 and it could be 60,000. He has absolutely no idea how many Canadians have been left outside this compensation package, none whatsoever. The government does not know how many.

My colleague, the member for Charlotte, pointed out a couple of weeks ago that the Minister of Health admitted the government does not know, yet the Minister of Health still refers to 40,000 to 60,000 people.

Before 1986 a human being in Canada was not allowed to bank his or her own blood for their own use. The government says it has no responsibility, but the law of the land was that no one could bank their own blood for their own use. People had to take whatever was given to them. Therefore the government does have a responsibility and a big one.

We on this side of the House, in my party, cannot support an unjust policy that would leave these people out in the cold because of reasons that do not hold up against the tests of compassion, fairness and justice.

I do not sit in this seat and try to be an opportunist. I came here to fight for what is right for all Canadians from coast to coast and I will continue to do so. I will continue to get up here, as will our critic and all of my colleagues in the PC Party, to fight for these people who, unfortunately, through the system we had in place became very ill.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues on the government side and for a lot of other people, but I am surprised to hear them try to portray the image that what they were doing was right, fair and just. It was not just, but we are going to fight to make sure that justice comes for all.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, out of all the members in this place, I want to say that the member for Saint John is one whose opinion I respect. I believe her when she says she is here to fight for the things that she believes in. I do not doubt her sincerity whatsoever.

However, I would ask her if she would not mind making a call to the leader of the Ontario Conservative Party to suggest that the next time he makes a deal or sends his minister of health out to make a deal that he try to live by the deal. Tell him that he should not sign a deal if he is not happy with it. He should not come on board one day and make a deal and then go to a press conference and change everything. It is not fair to anybody involved. I am sure the member agrees with that.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Mississauga West, as well. However, he and I were not in that room. We did not hear what the Minister of Health put on the table. We did not hear the discussion that took place between the provincial and territorial ministers of health and the federal Minister of Health.

I would be very surprised if they were not told by the federal Minister of Health “This is the deal and this is the only deal that the federal government is going to enter into, and there will be no one compensated unless you enter into my deal”. That is how I see the minister.

As far as I am concerned, it was wrong. If the premier of Ontario had enough compassion to stand up and say “What I have signed is wrong”, then I have to say he becomes the tallest premier there is in all of Canada.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to suggest that is one of the best political speeches I have heard in the House of Commons in all my time here.

In response to the charges from the Liberal Party that we are somehow in a cynical way using this issue to take political advantage of the Liberals, I think it has been very clear from the beginning that all the opposition parties gave the health minister and the Prime Minister an opportunity to back down, to back out, to change their position, to change their mind. However, they chose to ignore that. They chose to draw a hard line in the sand and say “No, this is the way it is going to be”.

I would ask the hon. member, is it not playing crass politics to start pointing fingers at the opposition now, saying that we are somehow playing politics with this horrendous situation where people trusted our blood supply and were poisoned as result? Is this not crass politics on the part of the Liberal Party to be pointing fingers at the opposition when in fact it has had every opportunity to back down gracefully and it would not do so? Would the hon. member respond to that?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. Certainly it is politics. Talk about calling us opportunists. I would have to say the opportunists sit on the government side.

It really bothers me. I do not think there has ever been a subject in this House of Commons that has bothered me more than this one. Our job here as the opposition is to bring in checks and balances so that whatever is brought to the floor of the House by the government is what is best for Canada.

In this case we are talking about people out there who are hurting because they are ill due to no fault of their own; no fault whatsoever. If that is the only reply the government can give, pointing fingers at us and saying we are playing politics, I say thank God we are speaking out and thank God we are doing what is right.

It is because of what has been done here and what has been done in Ontario that this will finally be corrected. It is because of what we have done on this side of the House.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is most difficult to follow my illustrious leader in such a passionate debate on an issue that certainly exudes much passion.

The member for Mississauga West I hope would also pay me as much respect as he does my leader, for in fact the message that is brought by our caucus and by our party is the same message, one of fairness, equality and compassion for a group of individuals who through no fault of their own have found themselves in a very untenable situation.

The issue facing us is one of fairness and equality. These are not faceless people who have been infected by hepatitis C. These are our neighbours, our friends and, in some cases, our family. They are people who we walk beside on the street, people we sit beside in restaurants and people we work beside. These are people who, through no fault of their own, received a tainted blood transfusion which came from an organization and a government that guaranteed the blood supply was safe. However, that guarantee was not there and these people are suffering the consequences.

I was at the gas pumps in my constituency just last week when an individual walked up to me, knowing who I was, and introduced himself, saying that he was one of the victims who was infected by hepatitis C.

They come to us from all walks of life. They come to us to tell us their stories, stories that wrench our hearts, if in fact there is any compassion in our hearts. It has not been seen on the other side of the House.

We have heard excuses. The Minister of Health has stood in this House for the last five weeks and extolled the excuses of government. The Minister of Health said “I am sorry, there will be a cut-off date”, and that arbitrary cut-off date will be January 1, 1986. Anybody before that arbitrary cut-off date is going to be thrown out like bathwater.

What would happen if it were your family, Mr. Speaker, or your friends who were infected in December 1985, one month prior to this arbitrary cut-off date? Those individuals do not matter to this government. Those individuals do no matter as Canadian citizens because they did not fall within that magic timeframe beginning January 1, 1986.

There are instances of tainted blood causing hepatitis C after 1990, but that does not matter because the arbitrary date of 1990 that has been developed by the Minister of Health is the date that is going to stand for those individuals.

That arbitrary date was struck by the Minister of Health. Make no mistake about that. His excuse is that there were tests that could have been used between the years of 1986 and 1990. The government's position is an excuse and that is all it is. When the government sat down with the provinces to negotiate—and I use that term very loosely—this federal-provincial deal an arbitrary decision was made. The Minister of Health stood in the House and said it was not about money. He stood here and said that the issue of compensation is not about money. I would suggest that probably is not the complete truth. The minister also stood here and said that it would bankrupt the health care system. We cannot have it both ways. It is not about money. It is about compassion. It is about fairness.

As my leader indicated, when they negotiated, had we been flies on the wall, I am sure the negotiation would have gone something like this: “We will put in x dollars and the provinces will put in x dollars. If you do not like the deal we will remove our money from the federal side of the table”. That is not negotiation, that is bullying. When the provinces are bullied into signing a deal like that and then the government stands in the House and gives another excuse that the agreement was signed by all 10 provinces so it has to be a good deal, it does not have to be a good deal. It was bullying on behalf of the federal government because of money. Make no mistake about that.

Then there is the other excuse. There have only been a few of them and they have been parroted here for the last five weeks. The other excuse from the Minister of Health when he stood up was that it would jeopardize the universality of medicare as we know it in Canada. Not true. The universality of medicare in Canada today as we know it, would continue even if and when a compensation package is extended to cover those individuals not covered under this particular package.

A precedent has already been set. It is the 1991 settlement to victims who contracted HIV through the blood system. Those individuals extended beyond that particular date. It extended to anyone who was affected by HIV. The precedent is there and our country's medicare system is still there and is still alive.

Those are the excuses. Let us talk about the real issues concerning hepatitis C. The real issue is that the Minister of Health fears class action suits, as well he should. There are class action suits which are filed now by a number of organizations. The Minister of Health, Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance will be hoisted by their own petards when those class action suits get to the courts because of the following reasons.

First, the compensation and the class action suit is medically sound. It is medically sound because we know that these people were infected by tainted blood. It is a legally compelling argument. I defy the government to defend an arbitrary date of January 1, 1986 from a class action suit. It is not going to happen. We know full well that the class action suit is going to be successful. We know that it is financially sound. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance could get together and put a fair compensation package together.

I should not do it but I will talk about some of those other areas of waste by the government in its first and second terms. I remember half a billion dollars at the stroke of a pen was wasted when the government decided it was not going to go with the EH-101s, but that was okay because that was political. This is compassion. That is not okay.

Then there was the Pearson airport fiasco. Somewhere in the area of $750 million was wasted by the government on that particular political issue. But that was politics, that was okay. When it comes to compassion, there is no $750 million for the victims of hepatitis C.

I talked about it not being a precedent. This is not a precedent. We have had it in the past with those infected with HIV through the blood system.

Politically transparent. This is total transparent politically. We have a government that bullied the provinces into making a negotiated settlement. We have a government that forced its members to vote against a motion that its members wanted to support.

We see constantly day in and day out in this House a Minister of Health who is unable to sell to his finance minister and his cabinet a package that should be sold. He stands up and uses the excuse that 10 provinces have signed it so it must be good. He uses the excuse that the medicare system cannot support this type of compensation package.

Politically unsound. We see the reports now on how the government is being affected by this particular negotiated settlement. We see the transparency politically when now the provinces are coming out and saying that it is not a good deal negotiated with the federal government.

We see the provinces. In the province of Ontario we talk about Premier Harris walking tall. He does walk tall. Premier Filmon walks tall. We see B.C. coming out now and saying that it is not a good deal, that it wants fairness and equity for everybody.

How can the minister and the government keep the tenet that this must be a good deal because 10 provinces have agreed to it? Ten provinces did not agree to the government cutting transfer payments to the provinces. Not one province said that it was really happy to have its health care in transfer payments which were cut by this government.

I did not see any member of the government front benches stand and say that it cannot be a good deal because no province likes it. They stood up and said that they were going to do it anyway. They had the responsibility of leadership. They had the responsibility to put in place a fair and equitable package for everybody. They failed and they failed miserably. They failed their leadership opportunity to stand up and do what was right. Even the majority of backbenchers on the government side want that fair package.

I would like to see the government support this motion to have open negotiations with the provinces, to have the hepatitis C victims available so that they can make sure that the right and honourable decision is made at those reopened negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member should not forget is that the decision the government announced was the collective view of all the health ministers of all political colours. That fact cannot be escaped from.

From 1986 to 1990 it is my understanding that at the time, the position taken by all the provinces including those headed by Tory premiers was that throughout the compensation negotiations, compensation should be open only to victims who became infected through government inaction.

While the hon. member will be pleased to see progress, I should remind him that the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul took up this issue as early as in 1990. At the time the Tory government did not move on the issue, although I must compliment it on the HIV compensation, which I also presented to the then Minister of Health in the Tory government.

We have to recognize that the current Minister of Health was the first to advance the idea of compensation for patients with hepatitis C from the system. He has succeeded certainly to a great extent. Certainly we have to address those people who have taken ill with hepatitis C even before 1986.

The ministers of health from across the country will be meeting. Let us give them an opportunity to discuss the new plan. Hopefully it will address the very issues we all would like to have addressed, that is, to show that we look after those victims in a compassionate fashion.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member from Winnipeg. I understand that the member was involved in 1993 on the health committee and in fact wrote a minority report suggesting that there should be a review of the blood supply. We have that review. We have the Krever report and the Krever report is not being followed by the government.

The Krever report specifically said that there should be compensation and it should be fair and equitable to all victims of hepatitis C. You cannot have it both ways, one side of the government saying we should have the review on the Krever report and having another on the opposite side saying that it is the responsibility of the provinces.

It is not the responsibility of the provinces. The responsibility lies with the federal government and the Minister of Health and no one else. The Minister of Health has every right to provide leadership in this situation. He stands there and hides behind the skirts of the provinces saying that when there are 10 provinces and a federal government negotiating the deal it has to be a good deal.

The Minister of Health and the government had every right and every honourable requirement to go out and do the right thing, to make this negotiated settlement fair for everybody. Do not hide behind the provinces.

Now the provinces are finally coming forward after the bullying tactics on a negotiated settlement and saying that what they have done is wrong. If it is wrong, the government should live up to that responsibility.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just received an interesting letter. It is dated today and is from the premier of Ontario. I would like to paraphrase a couple of the comments.

Ontario is committed to treating pre 1986 victims on the same basis as 1986 to 1990 victims. The premier says “I urge the federal government to make the same commitment”. The letter is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. “The Prime Minister's commitment will allow officials from both our governments to determine not whether but how to get assistance into the hands of Ontario victims as quickly as possible”. He goes on to say that for the sake of the victims that is why the province is doing this.

It is a very interesting and provocative letter. Does my colleague from the Tory party agree with the very interesting letter from the premier of Ontario?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that is a rhetorical question but I will give an answer regardless.

Absolutely. And remember it is the premier of a Conservative government in Ontario who in fact has shown that there is compassion. I particularly like what Mr. Harris said with respect to the same commitment prior to 1986, this arbitrary line. Anybody pre 1986 will be treated in the same fashion as anybody post 1986. This is only fair and compassionate. I congratulate Premier Harris for writing the letter to the Prime Minister. I just hope that the Prime Minister will listen.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking in favour of the motion, if we get away from all the finger pointing and where the blame lies and if we step back and look at it, the process is working pretty well. It is working well because there is supposed to be opposition input in the process and we are having it. It is working well because what happened in terms of the province of Ontario.

The whole thing would be a moot point if it was not for the Minister of Health who brought the file forward. Whatever one might believe about the Minister of Health, the fact is he took the file forward, he got agreement with the provinces and now we are into debate.

I met with victims of the hepatitis C group in my riding as recently as last Friday. I have been having a number of meetings with them. We actually observed what was happening. We were talking about how the developments of the past week were going to move the issue forward. I believe that is happening.

When one votes on a matter of confidence, one votes confidence in one's government. Of course our parliamentary system functions because there are votes of confidence.

One thing in the system and certainly on this side of the House there is always the right of a member to try to change government decisions and government policy. There are a fair number of people in the caucus on this side of the House who are into it. In all the discussions we have been having, I can only say that the people with whom I have been meeting over the weeks as to what we could be doing and should be doing, those people who are suffering from hepatitis C are getting a better deal because of what has transpired not just in this Chamber but what has also transpired in the province of Ontario.

I do not believe for a moment that compassion is the only necessary motivation. All that aside, I believe that at the end of the day we will end up with a better deal and a better public policy because of the process we have undertaken. I support this motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.