House of Commons Hansard #99 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify. Looking at the House leader's notes, he specifically talked about the decision of the official languages commissioner talking specifically about motions. I believe the House leader on the government side is correct.

There is a difference between the submission of documents, which I would not argue about when there is adequate time to prepare them and to have them translated, and what we are dealing with today, which is the ability to place a motion. A motion comes during the give and take of debate which is what we are specifically referring to today. Specifically what the official languages commissioner was referring to is the ability to put forward motions. I would not disagree with documents and so on, but because motions are usually given verbally, if you are unilingual you have no choice but to deliver the motion in either French or English, in the language you are accustomed to.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

First, we are talking about motions, not briefs. Generally speaking, we would like the committees to solve their own problems.

Second, it goes without saying that members of this House are free to operate in either of the official languages.

I wish to apprise myself of a little more information on this subject before I make a decision. I will do that and then come back to the House with a decision on this matter.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to a response the Prime Minister gave in question period today to a question from the Reform Party. In his response the Prime Minister referred to a poll which showed that 75% of Canadians thought the Reform Party was acting out of partisan motives rather than compassion.

I would ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which he was quoting those specific poll results. Mr. Speaker, as you know, ministers who quote from documents are obligated to table them for public consumption.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I did not hear the Prime Minister say that he was quoting from a particular document. I do not know where he got the information. Perhaps we can look at the blues. This statement could have been just a point of debate, as opposed to a specific document. I did not hear the Right Hon. Prime Minister refer to a document.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

An hon. member

Mr. Speaker, then what did he quote from?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I do not want to get into a debate.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will find that the standing orders state that if a minister responds to a question by using a document, that document should be tabled in the House. The Prime Minister did refer to a document, a poll, and we request that the poll be tabled in the House of Commons.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I will refer to the blues, but I do not recall the Right Hon. Prime Minister referring to or quoting from a specific document. He made a statement which was in the course of debate. I do not know where he got the information, but there were no documents—

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

An hon. member

He made it up.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I did not say that. I will review the blues and the tapes, but I do not recall him reading from a document in the course of question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech just before question period. I know he was a member of the Liberal government at one point. He has a great insight into the dealings and happenings in caucus. Could he elaborate in the short time he has on what he thinks the answer would be to the hep C situation we find ourselves in and the government not compensating all victims?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it would be inappropriate to talk about what happens in caucus. However, in view of the fact that I am no longer in that caucus, I would be more than happy to suggest what took place. This is information that is filtered out to the media and others.

Certainly there were members who were led to believe that the compensation package would be extended to all those who contracted hepatitis C as a result of the blood system. On that basis they voted with the government. They toed the party line and did as they were told. However, much to their chagrin, 24 hours later the Minister of Health declared that the file was closed. Yesterday he declared, honest to God, the file is closed. What an awful, callous, cold-hearted way of dealing with innocent victims who are sick and dying.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my colleague from Wentworth—Burlington.

I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Palliser which invites representatives from the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health regarding the question of compensation for victims of tainted blood.

Beyond the debates and the motions there exists a fundamental reality, which is for us all to find solutions, solutions which are sustainable, which are just and fair, and which take into account all the circumstances and constraints of the particular case.

Beyond the arguments on this issue, which have gone on now for many days, and beyond the debates, we must look positively at the latest developments which offer a real possibility of a new consensus emerging which might rally not only the governments involved, provincial, territorial and federal, but especially the people who are members of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada.

From my volunteer involvement over a number of years with the developmentally disabled, I have gained a strong belief that the very cornerstone of any community, of society as a whole, is the volunteer movement, for they know better than anyone else everything there is to know about their own cause, the cause of the people they represent, the needy, the disabled or hepatitis C victims.

Looking at society as a whole, the volunteer groups, whether involved with health, with the environment or with culture, are its very backbone.

This is why this motion is of the utmost importance. Of course it is easy for us to play the role of partisans, to blame this person and that person, and to have very strong partisan debates on an issue which involves people and victims.

This motion gives us an opportunity to look above and beyond, to rally around the possibility that a consensus might emerge which might provide solutions and broaden the existing consensus. In that sense we must look positively at the approach of the premier of Ontario who, in reversing his previous stance, has decided to put up to $200 million into the fund. That in itself has provoked the idea of a new meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers.

In that sense we think the motion put forward by the member for Palliser is extremely important in that it will enable the representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to be an integral part of any debate and discussion which might lead to further consensus.

That is why we on this side of the House accept this motion. We find it to be constructive and beneficial to all. We will be happy to support it and to vote for it because it is in the light of this motion that the people involved will have a chance to say their peace, will have a chance to be part of a new consensus which we hope will lead to a solution which will be beneficial to all victims involved in this issue.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the debate today and to question period and I have yet to hear from any government member or from the minister whether they accept the fact that all those who contracted hepatitis C because of the blood system will be compensated.

If that is not the position of the Government of Canada, and it seems to me that it ought to be a prerequisite to attending any meeting of ministers, then why is it attending the meeting? Why is the Minister of Health agreeing to go to the meeting? Does he intend to go to the meeting with cap in hand?

Mike Harris, the premier of the province of Ontario, was challenged to put up or shut up. He put up, up to $200 million. I suppose it is now up to the Prime Minister to put up or shut up. How much more money is the Government of Canada prepared to put into the package?

It keeps boasting about the $800 million that it has already put into the package. We all know the reason the federal government agreed to pony up $800 million. It is not because of a sense of compassion for the victims, it is because of legal liability. That was very clear listening to the Minister of Health, given his Bay Street background. He was not writing the cheque because of compassion, he was writing the cheque because he knew that if the money was not put on the table the courts would have found in favour of the plaintiffs and the government would have been required to put up the money.

Would the hon. member, for whom I have considerable respect, agree that the time has come to accept the principle that all those who contracted hepatitis C because of the blood system, through no fault of their own, ought to be compensated?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have made the position of the government extremely clear.

They have said that a new development has occurred. A provincial premier has changed the whole nature of the previous agreement by saying now that his province, Ontario, a large province, is prepared to contribute as much as $200 million toward seeking a new solution.

The Minister of Health has confirmed that since this has happened a new reality has emerged which will lead to a new meeting of the ministers of health to look at a different consensus. If a broader consensus emerges, especially in the light of the motion from the member for Palliser, which includes representatives from the Hepatitis C Society of Canada, all the better.

It seems to me that the idea is to have this meeting and have a new discussion. The very fact of the meeting opens up the possibility of a positive approach from all parties that will go there with open minds, eyes and ears. If a broader consensus emerges, all the better for all of us.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention today that there are victims who became infected after 1990 as well. The government has said yes to those between 1986 and 1990. It was not until today that I was informed from Ontario that there are those infected after 1990.

Prior to 1986 no one in Canada was allowed to bank their blood for their use. They had no option at all. They had to take what the government gave them.

I pray the government is going to look after all victims prior to 1986 and after 1990. I pray that is going to be addressed. Is that correct?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said before. The government is looking at this motion today in a very positive way. The fact that the federal Minister of Health has suggested a meeting of the ministers to look for a new consensus in light of the development in Ontario bodes well for the future. The future will tell.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak after the interim leader of the Conservative party. My remarks will address some of the concerns she raised.

I read a letter that appeared in the Globe and Mail last Saturday which is relevant to this debate. The headline is “Why the hepatitis C decision is correct”:

Those who continue to argue for financial compensation for those who acquired hepatitis C through blood transfusions prior to 1986 are advocating government compensation for what was at that time a known but unpreventable risk. This is without precedent and could lead to endless requests for compensation from individuals who have experienced a wide variety of adverse effects of medical treatments for which there were no risk free alternatives.

The fact is that prior to 1986, the risk of post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis was well established, but there was no way to reduce that risk.

Screening for hepatitis B had been in place since the early 1970s, but post-transfusion hepatitis continued to occur. This entity was called non-A, non-B hepatitis until 1989 when hepatitis C was first described.

This part of the letter is especially important:

In 1986 the United States and some European countries introduced surrogate testing of donated blood, whereby blood was tested for antibody to hepatitis B core antigen. Donated blood with the presence of antibody to hepatitis B core antigen was not used. We now know that the use of surrogate tests would have prevented 70 per cent of cases of transfusional hepatitis C. It is for this reason that the federal and provincial governments are offering financial compensation for those infected from blood products between 1986 and 1990.

We must not loose site of the fact that blood transfusion is often a life saving treatment and that many of those who acquired hepatitis C from transfusions prior to 1986 are alive today only because they received this blood. Furthermore, the majority of individuals with chronic hepatitis C are asymptomatic and over two-thirds will never develop serious liver disease.

Public policy must be based on sound underlying principles. Compensation for preventable harm is a given, but financial compensation from the public purse for a known but unpreventable complication of medical treatment for one particular illness sets a dangerous precedent.

We must not allow our genuine concern for those who acquired hepatitis C from blood transfusions to obscure rational public policy.

This letter was signed by Stephen D. Shafran, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, University of Alberta.

There are a number of things that deserve our attention in this letter, not the least of them being that Dr. Shafran points out that between 1986 and 1990 there was good reason why the government should be held accountable. It did not apply a screening process that was in use in the United States and in Europe. After 1990 obviously it applied it.

It is very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition today starts talking in question period about compensating for negligence. Until now the debate has been about compensating all victims regardless of government negligence, all victims who got hepatitis C from the blood supply regardless of whether the screening test was in place or whether it could have been in place.

I think we are all quite agreed that compensation would be proper as long as there is recognized liability on the part of the government. If that recognized liability goes back to 1981 and it is agreed that it should go back to 1981 then it would be appropriate to compensate those people.

However, I suggest that regardless of the meeting that is going to occur a little later this week it may be very difficult to argue that blood supply officials were negligent if they did not introduce a screening process not in use in the United States or in Europe until 1986.

In other words, there is the dilemma. Is a medical agency negligent if it does not introduce a test as soon as it is available anywhere in the world? I suggest there may be a problem there.

The interim leader of the Conservative Party expressed concern about the people who acquired hepatitis C after 1990. As she can see from this letter clearly, even with the test in place, it was not 100% successful. Thirty per cent of the people who took blood products from the blood supply system, even after the test was in place, acquired hepatitis C.

There was a risk that existed and that risk was not as a result of negligence on the part of any government official. The question then becomes is it then good public policy to award a cash payout. It is not compensation if there is no negligence. Is it good public policy to award a cash payout to anyone who gets sick as a result of some form of medical treatment?

A very dangerous precedent is in the process of being set if we decide to compensate those after 1990. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not suggest that. He has changed his tune.

He has recognized that negligence is the only justifiable reason for compensation. He has avoided the whole issue of post-1990 sufferers of hepatitis C.

If we give money to people who become injured as a result of an unpreventable risk in the health system, where will it end? Hospitals now have the occurrence of super bugs. Despite every effort on the part of hospitals, occasionally patients come into the hospital and get sick by infections that are basically hard to detect and difficult to control.

What if a surgeon who is expert in his field, who is extremely competent and who has all the support imaginable, slips and a person gets injured, sick or even dies as a result of a non-negligence occurrence in the hospital?

We are in danger of setting a very dangerous precedent. The letter I read is from a person who is not a politician but an expert in the field of medicine and certainly should be accepted for knowing what he is talking about.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments and I have some concerns and questions. I am very concerned that we are engaging in false debate on the issue of compensation for all victims. I would hope that on a day like today we could put to rest this notion that we are setting a dangerous precedent.

I call on the member to clearly distinguish between medical mishap and regulatory failure as is the case with hepatitis C and was the case with thalidomide and HIV for which the federal government took responsibility. We are simply asking the government to do what is right and just and required under law.

It is very important for the member to acknowledge that we are not talking about a test that was suddenly being used in 1986 or only available in 1986. Justice Krever is very clear about this test, surrogate test, the ALT test, being available well before 1986. He mentions in his report that in 1982 the New York Blood Centre began routine ALT testing of all donations. The head of the New York blood program actually said it is the only thing we have to identify donors who are at high risk of transmitting this type of disease.

The evidence is clear. Testing was available. It was a question of our regulatory authority, the federal minister and the department, applying the law and ensuring that a test was put in place. They failed to do so, thereby putting the health and lives of many Canadians at risk.

Is the member now prepared to look at the evidence at hand and recognize that it is a false argument to refer to the period of 1986 to 1990 as the period of liability and to look at the negligence of the federal government for this whole issue because of the failure to carry out its responsibilities?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously agrees entirely with the letter and my comments because she concurs that this is an issue of mishap. If a mishap is deemed to have occurred even prior to 1986 then compensation is in order. However, there is considerable debate, as we see from the letter writer, whether an agency—

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is clearly misrepresenting what I had just said.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

With respect, that is not a point of order but a point of debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think the member was concerned that my reply was so excellent that she felt she had to interrupt it because she did not have a rebuttal.

There is considerable debate about whether an agency can be held as committing a mishap or having been negligent if a process appears in the medical community at a certain time and that agency does not implement it until other countries got involved.

There is no doubt that after 1986 we should have done it. Before 1986 there is a doubt and if it is deemed by the appropriate authorities that a mishap has occurred before 1986, I think compensation is 100% in order.

What about after 1990 as raised by the interim leader of the Conservative Party? Is she proposing that because there is no mishap after 1990 there should be no cash payout for any of those who acquired hepatitis C after 1990 and 30% of those who received the blood transfusions and were exposed to hepatitis C did acquire it?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington will know that I have a fair bit of respect for him and for his work as a member of parliament.

When Canadians go to a hospital and receive medical treatment they put a lot of faith and trust in the system, and the system failed them. It is clear the system failed as early as 1981. The blood system failed Canadians. I have not had the misfortune of having to be operated on and in need of a blood transfusion. I would be horrified to think that might have happened to me or to somebody in my family.

Does the hon. member not agree that the blood system really let Canadians down and they ought to be compensated going back to when that happened in 1981?