Debates of April 27th, 1999

Hepatitis C

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

And the Minister of Health. They all knew full well that what they were doing was not right.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

That's not true.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Health Minister will have her chance to speak, but I will remind her that it is true. They did kowtow to the wishes of the Prime Minister.

Tomorrow on the front lawn of Parliament Hill a rally will be taking place. It will be led by a man by the name of Joey Haché who criss-crossed Canada by bicycle last year in an effort to raise public opinion on this issue.

I will read from the notice, not that I am using it as a prop, but it states:

Wednesday, April 28, noon on the front steps of Parliament—no rally...just a statement. I'm asking all Opposition MPs to join me for 5 minutes to show victims across Canada that they haven't been forgotten! Can we still count on your support against the Liberals?

He can count on our support on this side of the House. I believe he can probably count on support from across the aisle as well, from some of those people who found it very difficult to stand in their place and support a measure they did not believe in. They have now had a year to think about it.

What is so crazy about the government's position is that it is saying it cannot afford to compensate all victims so it will compensate some. I say this position is dictated more by the Minister of Finance than it is by the Minister of Health. On numerous occasions, on questions in the House, I would say “would the real Minister of Health stand up”. Do members know which minister would rise on such questions? It was the finance minister because he was the one holding the purse strings. He was the one, more so than the health minister, who dictated who would be compensated. It was so ridiculous when $1.1 billion was announced only for the victims between 1986 and 1990.

Some of our people today talked about helicopters. This is the same government that cancelled a necessary helicopter deal. It cancelled a legal and binding agreement which cost the taxpayers of Canada $750 million. It did not build a single helicopter. The helicopter issue resurrects its ugly head from time to time in this Chamber simply because what is going on in the world today is part of this debate. It cancelled the deal, which just paid its legal costs, to buy itself out of a piece of business. It is unbelievable.

It did the same thing with Pearson airport. The people of Toronto are suffering because of a lack of leadership on the part of the government in the expansion of Pearson airport. What did the government do in that case? It cancelled the deal. It cost the taxpayers over a billion dollars to simply cancel a a binding contract it did not want with all the i 's an t 's dotted and crossed.

If we take those two deals alone, we are talking about $1.75 billion. However, for the sake of argument, let us say $2 billion because the government is still adding and counting in terms of the Pearson deal. We still do not yet know what the final settlement will be.

The government is saying that it cannot compensate hepatitis C victims but it can carry out a political vendetta against whatever group at whatever cost. It does not have to talk about compensating innocent Canadians. This falls directly at the doorstep of the Prime Minister. It is not too late to do something.

Logically one might ask why this issue would resurrect its ugly head again in the House of Commons. Did we not have enough to say about it last year? We have not had enough to say about it. This issue will continually resurrect its ugly head until the government deals with it. Members are going to hear this from this side of the House time and time again. We are going to keep throwing in motions and using standing orders to remind the government that it did the wrong thing.

We only have to go through the clippings to realize how poorly the Liberal government handled this. The Red Cross, which has had its own set of problems, said that all victims should be compensated. The September 19, 1998 headline from the Globe and Mail said “Payments to blood victims ruled out. Ottawa's enhanced health care offer is met with scorn”.

It goes on even into the Senate, that chamber of sober second thought which we sometimes criticize on a daily basis in this place. It even recommended that all victims be compensated. What happened? Some governments acted on their own. They showed some leadership. The Government of Ontario, recognizing an injustice, compensated all victims in that province.

I called upon the province of New Brunswick last December to do the same thing. On December 16, 1998 I met with Premier Thériault and his health minister, Mrs. Breau, on that very issue. I suggested that they should compensate all victims or at least extend the compensation on an interim basis to those people before the package was agreed upon.

The other sad fact about the compensation package that was announced is that not one single victim has received a cent of compensation. Now there is a protracted legal argument because of the mishandling by the present government.

What we are saying is the provinces have to act alone. Unilaterally they should do it as the province of Ontario has done. We would like to see it happen in all the provinces. If they have to take the leadership on this issue, so be it. We do not have a government that will take the leadership or has even shown an inch of leadership on this issue.

In all fairness we are all disappointed with the announcement that only the 1986 to 1990 victims will be compensated. We want to see all victims compensated. I look forward to the debate on this motion.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate this motion which was first put before the House in 1997. I say to the member opposite who moved the motion that a lot has happened since then.

I welcome this opportunity to speak about this very important issue and remind the House of the leadership taken by the federal government and in particular the Minister of Health regarding the issue of hepatitis C.

Without question the plight of Canadians who contracted hepatitis C from the blood supply evokes in all of us an overwhelming impulse of concern and sympathy. People who were injured or ill and who needed blood transfusions turned to our blood system in their time of need. Mr. Justice Krever so ably described in his final report that the blood system served to compound their problems because the blood they received was infected with hepatitis C.

In 1998 federal, provincial and territorial ministers of health put $1.1 billion on the table to settle lawsuits and legal claims for the period between 1986 and 1990. We know from the debate which took place in the House the reason for that time period. There was an acknowledgement both in Mr. Justice Krever's report and among public policy experts in Canada that had different decisions been made in 1986, there might have been a different result. We know that it is always hard to judge those issues, but decisions were made in Canada, decisions were taken in Canada that were different from the international standard that had been established in 1986.

This past December an agreement in principle was reached by the negotiators. I understand that significant progress is being made to finalize the settlement proposal which will go before the courts for approval. That is enormous progress on this very difficult and important issue. We believe that whatever settlement is proposed, it is the courts that must say that this is fair. That is the foundation of the policy of the government, one of fairness and one of compassion.

Whatever the specifics of the emerging settlement, the government is confident that these negotiations have been the appropriate way to proceed, given that these matters have to be resolved before the courts and Canadians want a full, comprehensive and responsible solution to this issue.

I have had the privilege of serving in public office for almost 20 years, at the provincial level for 12 years, five of those in government, seven in opposition. I say to members opposite that being in opposition affords them a certain luxury of being irresponsible. But being in government, good public policy requires that governments be responsible in the decisions they propose. I believe the government has been responsible and compassionate in its approach on this issue.

Within the Canadian tradition of moderate compromise, we will solve in a responsible way the difficult issues of the past as they relate to hepatitis C.

At the end of the day, this negotiated settlement should in financial terms give a measure of comfort to many of the individuals who were infected with hepatitis C by the blood system.

But the federal government has had to take a longer and broader view. Hepatitis C is still a relatively new disease to the scientific and medical communities. The federal government has taken decisive action.

This past September the Minister of Health announced a comprehensive federal initiative including funding for medical research, community support, public education, improvements in disease surveillance and to work to find those who might not yet know they are infected with hepatitis C. The Minister of Health announced a proposal to the provinces and the territories for a significant transfer payment to be made to ensure that the health system in each of the provinces responds as fast as it can and as appropriately as it can to the health needs of those infected.

This has not been an easy path. We should not forget that it took federal leadership to have this issue receive the attention it has received to where we are today which is trying to settle those lawsuits between 1986 and 1990 and provide health services to those who were infected outside of that window where if other decisions had been made, perhaps the outcomes and the results would have been different.

Federal investment in hepatitis C is now very significant, in all totalling more than $1 billion, but it is not only money that measures the level of federal commitment in this area. It is also what these initiatives represent in terms of the commitment to knowledge and scientific development and fostering new productive relationships, all the while preserving and respecting the federal role in health and health care.

I would like to take the next few minutes to review some of those successes in addressing the hepatitis C issue that the federal leadership has brought about in just a few short years. While we all acknowledge that there are things yet to be done, we do not spend enough time acknowledging that which has been done.

First let me start by pointing out that as in all things Canadian, this issue has required interjurisdictional collaboration. Federal, provincial and territorial governments have worked closely with one another to see that the transition to a new blood system, one that Canadians can have confidence in, has gone as smoothly as possible and that blood and blood products in Canada are as safe as they can be.

For its part, the federal government has had a leading role in what has been a very successful transition. A key part has been to ensure that all jurisdictions are of the same frame of mind when it comes to making the safety of the blood system paramount. That is a huge accomplishment. That is a significant and important change.

The additional $125 million in support of the federal regulatory and disease surveillance role, and up to $50 million to help the provinces pay for their public health function of finding those people who are infected with hepatitis C are clear indications of the federal government's commitment to ensuring that these functions are sufficiently resourced.

The federal government has acknowledged that people infected with hepatitis C might not always have reasonable access to the health services they might require over time, and that increasing resources would help to address this problem. The Minister of Health has offered $300 million to the provinces and territories as a way to cover the needed medical care over the next 20 years and to focus our attention on resolving the issues surrounding this disease. The provinces and the territories have yet to fully respond.

We have also moved to meet the needs for more information and more support. We could not wait until the research momentum had built up by itself. For that reason the federal Minister of Health announced dedicated research funding of up to $50 million over the next five years because we need answers if we are going to help those people.

I am pleased to report that the federal government has been funding efforts to educate medical professionals and the public about hepatitis C. All these indications suggest that our efforts are working.

Finally, we know many people who suffer with disabilities apply for the Canada pension plan as an important source of income. There are people with all kinds of disabilities. We all know from our constituency work that the process of determining eligibility through the Canada pension plan disability benefit is very thorough. That means it is difficult.

CPP adjudicators look at each case to determine if the disability genuinely prevents the person from working at any job. To ensure that adjudicators are aware of hepatitis C, its implications and its impact, Human Resources Development Canada has carried out very specific training for the adjudicators. People with hepatitis C over the years will now have adjudicators who are responsive and sensitive and who understand hepatitis C. That is something we do not talk about, but it is very important.

These are the types of activities that require the kind of commitment we have seen from the federal government. Without this commitment there would not be the momentum behind the comprehensive approach to dealing with hepatitis C that we see today.

The last word I would like to make today on this important motion is that the action taken by the federal government is not only appropriate and good public policy, it was the right thing to do.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 273 which we are debating today is a noble motion and one that should enjoy the support of all sides of the House, except the Liberals of course.

As we know, this kind of motion did not receive their support exactly one year ago tomorrow. Joey Haché was here that day. He is a very young victim of tainted blood. He stood in the gallery while the Liberals voted not to compensate him for his sickness. One year ago Canadians witnessed a very important vote in the House on a matter that can only be described as a tragedy.

It was the federal government that controlled the Canadian blood supply that infected about 60,000 Canadians. We forced the House to vote on that issue because of the cold-hearted position of the Minister of Health. In the beginning he wanted to close the file and compensate no one. Today after about a year of holding his feet to the fire, he is willing to compensate about 20,000 of the victims of tainted blood.

Last year 1,200 of the victims died. Many of the victims have already died. It is as if the health minister is stalling so that as many of these victims as possible can die before he is finally forced to open up the vaults of taxpayer money he and his pal the finance minister have siphoned off the paycheques of Canadians and then pay off the victims who have successfully struggled to stay alive without any help from the Liberal government.

Many members on this side of the House were very sad, very emotional and very angry when that vote was held in this chamber. We knew that the Liberals would vote against compensating Canadians infected with federal government controlled tainted blood. On this side of the House we were frustrated, but we tried to get the Liberals to allow the House of Commons to do the right thing.

On the other side of the House the tears being shed were of a different nature. Backbench Liberal MPs were weeping openly because even though they and their constituents felt that we should help the people infected with tainted blood, they had to vote against helping those Canadians. If those Liberal MPs did not vote as they were told to vote, the Prime Minister would ensure that they were punished.

There are no free votes in the House as long as the traditional kind of political party like the one across the way holds the majority of seats in the House.

The Liberals will not even agree to televise parliamentary committee meetings. Why? Because they want Canadians to know as little about this place as possible. They want to hide the way they are forcing their MPs to vote and govern.

Canadians know about the dictatorial behaviour of the Prime Minister and the lack of compassion shown to Canadians by the government. We know because it keeps on spending tax dollars and it refuses to give us tax relief even though the budget is in surplus. Canadian families are suffering under the heaviest tax burden by the government.

Right now, outside the House, Canadians are working on an alternative to traditional political parties. The alternative will truly be democratic and will put an end to the government that talks the talk about democracy but fails to walk the walk when it comes to power.

The government has cut $23 billion in health care and education since it came to power. The government has refused to eliminate waste and duplication in federal spending. It has already spent $450 million on a gun registry system that is estimated to cost about $1.2 billion. It appears the Liberals are sucking money out of health and education to pay for the highly questionable gun registration system. In fact, it should emphasize education and health care that would help our children.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the member opposite not have to be on topic? I think he must be dreaming that he was in the Liberal caucus when he was in the Reform caucus when all these members were tuned up for their indiscretions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is certainly not a point of order. The hon. member for Surrey Central has been on topic and is on topic. The topic goes around in circles and he is part of that circle.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very much on topic and I am exposing what the government is supposed to do and is not doing. In fact, it takes money from health and education which it should spend on our children, on our families. The point I am trying to make is that the government has focused on the wrong target. It spends millions of dollars on things like free flags, for example.

The Liberals spent $3 billion helping 40,000 fishermen thrown out of work due to the failure of the federal government managed east coast fishery.

Why would the Liberals not spend money to help the surviving 40,000 hepatitis C victims whose lives were thrown into jeopardy by federal government managed blood?

I could go on and on and on. I have little time to describe the shameful record of the government that has caused this motion to be brought before the House for debate. The Liberal government allowed Justice Krever to be held up in court so that he could not report to Canadians what he had found during his inquiry. The health minister withheld vital documents from him, but Justice Krever continued to fight and would not let it go. He submitted his report to the House, but the Liberal government virtually ignored it.

Ontario and Quebec are ready to compensate hepatitis C victims without discrimination. The Liberal health minister by contrast is only compensating his legal beagle buddies by providing them the means to launch lawsuits and have the victims pay the lawyers in order to try to make the federal government compensate them for the federal government's mistake of giving them tainted blood.

The official opposition has been calling for immediate compensation before it is too late for many victims of tainted blood who need help right now. We on this side will continue to call for a no fault insurance fund to compensate all victims. This was one of the recommendations of Justice Krever, by the way, if members on the other side who are heckling have forgotten.

Some 87% of Canadians believe that provincial and federal governments have a moral obligation to compensate these victims, and 72% of Canadians believe it is unfair to compensate for HIV or AIDS while denying the hepatitis C victims compensation.

Speaking to the second part of the motion, there are a number of diseases on the other hand that we can test for and seek to control, including von Willibrand's disease. We should be concerned about these diseases.

I am sure the member who proposed the motion is aware there is no way that the Liberals will entertain paying heed to this concern. This is a government that lacks compassion and lacks vision.

All these diseases and bleeding disorders should be studied. I am talking about a broader picture. We should do the most and the best research we can to tackle these diseases and screen them out of our blood supply. We could make progress, but we have to prepare a blueprint and a long term vision. We know the Liberals do not have that and do not want to do that.

In conclusion, the motion we are debating today is wishful thinking. Canadians know that Liberals will fight, drag their feet, dig in their heels and be dragged kicking and screaming before they show compassion and compensate the victims of government controlled tainted blood.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to have to debate this matter again today. Justice Krever's report was tabled over one year ago—its anniversary is coming up tomorrow. Still nothing has yet been settled for the hepatitis C victims.

The motion introduced by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, which dates back to November 1997, just a few days after the Krever report was tabled, is as current as ever, for this motion recommended compensation for all victims of tainted blood.

The motion before us this evening reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to provide a humane and fair resolution for those infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply system, and provide for research, education and support into the identification of other inherited bleeding disorders, in particular von Willebrand's disease.

So here we are, still debating a motion that is as current as ever, a year after the tabling of the Krever report. That is what is unfortunate.

Following the report, the government, in March 1998, after voting against an opposition motion calling for compensation of all victims of hepatitis C, provided $1.1 billion in compensation to people who contracted hepatitis C between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990, because it did not acknowledge making a mistake either before or after this period.

Over a year later, the motion is still relevant—sad but true—because there exists no fair and just compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, who were contaminated by this blood, as the hepatitis C people put it “This rotten blood we were injected with”.

Motion M-273 calls upon the government to take every possible measure to find a fair and equitable settlement for people infected by the hepatitis C virus. In this regard, an initial step is possible in the form of a transfer to the Government of Quebec of its share of the $300 million announced last September to compensate all those who became victims, regardless of the date.

If this $300 million were transferred on a pro rata basis to the people, we could say in Quebec that we had a fair share of this money.

To provide a little background, Quebec and Ontario felt that the government's offer fell short and the two of them announced they would extend the compensation program to include all victims, regardless of the date. In September 1998, the federal government announced $300 million to pay the medical costs of people infected through the blood supply system.

Since Quebec already has a program to cover medical expenses, the Quebec government asked that its share be used to extend the compensation package to more people because, as members know, the federal government does not recognize victims infected prior to 1986 and after 1990.

Since Quebec already pays for medical expenses and since the federal government announced $300 million in compensation, Quebec would like to get its share so that it could use it to compensate all victims, that is those infected before 1986 and after 1990.

This request is based on the government's resolution, announced in the 1996 throne speech, to no longer use its spending power to establish programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction without the provinces' agreement. That resolution also included a right to opt out with compensation.

But now, it appears that the formula used to distribute the money between the provinces, which was always based on the population of a province, may no longer be valid. Instead of paying $75 million, or 25% of the $300 million, as provided under the established formula, the federal government is only prepared to give Quebec $45 million, or 15% of the total amount.

This change caught everyone by surprise. Neither the Quebec government nor the victims or the organizations working for them, including the Quebec chapter of the Hemophilia Society, can understand why Quebec's share does not reflect its demographic weight, that is 25% of the overall population.

The federal government is said to have based this figure on epidemiological studies. This is a very haphazard method, since hepatitis C is difficult to detect. Indeed, many people may be infected without knowing it, because they are still symptom free.

Using this sort of calculation, there is a risk of serious errors that will ultimately penalize the victims, who are waiting for some sort of compensation to improve their condition and quality of life as much as possible.

This is why both the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Government of Quebec intend to put pressure on Ottawa to keep the population-based formula. Thus, those who contracted the disease before 1986 and those who did so after 1990 will be able to count on $75 million instead of $42 million.

It has now been more than a year since the offer for those who contracted the disease before 1986 and after 1990 was announced. We now know what is in the agreement and we are still waiting for the courts to approve it. But, according to the Canadian Hemophilia Society, it is already unacceptable. We are also waiting for the results of the Red Cross's negotiations with its creditors to see how much it will be able to offer victims.

One thing is certain: the issue is far from resolved.

The motion by the member for New Brunswick Southwest also calls on the government to provide for research, education and support into the identification of other inherited bleeding disorders, in particular von Willebrand's disease.

The September 1998 announcement also mentioned $50 million over five years for prevention, public education and research into hepatitis C and other related diseases. The House will agree that $50 million is a minimum, and that much remains to be done to fully understand and treat these diseases.

In conclusion, much remains to be done for those whose lives have been turned upside down because of deficiencies in the blood supply system. We are appealing to people to show compassion and ensure that those who have been the victims of this national tragedy are properly compensated. The goal is not to assign blame, but to ensure justice for all victims of this unprecedented tragedy.

This government prides itself on guarding the safety of Canada's blood supply system. It can and it must do what is necessary to ensure that all victims of the contaminated blood scandal are treated fairly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion brought forward by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, which is very timely and appropriate.

It is true that it is about one year ago today that we were faced with a most regrettable situation which will go down as a very sorry chapter in the history of this country. Joey Haché and other victims of hepatitis C were in the gallery and observed the proceedings as the government cracked the whip and required all members of the Liberal Party in the House to vote against a motion that would have ensured fair and just compensation for all victims of hepatitis C in this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health talks about the successes around this issue. I have a hard time trying to find any successes on this issue. I feel nothing really but much shame and embarrassment that we have a government today which failed to do the right thing in terms of this being a moral issue and to follow the legal requirements, as we understand them to be, ensuring that all Canadians are able to have access to blood products, to drugs, to food and to medical devices that are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

The parliamentary secretary referred to several measures which she says provide evidence of that success. She points to the $1.1 billion settlement for compensation cases which fall between the period of 1986-1990. She fails to mention that not one penny of that $1.1 billion has been paid out.

It was only about a month ago that we received a press release from the hepatitis C organizations on the anniversary of the day when the government made its very arbitrary and regrettable decision to limit compensation to those infected between 1986 and 1990. The Canadian Hemophilia Society reminded us that it has been a year since this compensation was promised. Erma Chapman, the head of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, stated very clearly that there has been no money paid to any of the victims. She stated: “There are seriously ill people who urgently require treatment but do not have the financial resources to pay for it. The hepatitis C virus is one that can cause serious liver damage that can lead to death. We call on the federal government to provide a method to fast-track assistance to those in serious need of treatment and care for their hepatitis C infections. Victims have died waiting for help from their government”.

On the first point that the government makes with respect to its so-called success in this area, the government has failed to ensure that any method of compensation is active in ensuring that victims of hepatitis C are receiving some sort of assistance.

The second point which was made concerns the financial commitment of this government to assist provincial governments in meeting the medical needs of hepatitis C victims and in helping community groups support education, as well as ensuring that quality of life mechanisms are in place for victims of hepatitis C. There has been very little movement in that regard. I refer specifically to the fact that on September 18, 1998 the Minister of Health clearly announced a $50 million program to ensure that there would be assistance and help when it comes to hepatitis C disease prevention, community based support programs and research. That program is still not up and running. Not a penny of that $50 million is flowing to community organizations and victim support groups to ensure that the system is in place to provide meaningful support at a time of crisis.

As a part of its so-called successes, the government has also talked about its movement to ensure that proper and active regulatory systems are in place to absolutely guarantee that this kind of tragedy will never happen again. In the year that has passed since we last dealt with this very critical issue we have seen nothing but evidence after evidence that the government has not learned one lesson from the blood tragedy which this country experienced or acted on one bit of advice from Justice Krever who called very clearly for the government to recognize the error of its ways and to move toward an active, not a passive, regulatory approach when it comes to blood, food and drugs.

As an observer watching this government, it would almost seem that it has forgotten the lessons of the past, that it has decided to completely ignore Justice Krever because it has shown not one iota of interest in moving toward a firm, active, intensive regulatory approach in all of these areas around which human safety and health is so much a question.

We just had the experience of going through four months of hearings around the issue of organ and tissue donation and transplantation. It was a major disappointment for us to learn that this government had not learned from Justice Krever and was not prepared to apply the recommendations of the Krever report when it came to organs and tissues. Canadians see that blood is no different than organs and tissues. All are invasive procedures which require extra precautionary methods, yet this government refuses to take a proactive approach when it comes to the safety of Canadians. It has put on the table a risk management framework for the matter of organs and tissues, suggesting, despite everything we have learned from the blood tragedy, that there may be circumstances under which this government may not be held liable. For the first time, despite Krever, this government is actually raising the possibility of indemnification from the responsibility of ensuring the safety of Canadians on all of those issues and matters regulated under the Food and Drugs Act.

I have a hard time pointing to any successes on this issue. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I are left with the need to keep raising this issue and to try to convince the government to reopen this sorry chapter in the history of our society.

Many things have actually happened in the year since Joey Haché and others were in the gallery watching developments unfold, not the least of which was a major documentary by the Fifth Estate in January 1999 pointing to the serious problems with respect to blood collected from prisoners in the United States coming into this country and the government not taking precautions.

It was further evidence to Justice Krever's report about the deplorable actions of this government, the absolute negligence on the part of this government to ensure the safety of blood products. I think that evidence alone should be enough for the government to realize that it must reopen this question and it must look for a way to ensure compensation for all victims of hepatitis C because we are dealing with the failure of this government to uphold its responsibilities under the law of the land.

I would use the same words that the member for New Brunswick Southwest used in quoting Justice Krever who said “The compassion of a society can be judged by the measures it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy on its members”.

With those words in mind, today we are calling on the government to show the compassion and leadership Canadians have come to expect from their national government toward victims of tragedies and disasters. We urge the government to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that hepatitis C victims in this tragic episode are equally compensated.

It is only through this and putting in place corrective measures to ensure that these circumstances are never repeated that we as a nation can move forward with confidence and a sense of justice worthy of Canada's traditions.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all parties and members on this side of the House who support my motion. It is encouraging when the Bloc, Reform, NDP and Conservatives agree. I hope Canadians have noticed that.

We can always tell when the government is nervous in this place. Its members yak continually and try to throw off the speakers when discussing a topic the government is not comfortable with. We started off this debate by reminding the Canadian people that exactly a year ago every one of those Liberal members, including the ones that are presently in the House, stood on their feet and denied compensation to innocent victims of hepatitis C. If I were on that side and did the same thing, I would be extremely nervous. In fact, most of us would be hiding under our desks after having done that.

The Liberal Party is the only party that can swallow itself whole on an issue like this and then come back into the House and defend it. No other party can do that. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They have swallowed themselves whole. They always pretend to be the defenders of the underdog, the underprivileged, the poor and the sick, except when it comes to doing something. In this case, they did nothing for a group of innocent victims.

I will not deny that the parliamentary secretary is a pretty good person outside of this House and she probably is a compassionate person, but that speech of hers sounded like it came from an accountant. Why? Because it was drafted by her lawyer. Who is her lawyer? Allan Rock. Who is Allan Rock? The Minister of Health. That is bureaucratic gobbledegook. Is gobbledegook a parliamentary word? I guess in this case it would be because that is all it is.

We can tell by their expressions that the Liberals are not very happy with our having resurrected this ugly issue, because they look bad on it. They still look bad on it and it is not going to go away easily. It is not going to die a natural death. Why? Because on this side of the House we are not going to let it die. We are not going to let the issue slowly fade away. It is an important issue. It is an issue that Canadians want addressed. The victims want redress.

I am going to step through some facts.

It is a fact that the federal government did not properly fulfil its duties as a blood system regulator. This means that it did not keep a close eye on the activities of the Red Cross.

It is a fact that the federal government reacted too slowly to the threat of blood borne AIDS and mistakenly played down to Canadians the risk of the virus contaminating the blood supply.

It is a fact that the provinces which funded the Red Cross blood program did not provide timely and sufficient funds for scientific tests that would have screened out blood contaminated with the AIDS virus and hepatitis C.

It is a fact that the provinces did not do enough to track down infected blood recipients, some of whom were unaware that they had AIDS and unknowingly passed it on to their sexual partners. The same applies to hepatitis C.

It is a fact that the Red Cross took inadequate steps to implement a screening program that would have prevented high risk donors such as sexually active gay men from donating their blood. It does not end there. It allowed contaminated blood from the American prison system to come into the country.

It is a fact that the Red Cross did not move quickly enough to replace its inventory of contaminated blood products used by hemophiliacs with newer heat treated products that were safe. It has nothing to be proud of in what it did for those victims.

Until all of those victims are compensated we on this side of the House will continually fight for them. At some point the government will have to atone for its sins.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of my constituents in Vancouver East still face terrible financial and personal losses as a result of leaky condos. Sadly it is a crisis made worse by Liberal inaction at the federal level.

The Liberals continued inaction and lack of concern are unacceptable. Is it any wonder that people in B.C. feel alienated from Ottawa? Apparently there is no help, no care and no real support forthcoming.

I am here today to say that we will not stand for it. Nor will we let up on our demand that the federal government do right by the thousands of people in B.C. affected by this crisis. It is something for which we have been fighting for a long time.

Back in July 1998 and again in December 1998 I wrote to the minister urgently asking the government to support recommendations from both the Barrett commission and the Condominium Owners Association of B.C. for tax relief and GST rebates. To date the federal government has rejected these recommendations.

In March of this year the B.C. municipal affairs minister visited Ottawa to pressure the federal government to participate in the B.C. reconstruction loan program. The answer from the feds was no.

On March 17, I questioned the minister of public of works in the House and asked why on earth the federal government would offer federal loans to B.C. with interest rates so high that the province would be better off accessing them on the open market. Instead of admitting that the offer was hypocritical at best, the federal minister's response was that the issue required further study.

Despite all these efforts and despite the heartfelt need of thousands of desperate homeowners, the Liberal government has yet to act. Empty expressions of concern do not contribute one bit to the repairs that are needed to get these homeowners back on a secure footing. The feds have even refused to partner with the province in assisting housing co-ops that are facing the same problems, many of which were built under federal housing programs.

On April 24, the Government of British Columbia announced that housing co-ops could apply for provincial assistance. Clearly the Government of B.C. is helping resolve this terrible situation, but the question remains where is the federal government.

The Liberal government in Ottawa has turned its back on thousands of leaky condo owners in B.C. left stranded as their assets literally drain away. It is a shameful ploy that once again shuffles the interest of western Canadians to the bottom of the deck.

Once and for all I ask the federal government to provide support and to participate responsibly in the program to help desperate B.C. owners of leaky condos.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has already indicated in the House, the government is very concerned about the hardships that many owners of British Columbia's moisture damaged condominiums are facing.

It is the responsibility of the provinces to establish building codes and of the municipalities to inspect and enforce these codes.

As the national housing agency CMHC has been working in co-operation with others involved in housing research, design, construction and regulation to determine what improvements need to be made to design and building practices to eliminate these moisture related problems for the future.

Earlier this year the Barrett commission report provided a wide range of recommendations on how to improve the situation for condominium owners. The report called for CMHC to double residential rehabilitation assistance program funding for British Columbia. The Government of Canada did this for fiscal year 1998-99. In addition to providing more RRAP funds, the Government of Canada has also offered $75 million in bridge financing for the reconstruction fund that was mentioned by the member opposite.

CMHC is also working toward solutions to resolve the issue through our National Housing Act mortgage loan insurance. Some home owners with moisture damaged units have NHA insured mortgages. These individuals may have access to a number of financial options. Applications will be assessed by the approved lenders and CMHC on a case by case basis.

In addition to assisting home owners who currently have an NHA insured loan, CMHC has negotiated with the British Columbia's home protection office to provide mortgage insurance for their provincial program.

I should point out that it is the position of the government that tax relief or a tax subsidy as suggested by the Barrett commission would not be an equitable option for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure as a former resident of British Columbia to ask a follow-up question in our late show today. On March 25 I asked:

—for the past year Canadian lumber companies have been able to ship value added, rougher headed lumber products which are used in the exterior trim and finish of building projects to the United States without paying U.S. duties.

Last week U.S. customs announced that it was planning to reclassify Canadian exports of rougher headed products and subject them to strict quota limitations, thereby putting thousands of jobs in British Columbia at risk.

Will the government commit today to fight this blatant attempt to break international tariff rules and to ensure market access for the important products and protect forestry jobs?

Here is the response from the hon. Minister of International Trade who said with crocodile tears:

—we will not accept this American ruling—We will challenge it—

Basically he sounded like Churchill for a second: We will fight them on the beaches. We will fight them in the trenches. We will fight them all the way.

To be completely honest, we could stretch this to Christmas trees exported from Nova Scotia. We could talk about the salmon disputes with Alaska and the United States.

It is quite obvious the United States does not respect Canada when it comes to international trade deals or rulings of any kind. It looks at us like a lap dog and walks over us. The rougher headed lumber is a classic example of that.

The government tried to put through Bill C-55, and look at all the hubbub it caused. It is quite clear that the current Minister of International Trade has absolutely no standing with the United States government because it continuously walks all over us in everything we do.

My suggestion to the hon. parliamentary secretary who will answer this question is that instead of the international trade minister looking after his future occupation, whatever that will be, he should start concentrating on Canadian jobs and Canadian exports in order to protect those jobs, especially in interior and coastal B.C.

When will the government actually stand up for Canadian workers and Canadian towns, especially when it comes to the lumber industry? Being a former resident of British Columbia, I may say it is an absolutely beautiful province. Just like in Nova Scotia those people have a right to live, work, access resources and export them worldwide and not just to the United States.

We deserve to be respected. Our government should be fighting harder for those people in British Columbia.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, for more than 17 years the politically influential U.S. softwood lumber industry has sought action by the U.S. government to restrict Canadian access to the U.S. lumber market. On that point the member was right.

The hon. member, however, may be unaware that Canada won the last softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. in 1994, so we are not lap dogs.

It was this defeat and the subsequent threat by the U.S. industry to file a new countervailing duty case that gave rise to the softwood lumber agreement. The industry and provinces wanted to avoid another long and costly legal battle with an uncertain outcome, hence their advocacy and support for the 1996 softwood lumber agreement with the U.S.

Let me assure the hon. member that the government is very concerned with actions by the U.S. customs service to reclassify lumber products that are currently exempted from the softwood lumber agreement. We are sparing no effort, as was stated by the minister, to counter these reclassifications.

To bring the hon. member up to date, last week Canadian and U.S. officials held a meeting under the softwood lumber agreement dispute settlement mechanism. We outlined our objections to the U.S. proposal to reclassify rougher headed lumber. Moreover, we have already signalled our intention to raise this reclassification at the World Customs Organization.

The hon. member likely knows that we are already challenging the U.S. customs reclassification of drilled studs at the World Customs Organization.

Let there be no misunderstanding. The government will vigorously oppose all attempts by the U.S. to expand unilaterally the coverage of the softwood lumber agreement.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)