Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2004

Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member from Winnipeg for allowing me to share some of her time.

I mention the names of Bruce DeVenne, Neil van Deusen, Scott Hemming and Joe Haché. These are people who are infected with hepatitis C through no fault of their own. Three of them live in my riding and one of them lives here in Ottawa. He is a young man who years ago took a bicycle in Halifax and said he wanted to ride in every major centre in the country in order to bring attention to the concerns of people infected with hepatitis C outside the window. This was a young man who was going to receive the compensation because he was in the window of 1987. He was already taken care of. This young man thought not of himself but of other people throughout the country, those outside that so-called window.

What is really amazing is how cynical the Liberal government was at that time and still is. This was not about care or compassion for people who were suffering with a terrible disease through no fault of their own. This was about dollars and cents. That is all it was.

I remember very well when John Nunziata, the so-called disgraced Liberal of the GST debacle, walked across the floor and sat as an independent. He went to Allan Rock's desk, then the health minister of Canada, and put a hepatitis C ribbon on his desk and asked him to wear it. Mr. Rock did not even have the compassion in his body to wear the hepatitis C ribbon. That said a lot about the minister's intentions of what he was prepared to do. He was going to do nothing.

What I find most disgraceful, as a lawyer, is that the bulk of the funds went to a firm called Crawford, made up of mostly lawyers. Mostly the lawyers received the money. Why would a lawyer receive any money from a hep C fund from people who were infected with tainted blood? Why should those leeches of society receive money from something that was not intended for them? It was intended for the victims, not for lawyers who showed up and said they could argue this point or argue this case. I feel ashamed for every single lawyer at Crawford. I am absolutely ashamed that they accepted money from this fund that was meant to go to victims with hepatitis C.

Mr. Chair, I have no idea if you, or any member of your family, or any friends of yours have hepatitis C. I can assure you it is not a pleasant experience. The fact is it was inflicted on victims through no fault of their own. They had trust in the public health system. They believed in the Government of Canada and members of Parliament to protect their interests, and then they came to the realization that the blood was tainted.

I do not blame any member of Parliament. I do not believe for a second that any Liberal, Conservative, Alliance, Reform, Bloc or NDP member purposely tainted that blood. I do not believe that for a second. It was an unfortunate circumstance of errors that led to the result of hundreds of thousands of people becoming infected with hepatitis C.

However, lawyers should not be making any money from this. Every single penny of that should be going to the victims. Unfortunately, the Liberals at that time said they were going to give it to a bunch of lawyers and they would distribute it to whomever they believed qualified under their circumstances. To this day, I will never ever forgive the government of the day for allowing that to happen. That money came from the taxpayers of Canada. The taxpayers of Canada said very clearly they wanted that money to go to the victims and not to the lawyers.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, that the member would come into the House and slur a few words is one thing, but he has slurred the reputation of individuals, professions, lawyers and ministers like Allan Rock.

This government did not give funds to Crawford. Crawford was appointed to administer funds for the victims. A trust fund was created. A court created that trust fund. It was negotiated and professionals administered it. It was away from the government. It was out of the hands of the government.

The fund was there for those people. It was administered professionally, at arm's length. Now we want to see if there is an actuarial surplus in that fund and include more people. That is what the minister said here today.

Slurring a few words in the House is one thing, but slurring professions, individuals and well meaning people is beyond the bounds of the House.

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

Mr. Chair, what do we expect from the Liberals? The reality is, arm's length means eventually out of reach. The reality is that the money was meant for victims. I do not think one of the lawyers at Crawford ever had hepatitis C. I never met them on a personal level, but why did the government give the money to a group called Crawford? Why could it not have given that money directly to the victims? The reality is that the government wanted nothing to do with it. It sounded good politically. It would give the money to an arm's length agency.

Pierre Trudeau said once, arm's length means eventually out of reach. That is exactly what happened. The government lost control of it. We asked many times. Bruce DeVenne of my area of Lower Sackville asked the government many times from 1998 to 2000. Even today he has asked questions and for information from Crawford. Crawford is out of reach for access to information. Just months ago he asked the Minister of Health a question. That minister said to him in a letter, “Go ask Crawford”.

Why would the taxpayers of Canada accept the fact that the money would go to Crawford? Crawford has no responsibility to answer to anybody except itself. This is the part that gets stuck in my craw. It burns me up. It is simply not right. It is not fair. It is simply wrong.

The money from the taxpayers of Canada should have gone directly from the government to the victims, not to a third party and then to a certain box of victims. Those are the facts. That is the reality of today. How many people have died with hep C and have never been able to go to the government or to us and argue their point?

This is a tradition of the Liberal Party and Government of Canada, to delay, delay. The government gave it to an arm's length agency and passed it on to somebody else who dealt with it. When we ask government members questions, they no longer have responsibility because it was passed on to a separate agency. What a cop out.

I invited Liberals to come with me to Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, and speak to Neil van Deusen and Mr. Bruce DeVenne who have hepatitis C. I asked them to speak to them and explain to them in the comfort of their own living rooms why the government did what it did.

I can assure the House, not one Liberal has yet taken me up on that invitation. However, I invite them now. With the U.S. election, how many are listening? I invite them now to come with me to the victims I have in my riding and explain the Liberal government's position. If they were willing to do that, I would be honoured to pay the flight down there because it would be very interesting to hear what they would have to say to the victims in my riding.

That is a travesty of justice. It is a sin that the Liberals can stand up in the House and say “Well, what is done is done and we are now moving to the future”. Any member in the House who says that, especially members from Nova Scotia, should know better. My colleague from Digby knows better. He knows darned well that what the government did was wrong. Now it is trying to slough it off with any words or move the argument to other professions. That is simply wrong.

In conclusion, that money should have gone directly to the victims, not to a third party of lawyers. It does not demean lawyers. But no lawyer that I know of that works for Crawford got infected with hepatitis C. Yet they are making a mint off the funds from the taxpayer.

If a person is infected with hepatitis C and somebody else makes money from his or her pain, is that right? I would say no; it is wrong. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am honoured this evening to speak to the issue of hepatitis C compensation on behalf of not only my party, but more important members of my own community in my own riding that have this terrible disease.

I would like to begin by thanking the minister himself who appears to have a certain openness and compassion about this issue. That is refreshing.

Mr. Chair, if I could just ask, who am I to talk to when the opposite side of the House is empty?

[The Deputy Chair]

The hon. member knows very well that he is not to refer to who is absent or who is present. He will address his remarks and comments through the Chair.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

My apologies, Mr. Chair.

On April 28, 1998, an opposition supply day motion to extend compensation to everyone infected through the tainted blood scandal, so to speak, was defeated by a vote of 154 to 140. The key reason the government gave, and the health minister at the time repeatedly stated, for the fact that compensation would be limited to the period of 1986 to 1990 was that there were no tests available prior to 1986.

In fact, on April 29, 1998, the hon. Allan Rock stated that there was a period during which the harm could have been prevented. That same day Mr. Rock stated:

Mr. Speaker, we are helping the hep C victims for the period when it was clearly determined that the government had responsibility. Between 1986 and 1990 it could have tested properly.

I would further add that a few days later, on May 1, 1998, the same Allan Rock stated:

Mr. Speaker, for the last five weeks in this House we have stood on the principle that governments should pay cash compensation when they have caused damages and when those responsible for the system could and should have acted.

In 1981 those responsible could and should have acted. An official message dated January 14, 1981, from the American National Red Cross stated that blood services providers should prepare to test all units collected and to avoid transfusion of units with elevated ALT values.

I know one of the hon. members present earlier commented that she had no idea what this virus was. Indeed, it was called non-A, non-B hepatitis. The fact is that these markers were well known to be the causative indicators of transfusion hepatitis, which has now been labelled hepatitis C.

I also have a letter dated May 22, 1981, from the Blood Transfusion Service in Ottawa to Health Canada in which it discussed post transfusion hepatitis and appropriate testing methods. I have a response to that exact letter indicating that it did know about this. The response is dated June 4, 1981. It states that these donors should also be tested for ALT, but that it is not set up to do that.

There are other examples around the world. For example, Germany had regulatory authority requiring all ALT testing prior to 1995. New York state began routine ALT testing in 1982. Indeed, France began its own testing in 1985. All of these are prior to this key definition date of 1986, so I do not think that argument holds true at all.

Let us talk about the alleged number of victims. Again on April 29, 1998, the hon. Allan Rock stated:

It was only because of the leadership of the federal government that 22,000 victims of hepatitis C have been offered $1.1 billion in compensation.

There were no 22,000 victims. That was an overestimation by the hon. minister. I suspect it was not on purpose. Indeed, I doubt that any member in the House would ever purposely inflate these figures. I am only pointing out that we are now being asked to wait for further actuarial reports and I am not convinced that those figures will hold any more value than these figures.

We have come to know the true number of victims. As of March 31, 2004, which is the latest audit, only 8,800 claims have been approved and of those primarily infected that only represents about 5,000 victims. That is far below the initial estimate which was set up to provide $1.1 billion for 22,000 victims.

Now that there are only 5,000 victims that we know of in that timeframe, clearly there is money set up for the other groups.

I can point out that for pre-1986 and post-1990, as of the end of September this year there are only 5,071 victims that have been approved by the Red Cross settlement. This is free money to those infected outside of the groups.

This makes very reliable figures that we have to date from these reports. So the bottom line on this second issue is that again the government is wrong in its estimates. There are not 22,000 victims in this 1986-to-1990 group, and indeed there are not 40,000 to 60,000 victims outside this group. The total number of victims appears to be a terrible number, but clearly a more moderate number, of approximately 10,000 victims.

The government's original responsibility is very clear. The fund's viability is also very clear. The original fund was $1.1 billion, and it was set up to compensate 22,000 victims. We now know that there are far fewer victims than the government had predicted, but there is still $1.1 billion in the fund. The reason for limiting compensation, according to the government, was because there was no testing prior to 1986. Well, that is simply not true. The evidence is very clear in the papers that I have today.

I would like to comment as well on the cash-not-care debacle. I am sure it was designed to be a good program, and it was approximately $300 million set up to provide for drugs and other care that fell to these poor people outside of the provincial health care that was available. And indeed, as mentioned earlier by other members, some of the costs to these victims are astronomical. So there was money sent to the provinces by the federal government to the tune of $300 million. The problem is clear that this money has not reached and may not reach the victims.

Here in Ontario the Liberals have misspent millions of this federal money that was earmarked for these victims. George Smitherman, the provincial health minister, has chosen to rob these victims by conveniently and incorrectly interpreting the government's legal obligation. Money that was meant for hepatitis C victims under this program has been funnelled into programs that these victims would normally receive.

This kind of convenient interpretation conveniences the government, not the victims. In this instance, money given to the provinces, particularly in the case of Ontario, has once again broken good faith. I believe this money should be immediately returned and refunded to the federal government and used to further the compensation of these victims.

No more money should flow to pilfering provinces on this particular matter. It should flow directly to the victims. The current Liberal government in Ontario cannot be trusted any more with this additional money, and therefore should not be trusted by their federal counterpart.

In closing, I would like to say that the administration fees are approaching $250,000 a month. Waiting until next summer for another report will only help the administrators, accountants, and lawyers. There are people and corporations that have been charged with various criminal activities, and administrators and bureaucrats are making money off this situation, not the victims.

The government's estimations of the victim numbers were, like their surpluses, wrong. They were wrong in their estimates. They were wrong on their dates when the tests were available. They were wrong in their assessments of the impact, and they are still wrong. If they do not vote for full inclusion of all victims, they will remain wrong.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I am not as well versed on this as some members of the House. I rise primarily just to put on the record information from a person in my riding who has approached me recently related to this, so that people can understand the situation this person is in and any help that we might be able to provide.

I will read parts of this person's letter to me. It states:

I am a third-generation Yukoner. My deceased husband...was not a Yukoner but came here in the forties and was a member of the Yukon Order of Pioneers. ... He enjoyed his job and especially sports coverage.

He had to have a heart operation in 1995, which occurred at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. From a blood transfusion he contacted Hepatitis C. He died on June 6, 1993, at the age of 61.

Needless to say that losing my husband of 23 years was devastating not only for me but for his four children (from a previous marriage) and my two children (also from a previous marriage). He has grandchildren who never got to know him.

Our plans to retire on our property near Champagne will never be seen. It is very hard for me to this day trying to understand how something like this could have happened when the proper testing should have been done. After Terry had his operation both his daughter and myself commented that he had a yellowish tinge, and when Terry questioned the nurses he was told it was from the operation. No tests were done for Hepatitis.

My life is very different today.

She goes on to say how she is living on pensions. And she goes on:

As you well know, the cost of living in the Yukon is very high. I live at Champagne in my son's house to be near my 92-year-old mother and stepfather. My daughter and both my grandchildren live in Whitehorse, and with the gas prices soaring it becomes quite expensive to visit them and attend school functions.

This is only one of many tragedies in the hepatitis C story. I would certainly applaud anything that can be done to help my constituent in these difficult circumstances under any provisions of government.

I would like to add some information for the record with respect to hepatitis C on some of the elements that the government has pursued.

We certainly want a strong blood supply system that can respond to all existing and future threats. That is why a plan was put in place to address the unique needs of people living with hepatitis C as well as those of the blood system as a whole.

I will talk a little about the undertaking initiative and provide some context and background for that.

The Government of Canada, along with its provincial and territorial partners, announced financial assistance for people who contacted hepatitis C between January 1, 1986, and January 1, 1990, and for infected persons with hemophilia who received blood products during that period.

This was the period during which the United States was using tests that might have screened out some units of blood contaminated with hepatitis C, had we used them here in Canada.

This $1.1 billion compensation package included $875 million in federal funding and is providing financial relief to thousands of Canadians. In fact, since for most payments under the settlement there is no income tax, the total value is approximately $1.5 billion.

There are also Canadians who contracted this disease both before and after those dates who do not fall within the terms of the negotiated settlement.

In September 1998 the Government of Canada announced a comprehensive $525 million hepatitis C strategy to meet their needs. Our goal is to help people with hepatitis C while better protecting all Canadians from threats to the safety of our blood supply.

The biggest share of that investment was earmarked for the undertaking initiative. This agreement committed the Government of Canada to transfer $300 million to the provinces and territories over 20 years to ensure that infected individuals would have reasonable access to hepatitis C health care services.

I would like to examine the impact and status of that agreement, which is now administered by the new Public Health Agency of Canada. The undertaking agreement states that the provinces and territories must earmark transfer payments for health care services related to the treatment of hepatitis C infection and related medical conditions, such as immunization, nursing care, new and emerging antiviral drug therapies, and other relevant drug therapies.

Under the terms of the agreement, provinces and territories determine the mix of services that best suits the needs of their citizens. This kind of flexibility was considered crucial to reflect the needs of different jurisdictions.

In the case of Ontario, which bears nearly half of the hepatitis C burden in Canada, doctors in that province perform about 90 liver transplants related to hepatitis C every year. Over the 20 years of the undertaking agreement these transplants will cost about $217 million, with the Government of Canada paying well over half of that, $132.6 million.

As we learned a few weeks ago, the undertaking initiative allows Ontario to use its transfer payments under the agreement as it sees fit for health care services related to hepatitis C.

Other jurisdictions may have different priorities. Some may use the funding to provide specialized hepatitis nursing support, extensive state-of-the-art laboratory testing, or to buy medication.

While provinces and territories have the flexibility to implement the agreement, they are still accountable to their respective populations on the use of their funds, and the Government of Canada has the right to reduce, adjust, or terminate funding if evidence shows that a jurisdiction has not tried to meet the shared objective of the agreement. To that end, the Government of Canada plans to evaluate the activities of each jurisdiction in this area every five years, as the provinces and territories report to their citizens.

The Government of Canada takes its responsibility to evaluate the implementation of the agreement very seriously. We are soliciting feedback from affected individuals through Health Canada's website, a function that the new Public Health Agency of Canada will take over.

We also assess publicly available information on the access and types of services, including announcements from the provinces and territories, drug plans, eligibility requirements for existing programs, information and feedback from community groups, and complaints sent to the minister or reported through the news media.

Members may recall citizen complaints and media reports that suggested the provinces and the territories were not using the funds in accordance with the intended agreement. In response, the Government of Canada held informal discussions with all jurisdictions last February about the use of these funds. From these discussions, it appears that the provinces and territories are providing hepatitis C health care services in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

That said, we will continue to monitor implementation. Canadians living with hepatitis C, health professionals, and provincial and territorial governments will be able to help evaluate the types of services provided by all jurisdictions.

Since the agreements were signed at different times, the evaluations are staggered over the next three years. It is interesting and important to note that Ontario is not due for its evaluation until 2007, but released an interim report this year, three years ahead of schedule.

Many Canadians currently infected with hepatitis C contracted the virus between 1986 and 1990, but thousands came into contact with it before and after these dates. As a society, we want to ease the burden of affected individuals who were not part of the original settlement. This is the intent of the undertaking agreement, which provides funds to provinces and territories for health care services related to hepatitis C.

Over the next 20 years, federal transfers will help provide Canadians who have hepatitis C with access to needed hepatitis C health care services. It is a flexible, sensible, and compassionate approach to meet the needs of affected people.

In conclusion, as the previous speaker said, I hope that in the days to come we will look on this situation and on people such as the constituent I talked about at the beginning of my speech with compassion and come up with the best assistance we can to improve their lives after this devastating experience they have had and that this disease has wrought on them and their families. Anything we can do, I will certainly support.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments and his commitment to solving this problem on behalf of all victims. I have no doubt that he is compassionate and will work with all opposition members to bring a solution to this.

It is clear that the issue must and can be effectively and compassionately completed and closed. By the government's own admission this is the government's fault and the government's responsibility. We must open this billion dollar trust fund to all victims. Either we do that immediately or the government must immediately recognize that it is its responsibility and let the victims know that they will be compensated.

Does the member not agree that this debate should not be about what we are going to do with the surplus, assuming we have one and maybe we do not, but this is about what we need to do for the victims? Given the fact that the government is responsible for this issue, the amount of money that is in there and how long we wait for reports is really not relevant. The issue is that the government must stand up and put some motion behind its commitment to these victims, and either open up this fund to these victims now, not next year after more have unfortunately passed away, or put up the money now and get it from the fund when it is satisfied that the money is there.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, I accept my hon. colleague's apologies about our not being in the House.

I agree with him on the openness of the health minister to use that fund. I am confident the health minister will use that as soon as he can, and as appropriately as he can. I also agree with the comment, and I am sure a number of colleagues have said it but the most recent was by my colleague from the NDP, that the debate is not about the technicalities of the fund. The debate should be about doing what is right, doing it as quickly as possible and helping people as reasonably and effectively as we can. Anything we can appropriately do to support victims, I will certainly be supportive of.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Chair, it is a great pleasure and an honour for me to participate in this debate this evening. The tone of the debate, which was set initially by the minister and by members from all parties, has been very good, very constructive. We all want to meet a similar objective and I am very pleased by the will of everybody to continue in a constructive way.

Like all my colleagues I have been touched by the heart-rending stories of personal suffering from individuals who have contracted hepatitis C through the blood supply. As a government and a society, we have the duty to help victims of hepatitis C as generously as we can to ease the burden of that disease which for some may be with them for the rest of their lives.

I am happy to report that advances in treatment, particularly over the past five years, have eased that burden significantly for many. For the most persistent strain of the infection, new treatments can reduce the level of the virus to undetectable levels in the blood by up to 50%. For some this is tantamount to a cure, meaning they have been able to resume their normal lives and careers. We are also making great strides in research, such as the development of an animal model, a mouse for hepatitis C research that is facilitating progress in important areas such as treatment and vaccine development.

There is no doubt that hepatitis C remains a serious problem and a challenge to our society. It is estimated there are about 250,000 persons currently infected, with 5,000 new infections occurring each and every year. Every year about 1,000 Canadians die from hepatitis C related illnesses.

This is why the Government of Canada has committed $1.4 billion to address the unique needs of people living with this terrible disease, as well as on research in improving the blood supply in Canada so that such a tragedy will not be repeated in the future. Today Canada's blood supply is among the safest in the world.

As you know, in the late 1990s, the Government of Canada adopted two distinct funding streams to help people infected with hepatitis C: one that directed financial compensation to people who contacted hepatitis C through the blood supply between 1986 and 1990, and one for those who became infected either before or after that four-and-half-year window.

This approach made sense at the time, and it makes sense today.This government tacitly acknowledged a responsibility toward people infected between 1986 and 1990 and offered them a financial compensation package that, over their lifetimes, will be worth a total of $1.1 billion. Of that, $875 million came from the federal government.

This period was singled out because it bracketed the starting date in which surrogate tests, which were not always reliable, began to be used by U.S. blood bank operators, and the date Canada instituted a specific hepatitis C screening test, which became available in 1990 and was more reliable than the surrogate test.

It is important to note that the unprecedented compensation package resolved the largest class action suit ever launched in Canada and spared victims of hepatitis C perhaps up to a decade in litigation in the courts. The government also recognized that regardless of when people contracted hepatitis C through blood they too were suffering and required assistance.

In September 1988 the federal government announced a comprehensive $525 million hepatitis C strategy that included strengthening the safety of the blood system and supporting prevention and treatment through community based initiatives and scientific research. The largest share in the federal investment involved the transfer of $300 million over 20 years to the provinces and territories. The purpose of this undertaking was to ensure that people infected with hepatitis C before 1986 and after July 1, 1990 did not incur financially crippling out of pocket expenses for medical treatment.

The initiative was called “Cash, Not Care” and was not meant to be given directly to hepatitis C victims but to help provinces and territories pay for health care services to victims, such as liver transplants, nursing care, laboratory services and drug plans.

The federal government is required to conduct an evaluation of this program’s effectiveness every five years, and we intend to follow through on that undertaking. Some provinces and territories signed the undertaking agreement in 1999, so the first of those reviews will be conducted later this year. Since 1999, we have been monitoring and collecting information on access, types of services, drug plans and formularies, and complaints from individuals.

This year, we have conducted informal telephone interviews with hepatitis C officials from every jurisdiction. The information gathered will be used by Health Canada in its reviews.

So, this government has put in place a generous and comprehensive plan to help all hepatitis C sufferers, as well as programs designed to combat spread of the disease and help research to improve treatment and find a cure.

We are not deaf and unsympathetic to those voices that say the initiatives are not working as well as intended or that the situation has changed since the agreements with the provinces and territories were signed. We are not unsympathetic to the suffering of victims, both physical and in some cases financial.

For instance, the extremely high cost of hepatitis C health services may have eroded the effectiveness of the $300 million package. In 1998 interferon was the only licensed hepatitis C drug therapy and it cost about $7,000 per year, per person. Today a combination of drugs that are much more effective is available but the cost is about $24,000 for a 48 week course of treatment.

Meanwhile, there are indications that there might be a surplus in the $875 million federal fund that is being used to compensate persons who became infected in the 1986 to 1990 period. The reasons are varied.

First, the money deposited by the federal government has been well invested and in spite of payments of about $388 million to over 9,000 claimants so far, the fund still contains $865 million as of March 31, 2004.

Second, as treatments of hepatitis C become more effective in restoring the health of many sufferers, fewer and fewer victims are eligible to receive the higher levels of compensation meant for those most adversely affected.

I must make it clear that this so-called surplus—and it will be up to the courts to determine if there is one in June 2005, after considering that payments to victims may continue for as long as 70 years—is not the government’s surplus.

It belongs to the beneficiaries of the trust that was established by the courts under the settlement agreement with those individuals.Opening up the trust to share with pre-1986 and post-1990 victims would require the agreement of the trust’s beneficiaries, the provinces and territories, as well as the courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

In conclusion, I want to assure everyone in the House that this government continues to generally support victims of hepatitis C in a variety of ways, as well as helping finance advances in prevention, treatment and search for a cure.

I also want to stress that we are aware that circumstances for victims have changed, and I might add thankfully in most cases they are for the better and they are continuing to change. We are always exploring ways to adjust and improve services to meet the unique needs of Canadians still living with this terrible disease.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, in my constituency I have a number of citizens who have been afflicted with this terrible tragedy. I have visited them in their homes and they have been to my office. They have come to me to tell me their stories. That is why I felt it so important at this late hour to come to the House of Commons to tell those stories to all members.

I have seen how bright, vibrant lives have been reduced to misery by the government's failure to properly test the blood that was being injected into the veins of Canadian citizens, ultimately poisoning them with an irreversible disease with which they now suffer and from which many have now died.

That is why I find it so enormously frustrating to see the government's failure to compensate all victims of this odious tragedy. The government has failed to compensate those who do not meet a very specific and limited criteria. I reject the reasons that back up that decision.

It is clear that the testing was available before 1986. It is clear that the government should compensate those people who were relying on the government to protect them.

It is more agonizing to learn that the compensation that has been set aside and allotted to the victims outside the years 1986 to 1990 has not actually arrived on their doorstep. That money was meant to provide victims with largely the basic medical necessities that resulted from their illness. Yet we learn that over $100 million has not been passed on to those victims, that it sits in some provincial coffers, that it has been used for general revenues by the provincial government. Indeed, that is outrageous.

I want to know, will the hon. member stand in this House and offer a clear remedy on how he and his party will finally hold the McGuinty provincial government in Ontario accountable for the roughly $130 million that has not been allotted to the victims? The money came from the federal government and was meant for the victims, but was intercepted halfway by the McGuinty regime and has been directed erroneously to general revenues. What will the government do to hold the McGuinty regime accountable for intercepting the funds that were meant to go to the innocent victims of this tragedy?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I am reminded of a friend who passed away not so long ago who said that he would never be accused of being two-faced because if he had another one he would not wear the current one.

I listened to the member opposite and I remember a vote earlier this evening where we had the socialists, the separatists and the opportunists suggesting that there was a fiscal imbalance. In another debate they said that we had to give confidence to the provinces, that we should not be getting into their jurisdictions and that we should not be a big brother to the provinces.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

This is federal money. This is money you paid.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

In all cases it is.

In another debate they talked about transfers and said that we were not giving enough in transfers and that we needed to give more.

What does the member ask tonight? He asks how come we have not been over the shoulder of Ontario all the time.

I will tell the member that under the agreement that transfers the money to the provinces, the provinces have agreed to tell us how they have used the money. The minister has invited them to tell us before the agreement expires so and that we find out first.

The money is transferred to the provinces over a period of many years so that they will provide the services necessary for those people because there are many additional costs for those people and we do not want to put them to be in financial hardship. We work through the provinces. It is called cooperative federalism. It works very well and we will continue to work that way.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, it has not worked that way. The dollars were earmarked. They were specifically set aside for this purpose and they were redirected to other purposes. Those moneys have been stolen.

Let us not mince words. The moneys were specifically meant to compensate for the medical costs associated with this tragedy. It was not just an extra $130 million that the McGuinty regime could spend however it wished. It was $130 million to the province of Ontario to compensate for the medical costs associated with this tragedy.

It is interesting that the Liberal Party, which appropriates itself the moral authority to call itself the protector of Canadian compassion, has done nothing to ensure that those dollars arrived for those who were most in need. It is also interesting that their arch enemy, Mike Harris, was the one as premier who gave $25,000 per victim in compensation to those who suffered from this tragedy outside of the years 1986 to 1990.

The member knows that this has nothing to do with cooperative federalism. It is not cooperation when one level of government intentionally misdirects dollars from another level of government. That is theft. It is not only theft from the federal government, it is theft from the victims of this tragedy. If he and his party truly had the compassion that they so often brag about, then he would stand in the House of Commons right now and condemn the McGuinty government for failing to send those dollars to the victims. Will he?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, what I will condemn is for one parliamentarian to be raising that type of accusation against the provincial government without showing absolute proof. I mean that is beyond contempt.

I recognize that the hour is late and the member is young and new and perhaps a bit cranky at being up at this time of night but he should not be making those kinds of accusations of theft and stealing. The provinces have the responsibility to provide the service, which is the agreement they entered into with the federal government. They also have the added responsibility to report on how they use the money, but that day has not come yet.

The minister has recognized that there is concern in the population as to whether the money is being used properly and whether it is all going to the intended purpose, which is why he has invited the province of Ontario to report earlier, to make its intent and the services that it is providing known.

The government is asking the same thing of all the provinces but we would never use that type of inflammatory language.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect for the hon. member, this is not fiction. This if fact. The hon. member knows that Mr. Smitherman has already admitted that he does not intend to use this money for these victims.

The federal government has offered $130 million to the province of Ontario. The minister in charge of that money within the province has already admitted that he has no intention of using that money for these victims.

It is my suggestion to this hon. member that he respond. Will he continue to give the province of Ontario the balance of the $130 million or will he stop that now, give it to the victims directly without this middle man issue and request that the original amount of money, some $60-plus million be returned to the federal government so that we can give it to the victims who properly need it and deserve it?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, in my power as a parliamentarian and even as a parliamentary secretary, I do not believe that I can order funds to be used in such a way. However, I can assure the member that the minister will ensure that Ontario and every province lives up to its agreement and that the money be used for the intent. That is their responsibility. We have confidence that they will, and we encourage them to do that.

The other thing is the question of compensation for the victims. We do not see it as an if/or situation. One is to help the provinces to give the services to the people requiring it because of the additional cost. The second is an individual financial compensation to victims on which the minister has made his intentions quite clear today.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, issue was taken earlier with regard the method of providing the administration of the 1986 to 1990 victims fund. Could the member outline for us the process that was used to administer those funds?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, the method used in cases like this is quite usual. An agreement was reached between the plaintiffs, the class action people, and the federal and the provincial governments on creating a trust fund. That agreement was presented to the courts and was accepted by all parties. It was set up with either the courts direction or with the agreement that an individual third party professional organization would manage those funds. The fund was not given to them. They are the trustees. They act on behalf of the trust, investing the money.

There was also great expense, as was mentioned. They had to come out with the criteria on how individual claims would be evaluated, who would get what level of funding and how that would be done. That is quite normal. It is administered by a third party, by professionals in that area.

I know in the drunken enthusiasm of the member from Sackville, he mentioned it as giving money to lawyers. I think a more sober reflection by the member would indicate that it was done in a very professional manner, as it should be and would be, directed by the courts.

[The Deputy Chair]

It being 11:13 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 the committee will rise and I will leave the Chair.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:13 p.m.)