House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was compensation.

Topics

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, perhaps you would want to keep some order. Even though I disagreed with just about everything that was said by NDP members earlier, I let them speak.

I want to bring to the attention of the House the case of a constituent. Perhaps if the NDP members do not respect anything else, they could at least listen to the sad case of a constituent of mine. She is probably watching and listening.

When I was younger, I was elected to the municipal council where I lived. There was another young councillor in the neighbouring municipality, a young man full of ambition. He still is, though not so young, and in very poor health. His name is Jules Lavictoire. As a municipal councillor in Rockland, he was involved in just about everything that was going on there. I know what that is like, as I have done the same for ages myself. Unfortunately for Jules Lavictoire, his health suddenly deteriorated and leukemia was diagnosed in 1980. After undergoing chemotherapy, he required several transfusions. He was given tainted blood. There was not even any system in place in 1980 to detect it, or at least not one known here.

So that was how it began for him. He had a serious relapse in 1984, and for a while we thought we would lose him. But he pulled through, and almost miraculously, despite all that he has gone through, the leukemia and the tainted blood transfusions in 1980, he is still with us 24 years later. Still with us in the year 2004. He is of course all that much older, as am I, and his health has deteriorated. He still has hepatitis C. When I talked to him on the phone earlier this afternoon, he told me that he will likely be needing a liver transplant within days. That is the state his health is in.

It is never much fun to be ill, but to be ill under circumstances that were out of one's control to change is perhaps even harder to accept. At that time, there was not even any way a further check on the blood could have been done, because no such procedure was known at the time here, according to what he told me today.

Everyone agreed on the agreement that was reached. Yes, as was pointed out, the agreement was too restrictive. We know that. It could have been more comprehensive and included more people. At the time, it was signed by all stakeholders at the federal, provincial, territorial and even other levels. Everyone agreed. When things started heating up, some, like the Government of Ontario, I think, pulled back. It acted as if it did not agree, even if it was a signatory of the agreement. That is all well and fine, but that is not the reality.

Had it not been for the hon. Allan Rock, who was minister at the time and who was criticized later, there probably would not have been any agreement to help anybody. That is not recognized right now. It is only years later that recognition comes. He has made a huge contribution in this regard, and I am the first to recognize it. Today, we realize that all the funds will probably not be used. It is out of the question to pass a motion today to have a cheque issued to someone tomorrow. That is nonsense. That is not how things work.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois member who spoke earlier, the hon. member for Hochelaga, indicated to us that what was involved was an actuarial review. That is what is appropriate, as this fund is not administered by the Government of Canada, by the federal government and the provinces or by the provinces on their own. It is not administered by any of them. We know by whom it is administered. The administrator is a group called Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. Everyone agreed on this. That is who is administering the fund.

Our job today is to encourage the minister and cabinet to send a clear message that we want any excess funds to be used for the other victims.That is the message.

That is the message that I want to convey to my colleague as I congratulate him on having the courage to reopen this file. It would probably have been a lot easier for the new Minister of Health to let it go for a while. However, he jumped at it at the first opportunity. He said “I am prepared to hear representations about this”.

At least, in this regard, all the members who took the floor today agreed that it is possible to reopen this file and to send a message to the minister and the government, urging them to work together with other stakeholders to make sure that they can properly compensate people like my friend Jules Lavictoire and all the others.

I mentioned the name of Jules Lavictoire because he gave me permission to do so today. This is not something abstract. It never is. When you are talking about a friend or a former co-worker, it becomes very real. I am sure that all parliamentarians and all Canadians listening to this debate can think of one person close to them who is in the situation that I just described. They only have to change a name to describe a neighbour, a friend, a former colleague, etc.

This is the person I just described. In a letter dated March 9, Mr. Lavictoire wrote “Dear Sir”. This is not the way he addresses me in person because he is a personal friend of mine. I will read his letter:

Dear Member,

I am writing to follow up on our telephone conversation of March 4 to draw your attention, and that of your government, to the victims of hepatitis C prior to 1986.

For a long time now, your government has recognized that hepatitis C can have a devastating affect on its victims, their families and their loved ones.

You have also recognized the monetary impact of this terrible disease, for which there is still no cure.

The Government of Canada has agreed to provide financial assistance to those infected between 1986 and 1990, but no compensation has been given to people who were infected between 1980 and 1985.

Funds were invested, but certainly not in the compensation fund for people infected between 1986 and 1990. My friend continues saying:

That is why I am turning to you today. I recently read in the newspaper that only some of the people infected between 1986 and 1990 have filed a claim for compensation and that a lot of money is still available in the hepatitis C victim reserve fund.

He said it himself, “the reserve fund.” There is no use in claiming or telling Canadians that the Government of Canada can start issuing cheques and handing them out tomorrow morning. We know it does not work that way. Some hon. members were objective enough to say so in this House.

That is not the issue before us. The issue before us is to indicate our position. What position would we like the government to take with its other partners regarding the surplus fund, which will be calculated a little later for actuarial and objective reasons?

If someone dipped into the fund and unilaterally handed out money without leaving any for those who might file a claim, then the Auditor General would step in, and we know what would happen. Those complaining today would be the first to say we did not use objective criteria.

That is not what we should do. Anyway, it is not something we can do. That is not the action for the government to take in this matter.

What we need to do then is to send that message to the government. I believe that the speeches today on the part of members, generally speaking, have been made in such a way that the minister has to be encouraged that members of Parliament, on all sides of the House I think, want this fund to be reopened pursuant to the actuarial criteria. The qualification must also be broadened to cover those people who were living these exact conditions prior to 1986, and taking note that in the beginning, there may not have been a detection system.

Then we have people like the constituent I described earlier who has lived 24 years with both leukemia and tainted blood which occurred almost immediately as a result of the first condition. He has lived with leukemia, which is already a very challenging medical condition, and then contracted that second condition within months. He has remained like that for 24 years and is now facing the potential of having a liver transplant, possibly within the next few months, if that is determined necessary.

Our role today is to give that kind of encouragement. I would like to see the government make an announcement in short order, preferably right here on the floor of the House, telling us that it will be taking that position with the other partners to broaden that scope so that more people can qualify for the funds. The funds have not all been expended. I think we will be able to prove shortly, with objective actuarial criteria, that not all the funds that are there will be required. Therefore, we do have the funds in order to be able to do that.

I see there are other members in the House. Probably some of them would like to comment before this time ends today. I do hope that we all continue to make that message clear.

I want to conclude by saying that this minister has demonstrated outstanding courage by tackling something which is no doubt very challenging for him but obviously something that he wanted to do. He deserves our praise. I wish him well, and that he be able at the cabinet table, together with his colleagues, to take a position which he will be able to enunciate here on the floor of the House of Commons very shortly.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and his review of the situation.

It is important to distinguish a certain thing first, and that is, outstanding courage. Outstanding courage are not words that we should address to any member in this situation 20 years after the victimization of individuals because we have failed them. Whether it be a provincial or federal government, the system has failed individuals who have been victimized and have watched their lives come apart, and we have not been able to compensate them adequately.

We decide to review it now because we are in a minority government status. We in the NDP brought this up in the 37th Parliament just last year, the same issue. It is not about courage, it is about justice.

I think it is important that a clear message be sent to the minister and cabinet that they must deal with this issue right now. The clear message should be that when members supported a process that has led to this situation, they were wrong. They need to stand and say that they were wrong. It has not worked. They need to say that they will fix this right now and that they want to be part of it. That is part of the trust that has to be regained.

I would ask the member, would he stand right now and say that they were wrong at that time, that it needs to be fixed, and that they should be part of that together?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, obviously the numbers were incorrect in terms of those who would draw on the fund, otherwise we would not be having this debate today.

It is quite obvious that if the people had not come to us in the large numbers that they did and saying that in all reasonable likelihood the fund was totally under-subscribed, and it looks like it was, we would not even be talking about this right now or the chances that we would be talking about it would be immensely less.

It looks like there are excess funds and they are available. The tone of the letter that I read from my constituent was in reference to the fact that these funds were there and likely would not be required. Obviously, the calculation was inaccurate otherwise we would not be discussing it at the present time.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

An hon. member

Who did the calculation?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, somebody over there asked who did the calculation? The federal government and 13 other partners arrived at the calculations. We could blame every single government in Canada, federal, provincial and territorial and whoever they hired to do these calculations. We could tell them that it was erroneous in terms of the number of people who would likely apply. I do not know.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

An hon. member

I would have calculated it better.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

The hon. member says he would have calculated it better. That is not the point. The point is we will probably have funds available that we could use to help people like Jules Lavictoire and others once the actuarial exercise is completed. That should be the focus of our exercise, nothing else.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James, MB

Madam Speaker, what we have heard tonight from the government side has been profoundly disappointing. There was an opportunity earlier tonight to support the health committee's unanimous recommendation to compensate hepatitis C victims. Yet, when the opportunity came up, members of the government denied that motion.

The health minister, the chair of the health committee, and other health committee members prevented an extension of this very important debate. That is another example of the two-faced nature of the way this government has approached this issue.

The reason why this issue is on the table is because opposition parties have not allowed it to die. We have kept moving it forward. We have kept it on the radar screen. If it were not for the minority government situation, I doubt the Liberal government would even be considering opening up the compensation window.

The fact is that the Liberal government is on the wrong side of the issue. Those members are on the wrong side of public opinion. They are denying mitigation to those people that blood services harmed. The government needs to take responsibility for that.

My question for the member is: Why not do the right thing? If moneys are due to these people, they should receive it, surplus or no surplus. Why not do the right thing and compensate them regardless of the fund involved? The government could create a new fund if necessary.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, this is wrong in terms of the historical perspective. At the time, the Government of Canada, under the leadership of then health minister Allan Rock, agreed to join the provincial partners. These agencies were under the jurisdiction of the provinces. We agreed to join with the provinces and territories, and we provided the vast majority of the funds in order to provide this package. That is the history behind it, not the other way around.

That is how this process started. The discussion today, I remind the member, and even the committee report in question is about the funds that will likely not be required after the actuarial exercise has occurred. It is not about something else. I do not know whether the member had the opportunity to listen to that part of the debate earlier, or has had the opportunity to view the documentation. That is, in fact, what this is about.

In terms of him saying that this is before us today only because we have an opposition that--

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

An hon. member

A minority government.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

No, that is equally inaccurate.

The reason I am participating today has nothing to do with members on one side of the House or another. I have raised this with the minister privately three or four times since he let it be known a few weeks ago that he was willing to start the process of reopening this. My message for him has been to encourage him and to wish him well in that regard.

My quest is also to support my constituents in the way that I have raised this earlier today. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate this afternoon. I was not available to participate in the debate last night so this gave me the opportunity to say what I wanted to say on behalf of my constituents.

Finally, the hon. member talked about the extension of hours, or as he put it, the motion earlier today. That is not we had before us. What we had before us was a motion to extend the hours. The motion to extend the hours is deemed to be withdrawn if more than 15 members rise and then of course the motion is deemed to be withdrawn. There was no motion to accept a report that was put at that time earlier today by the hon. member in question. That is a different topic.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jean Augustine)

Questions and comments. There is only one minute left. The hon. member for Cambridge.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Madam Speaker, let us be very clear on something that I have been hearing in this debate, last night and again today. I do not think there is any doubt that every member in the House is gravely concerned about this issue. On this side of the House we are being accused of politicizing it and we are accusing the other side of politicizing it. I do not believe that is the issue at all.

However, we have to make very clear as well that no one wants to reduce the eligibility of those victims between 1986 and 1990 for the victims outside that period. Nobody wants to do that and I hear that. This is not about compensating additional victims at the expense of this group. That is not what it is about at all.

If hon. members remember, the guidelines for this group were based on the assumption, by former health minister Allan Rock, that there were not sufficient tests prior to 1986. That is completely not true. I have evidence that there were tests as early as 1981. The second issue that we have to be clear about is--

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)

The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that no one here has the intention of reducing the benefits for those who were between 1986 and 1990. That clearly is not the intent. That is why, in part, we have to wait for the actuarial calculation because that is the way the fund was established legally and that is the structure that we have. I see the hon. member is answering his own questions.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member mentioned, if I was correct in what he assumed last evening, which was a take note debate, that the opportunity was there to put that to a vote. I think that is what he said. I would say that would be against the procedures of the House and as a former House leader he would know that. I would ask that he correct those statements.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)

Time has run out and I think there is no response to the member for Cambridge and also to the point of debate.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gurmant Grewal Conservative Newton—North Delta, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see that more members wanted to ask some questions of the member. Could we have five minutes to ask a few more questions? You know that I was there to ask some questions.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)

The question as placed is for extended time so members can ask additional questions. Is there agreement?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)

There is no agreement. Resuming debate.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL

Madam Speaker, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell started off in a tirade against the member for Winnipeg North. She is a member who, since I have been in the House and I presume long before that, has stood up time after time for the rights of those who have problems. She made a tremendous speech about people who have waited and waited for some just service from the government opposite and because of that she was attacked by the member.

However, he then did an about-face, and I will give him credit there, and said how his heart bleeds for these people and how he is going to see the minister and encourage him to push the issue in cabinet, to try to get compensation for those who have been affected through no fault of their own. Many of them are sitting and waiting and many of them are dying in the meantime. That member himself was in cabinet for a number of years and did absolutely nothing except turn his back on the request made by the people affected.

It is amazing to look at the issues that have been raised in the House since we have been back. The government has brought in a handful of inconsequential bills that have been debated. The real issues that have been debated in the House have been brought forth by the opposition parties.

There was the resolution from the Bloc about fiscal imbalance. We have been discussing the way the government is treating Atlantic Canada, particularly Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. We also have to look at the equalization program and the health issues that have not been resolved. These issues are constantly raised by people over here. The substantive debate has been on issues that have been raised by us, the opposition members.

All of a sudden the members over there, after they reject the opportunity--

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

The debate about the equalization would not have been able to take place if we haven't got the money.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn Conservative St. John's South, NL

Madam Speaker, some people are yapping over there. Could you muzzle them, please.

If the government members are so concerned about this issue, which is one of the substantive issues that have been brought up in the House, why is it that half an hour ago they rejected the opportunity to let members speak out? There are other members over here who feel the same way as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Madam Speaker, I am going to give them another chance. I move pursuant to Standing Order 26(1):

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of consideration of the motion to adopt the first report of the Standing Committee on Health presented on Monday, November 1, 2004.