Debates of April 4th, 2005

Committees of the House

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to faithful Catholics, particularly those in my riding of Cambridge-North Dumfries, on the heartbreaking loss of Pope Jean Paul. He was a man who worked hard to thread our world together. He was a man of our times, a faithful man of God.

I would like members to imagine going into a hospital and coming out even sicker than when they went in and I would like them to imagine that something could have been done about it. This is what happened to thousands of Canadians who received tainted blood.

These people went to a hospital seeking treatment but were unwittingly poisoned by a system they trusted. People of all ages from all walks of life were poisoned by a system they trusted, a system that let them down. Then, as if that was not ghastly enough, they were let down again by the regulators of that system, their federal government.

On April 28, 1998, the Liberal government, many of whose members are still here today, voted against an opposition motion that would have extended compensation to all victims of tainted blood, not just those who were infected between this mythical window of 1986 to 1990.

First I would like to debunk the legal reasons for limiting compensation to only those infected between 1986 and 1990 and then I want to explain the reasons why all victims of tainted blood must be treated equally.

In 1998 when the Liberal government voted against extending compensation to victims outside this artificial window, the nation was told that doing so would bankrupt the system. Canadians were told that there were 22,000 victims in this artificial window and an additional 60,000 outside that window. That information was completely incorrect.

In 1998, when the minister of health at the time was told that people were being infected in the early 1980s and as early as 1980, that health minister rose and stated that “there was no possible way, no way at all, that science could have discovered what contaminants were in that blood”. That, too, was completely false.

Let us discuss these false numbers and these false statements. As a doctor of chiropractic, I am trained to make decisions based on real fact. Today I want to share with the House and the people of Canada some of the real facts about the Liberals' numbers and their incorrect statements .

The original settlement was to compensate 22,000 victims. Those were Liberal numbers. Those numbers, thank God, never materialized. They were exaggerated.

As a matter of fact, as of exactly one month ago, March 4, 2005, there have been only 4,535 victims of primarily infected tainted blood. Those are the claims: not 22,000 but less than 5,000.

What about the other number, the victims outside this artificial window, those outside the 1986 to 1990 group? The number claimed by the Liberals seven years ago was 60,000. That also is completely incorrect. There are only 5,071 claims, which is a far cry from the numbers used to scare Canadians about compensating all victims.

The original settlement of $1.1 billion was supposed to properly compensate 22,000 victims within this window. Now we know that the total number of victims inside and outside that window is only half that false number.

Here are more astonishing and yet distressing facts. Besides legal fees of some $58 million and despite administration fees of approximately a quarter of a million dollars per month, the fund still made $60 million more than it paid out. Despite all the payouts--and the fund is still massive at well over $1 billion and growing--people are dying.

The money is there. The numbers were exaggerated. Doing the right thing in compensating all victims of tainted blood will not bankrupt the system.

On to my second point about the false and misleading statements that nothing could have been done to make blood systems safer in Canada prior to 1986.

On May 1, 1998, the Hon. Allan Rock stated in the House:

--governments should pay cash compensation when they have caused damages and when those responsible for the system could and should have acted.

There are certainly not many things that I would agree with coming from that side of the House, but I agree with that statement. The words “when those responsible could have and should have acted” really resonate with me. Could things have been done differently? Let us examine the facts.

During the 1950s, before I was born, the presence of certain enzymes above normal levels were used to assess liver function. It was thought that they could also be used to diagnose hepatitis. As early as 1954, also before I was born, it was suggested in medical literature that post-transfusion hepatitis might be reduced by using tests for those enzymes to screen perspective blood donors.

By the late 1950s, probably around the time I was born, simple methods had been developed for measuring the level of alanine amino transferase, or ALT, in the serum.

The preliminary results in 1978 suggested an association between ALT levels in donors and the occurrence of non-A and non-B hepatitis, which we now call hepatitis C in recipients. The final results of that study were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1981, confirming that there was an association between higher levels of ALT in the donor and those of gaining hepatitis in the recipient. That was in 1981.

On January 14, 1981, the American Red Cross stated, “Blood services providers should prepare to test all units collected and to avoid transfusion of units with elevated ALT values”.

In 1982 the New York Blood Center adopted a policy of ALT testing. This blood centre is the largest in the United States and it deals with approximately the same number of transfusions as we do in all of Canada. It estimated that testing would prevent up to 10,000 infections annually, an interesting figure. In 1982 the largest blood centre in the United States could have and did act. France started testing in 1985. All prior to this 1986 window.

Dr. Patrick Moore, director of the National Reference Library of the Red Cross and one of Canada's foremost experts on hepatitis, called for the immediate implementation of ALT testing in Canada. That was in May 1981. His recommendation was rejected by his superiors and regrettably, federal regulators chose not to make testing mandatory.

On May 22, 1981, right in Ottawa, a memo from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario asked Health and Welfare Canada to, “screen approximately 20 donors for the presence of any of the viral contaminates which may contribute to post-transfusion hepatitis and for which you have the appropriate testing methods”.

Health Canada had the appropriate testing methods in 1981, and therein lies the crux of the problem. When is the definitive date that the government could have or should have done something? Was it 1981, 1975 or 1954? We are not sure. What we do know as fact it was before this funny window of 1986.

On May 5, 1998 the right hon. Jean Chrétien said in the House, “when there is negligence there is responsibility”. The Liberal government shirked its responsibility seven years ago when it refused to treat all victims of tainted blood. The only question left is this. Will the Liberals continue to shirk that responsibility?

In his final report on the tragedy, Judge Krever noted that we could tell a lot about a society by how it dealt with people such as those with tainted blood. He said:

The compassion of a society can be judged by the measure it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy that is on its members.

A young man whom I have come to know very well said it best. To the prime minister of the day, he said:

Can you tell me the difference between someone infected with tainted blood on December 31, 1985 and January 1, 1986?

The prime minister of the time could not answer that question and it cannot be answered today.

Young Joe Haché went on to say that tainted blood victims were all infected the same and they should all be treated the same. I could not agree more. I believe that the hon. members in this House will do the right thing this time and join me in supporting this motion to compensate all victims of tainted blood.

There comes a time when enough is enough. For hepatitis C victims, all of them, that time is now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments and for the research that he has done. Obviously he is very knowledgeable on the subject.

I do not think there is disagreement on the question of compensation. I think we have all agreed to that. We understand that the process has started and that is very important. The process was started immediately after the unanimous motion of the health committee and good debate in this House. We saw where the support was for the compensation. The process to lead to that is ongoing.

I want to help the member with a couple of facts that he said at the beginning. It is not that he misled the House in any way or stated anything that was incorrect. His comment was to the number of people for compensation, the number of people who would meet the criteria of the trust.

It is true that the actual number is a lot less than what was forecast. Where the member may have been misled is in the question of how those forecasts were achieved. Those forecasts were not derived by the federal government. Those numbers were provided by the plaintiffs. That was part of the negotiation process. That was the number of people who they estimated at the day who would qualify and who would suffer from the ailment.

Many things have happened since then. Treatments have changed. Better treatments are available for them, so sometimes the level of suffering or the level of disability might be less than what had been forecast. Therefore, the amount of funds withdrawn from the fund in the early years might be less than what could have been anticipated at the day. The actuaries and the trustees of the fund will have to consider that these individuals can go on collecting for some 70 years before all the people who have access or rights to that fund live their lives, and their level of requirements might change. Those are some of the considerations that will have to be taken by the actuaries.

I understand it is difficult to have all the facts all the time for a speech. I know the members opposite are accustomed to having their speeches vetted. We certainly would welcome vetting such a speech for a correction of the facts in the future.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that no one vetted my speech. The day that a Liberal vets my speech will never come unless the moon turns blue and falls out of the sky.

The issue here is that there is $1.1 billion in that fund. Based on the average payout today of $42,000 per victim, there is more than enough money in that fund to pay out. What the issue comes down to is that $58 million has been paid to lawyers to examine this fund, and it has been thrown back for an examination. That is $58 million or 1,400 victims and the government chose to put it back into an assessment strategy.

The issue is not how much money is in there. The issue is that every government has a responsibility, admitted by the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, and the government is not living up to that responsibility or promise. The government voted for the motion. The Liberal Party voted against extending the compensation to all victims. That is shameful.

The government should have voted for it. All the opposition parties voted for the motion. The money is there. The numbers are cut in half, regardless of what excuses the Liberal Party wants to come up with for its failure to research this problem adequately or for its mistakes to come up with accurate figures. I might say that my figures are completely accurate.

There is more than enough money in this fund to compensate all victims. It is the right thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do. It should have been done before.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning the issue of hepatitis C compensation. I recognize and appreciate the interests of the Standing Committee on Health on the issue of compensation.

It was the Standing Committee on Health that raised the issue in the fall with the unanimous motion voted by all sides. Liberal members supported that motion. Members of this committee have played a leading role in debates we have had on this issue in the House. I am a member of the committee. I know my fellow members have great concerns about this issue, and I share the view that we would like to see these discussions regarding options for compensation come to a satisfactory conclusion as quickly as possible.

The government agrees with the spirit of the motion before us today. We understand that among all members of the House there is a genuine concern for individuals and families affected by this terrible disease. We share that concern and we also want to address the needs of those affected as quickly as possible. However, it is with respect to the committee that I say the motion is badly worded and contains significant flaws.

First, the government is taking the necessary steps to address the issue of compensation to those infected by hepatitis C through the blood supplied before 1986 and post-1990. The government took immediate action to enter into discussions about options for compensation. It is my view that we should let these discussions take place rather than play politics with such a difficult issue.

Second, the motion implies that the federal government can decide to use the settlement fund to provide immediate compensation. This is not the case. The report of the committee refers to the “federal hepatitis C compensation fund”. This fund is not under the control of the federal government. As the Minister of Health has explained in the House before, the settlement fund is under the control of the courts and only the courts can decide if there is a surplus and how that surplus can be used. The timing for these decisions is also under the control of the courts. It is not something the federal government can unilaterally and immediately decide as the committee's report implies.

The factual error about the fund in this motion is an important issue that members of the House must consider. On November 22, 2004, the Minister of Health announced that the Government of Canada was giving a mandate to its negotiators to discuss all available options for financial compensation for those infected through blood before 1986 and after 1990. The discussions started immediately following the announcement, and are continuing to this day.

As members of the House know, these discussions must involve many parties and the issues are very complex. That is why the minister said at the time of the announcement that we could expect these discussions to take several months. It is my understanding that the federal negotiators in his team last met with counsel for the pre-1986-1990 class on March 10 in Vancouver and the next meeting is planned for this month in Ottawa.

Both parties are working together to gather the information required to shape and support any potential agreement in front of the courts. For example, the counsel for those infected by blood before January 1986 and after 1990 are contacting their class to gather information about how many people are in the class and how well or ill they are given current improved treatments for hepatitis C. Both sides are working hard toward an agreement.

Of course, all members of the House will understand that we will not get into particular issues at hand in these discussions. The parties involved have agreed to keep the substance of these discussions between them at this time. I think we can all agree that this is the most effective way to move forward.

As I mentioned earlier, the report from the Standing Committee on Health says that the federal government should move ahead with immediate compensation given the “large surplus in the federal hepatitis C compensation fund”.

As I mentioned earlier, and with all respect to the committee's report, this motion is not consistent with facts about the settlement fund. The fund does not belong to the Government of Canada, nor can the Government of Canada make decisions about how the fund is used. The fund is controlled by the courts and it is the courts that will decide if there is a surplus and how any surplus should be allocated.

In order to work toward the option of the 1986-90 settlement fund, there is information that is absolutely necessary for the courts to make a decision. This includes information about the disease progression of the class members.

The necessary information is to be produced by other parties, in this case the joint committee of council for the 1986-90 class. The reports containing this critical information have not yet been produced and it is our understanding that these reports have in fact been delayed.

The Government of Canada does not control the timing. These are decisions of the courts based upon the availability of the information required to make decisions. While the courts have not yet issued an order outlining dates for the sufficiency hearing, in the interest of transparency the House should know that the joint committee's delayed medical model report will substantially delay the timing of the sufficiency hearing. The Government of Canada will continue to ask that the hearings proceed as quickly as possible.

Representatives of the pre-1986/ post-1990 class have asked us to explore options for compensation. The Government of Canada agreed and, as the Minister of Health indicated, entering into discussions about options for compensation was the right and responsible thing to do.

After the minister's announcement, discussions began immediately and have proceeded since then. We are working with all parties involved. We are actively participating in discussions and moving them forward as quickly as possible. We require necessary information to be provided by other parties.

These discussions are complex and involve many parties. At the same time, I agree with the spirit of the motion, which is to move forward as quickly as possible. We understand that there are individuals and families involved who are waiting for an outcome. However we must address the fact that there are flaws in the committee's report and in the motion that make it impossible or difficult to support as it is worded now.

It is the right and responsible thing to let the discussions continue to proceed as quickly as possible while following the process needed to reach a fair and acceptable agreement to all parties.

In this kind of debate, it is incumbent upon us to reassure the Canadian public about the safety of Canada's blood supply. In Canada, the collection of whole blood and the manufacturing of blood components for transfusion are governed by provisions of the Food and Drug Act. Enforcement of this act helps ensure blood safety by setting out strict conditions for its collection and distribution.

In his 1997 report on the blood supply system, Justice Krever stated that the blood and blood products used in Canada were as safe as those used in other countries but that their safety could be improved. The commission's final report directed 17 of its 50 recommendations to the federal government, as the blood supply system regulatory body. The government acted on each of the final recommendations and is continuing to take steps beyond what was recommended by Justice Krever to improve the safety of blood supply system. In recent years, the government has enhanced its blood regulation activities, by putting in place new measures to ensure blood safety, increasing its disease surveillance, inspection and certification activities, and issuing directives on good blood component manufacturing practices.

An expert advisory committee on blood regulation was established in 1995, to provide the government with timely advice on emerging issues and federal responsibilities within the national blood system. Despite Canada's numerous blood safety standards, developed by agencies such as the Canadian Society for Transfusion Medicine, the government recognized the need to develop a national standard applicable to various activities, from blood sampling to blood transfusions and blood components. The government established an independent group of experts to develop overall safety standards for blood and blood components for transfusion.

Then, the government mandated the Canadian Standards Association to transform these standards into Canadian national standards following extensive public consultations. The final version of the standards published last September includes various specific requirements to ensure the overall safety and effectiveness of blood and blood components, as well as requirements concerning sampling, handling, conservation, packaging, labelling, storage, quarantine, record keeping, distribution, monitoring and adverse reaction reporting as well as blood and blood component recalls. These standards are in addition to existing regulations to make the blood supply system even safer.

The government has also worked hard and has succeeded in becoming a proactive regulatory body by responding to emerging threats to our blood supply system, before any such problems might occur.

Around the world, Canada is known for its leadership in aggressively implementing exclusion criteria, so as to reduce the risk of transmitting variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

The same proactive approach was used to respond to the emerging threat of West Nile Virus to the blood supply system. In January 2003 and February 2004, Health Canada organized and sponsored a series of international consultative workshops on West Nile. They were attended by over 240 federal, provincial, and territorial representatives, members of the public, industry stakeholders, health professionals and internationally renowned scientists studying West Nile Virus.

The government worked closely with the industry, Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec to implement West Nile screening tests for donors.

I am confident that, as new threats to our blood supply emerge, the system will be able to respond in a proactive and timely manner.

We must seriously consider this motion. I do not think anyone argues with the intent of the motion. The motion is to provide, as quickly as possible, compensation to those affected with this dreadful disease prior to 1986 and post-1990.

What bothers me about this motion is two points. One is the fact that the motion is inaccurate, and it is difficult to vote for a motion that is not factual.

The other point is that we are doing the moves pursuant to the requests and the original report of the committee. The minister has taken the steps necessary to do those compensations.

What are we left with? We are left with a Parliament that has many serious things to consider but we end up having a three hour debate today on an issue that we decided on some time ago and that we are moving toward.

Perhaps it is partisan politics or petty politics. Perhaps it is appealing or taking advantage of those who are the worst affected, those who are suffering. I know many people will be calling after we take this vote and asking where their money is with an expectation that things will move faster, but they will have to understand that this is a discussion between a class, a group, and that group, their legal representatives, their negotiators are collecting the data necessary so that we can conclude this discussion. Unfortunately, that takes some time. I wish it could be done faster but to say that we should pay immediately, we first need to know who to send the cheque to, the amount of the cheque, where the information is that we need and where the discussion is.

The discussion and the questions are ongoing. There is no miracle solution to these things.

It is unfortunate that we are doing this again. I think this is the fourth or fifth time that this question has been debated in the House even though we all agree. We are moving forward because we agree that there should be compensation. The committee has unanimously said that and the minister has taken the necessary action.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and I have to say that I am really quite taken aback.

Instead of congratulating the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, I have rarely heard a member of this House be more condescending in chastizing someone and making what seemed to me very close to accusations about his trying to mislead the House and actually accusing him of motives, which I thought were in fact extra parliamentary, not acceptable in parliamentary terms.

However, let me go the question that I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to address.

I am sure he has read carefully the motion that has come from the committee. Let me remind him that it is not only urging the government to extend compensation to all those who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood but that the government do so immediately “in recognition of the recommendation of the Krever Inquiry and the large surplus in the federal Hepatitis C compensation fund”.

How can the parliamentary secretary so conveniently ignore the urging of the committee, including the Liberal members, that the government move immediately to commit to compensating all hepatitis C victims prior to 1986 and following 1990, and instead turn this into one of the most grotesquely partisan attacks on a member who is simply reflecting the unanimous will of the health committee that brought this motion forward?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member for Halifax to refer to the blues and see what the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia's speech indicated to see if there was any partisanship in it. I would invite her to look at the reports of the committees and the dialogue from the health committee meetings to see if there was any partisanship there. I would also invite her to read the reports of debate of previous discussions on this and see if there was any partisanship in the speeches made by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

If she still feels that I was wrong to suggest that there was partisanship and that I was wrong in those accusations, then I will re-read all those same documents. If it warrants, I will certainly retract, but until that is done, it is very difficult.

She makes the point that the committee has suggested unanimously, including my vote at the committee, that compensation be made for those people suffering from hepatitis C previous to 1986 and post 1990. The minister has agreed with that. The minister has tasked his officials to enter into discussions and to look at all available options for compensation.

Then we come back with another resolution and it is in light of the large surplus in the federal hepatitis C compensation fund. But there is no federal hepatitis C compensation fund. That does not exist. There is a trust that the federal government contributed to that is owned by the people who contracted hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990. There is good potential that there is a surplus, but we have to know what the actuarial surplus is and then we have to follow the regulations within that trust to see how those funds could be used.

That was a suggestion of the committee originally in light of that surplus, but the minister went beyond that and said we would look at all available options, not including any or excluding any but look at all available options for compensation.

We agree with the committee. We want the compensation to be made as quickly as possible, but when the term “immediately” is used, what does that mean? Does that mean that we just send a cheque to everybody or do we develop criteria? Do we find out how many people there are and the level to which they are affected?

If we look at the 1986 to 1990 group, there are criteria that are administered by the trustees regarding their levels of disabilities and how much they should receive. It is important that we have that information and the process has started. As I mentioned, they are meeting this month. The discussions and negotiations are ongoing. That is the right and reasonable way to approach these things otherwise we risk making grievous mistakes by not doing it with the proper information.

The member opposite clearly raised a good point, that the last time we set up a fund we did not have the right numbers. We used the numbers that were provided by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs did not, I am sure, intend to mislead. They had the best numbers that they could calculate with the information that they had at the time. It came to light that happily the number of sufferers so far have been a lot less than predicted. But that was unknown to the plaintiffs or to the governments in those negotiations at that time, so now we are in the similar situation with this group. The discussions are underway to discover the available options and how the compensation should happen. We are committed to see that through.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, frankly I find the member's conduct and indignation just frightening. I do not think that fighting for victims is petty at all. I can assure the House that the Conservative Party of Canada will come back to fight and fight again until what is right is done, regardless of how many stumbling blocks and concerns the member has about wording in a motion. It is appalling.

It seems convenient to me how the Liberals continue to funnel money into funds that are now outside the control of parliamentary decision making and the democratic process. How convenient.

The issue really is that enough money was set aside for 22,000 victims. There are 10,000. It does not matter if there is a surplus or not. The fact is that there is enough money for an apparent 22,000 victims. There are only 10,000.

We knew this problem existed in 1991, if not before. The government of the time took its time to discuss, review, have meetings and more discussions. As a result of that, there is a whole window of people who were infected which could have been prevented had the government acted fast. Now we are sitting in a situation where the democratic rule of the House said to pay the victims immediately. The member says no, let us wait, let us look at it, and let us ask some more questions while 1,400 victims could have been funded at the expense of the legal fees. Another five victims every month are piddled away on administration fees.

Does the member see any logic in ignoring the wishes of the House? -I guess if we wait long enough there will be no victims. What is the logic in waiting at all?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly in left field, or right field, or the very far right field or in the outfield, or not in the game at all. He is suggesting that the federal government will be putting the funds out of arm's reach and sheltering these funds.

These were funds that were paid out in settlement of a class action lawsuit. Those funds no longer belonged to the federal government the minute that the settlement was reached.

The provincial governments also contributed to those funds, as did others. Those funds are in a trusteeship. The courts of three provinces heard and settled the agreement. Part of the terms of that agreement were that this year there would be an evaluation of the fund to see if there was an actuarial surplus or not. Should there be one, there are special dispositions on what could be applied and considered for the use of those funds.

In light of the eventual surplus the committee suggested that we use those funds to compensate. The minister agreed to that and went further. He said we would look at all available options. That is what is ongoing now.

The minister started that immediately. The process is ongoing. It is a negotiated process. We are not imposing our will on those people who will be compensated. We are negotiating with them. I think that is the fair and right thing to do.

The member would send out the cheques immediately. He would decide who gets some money and how much. I do not think we can do that. I think we negotiate that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Palliser, National Defence; the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Environment.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the motion, let me extend, on behalf of all of us, my best wishes for a happy birthday to the member for Témiscamingue, whose age I will keep a secret.

The motion today is extremely important. It was considered extensively in the Standing Committee on Health. It was introduced by our colleague, the Conservative health critic. Concerning the debate on hepatitis C and the victims who contracted this illness as a result of blood transfusions in public institutions—hospitals—it is true that the parliamentary secretary is quite right in inviting us not to be partisan on an issue such as this. However, it is too easy for the government to say that it is now in favour of this cause and that it is bound by a number of technical details that we will be able to discuss in a moment.

We cannot help, however, but to point out that, back in 1997, when Justice Krever presented his report, the Bloc Québécois critic for health was the hon. member for Drummond. In 1997, the government should have followed up on the first recommendation from Justice Krever, who is not a parliamentarian and, therefore, is not partisan and who took a scientific look at series of data. Hon. members will also remember that the provincial health ministers were subpoenaed as Crown witnesses. There was a serious, scientific investigation process. After two years of investigation, the Krever commission called for compensation, no fault compensation, to be paid.

Those of my hon. colleagues who were here at the time—I know that the hon. member for Québec was here—and myself will not soon forget the following scene: a former Liberal member who had changed allegiance at the time when the first Liberal budget was brought down because the government had failed to abolish the GST crossed the floor and laid a flower on the desk of Allan Rock, the then health minister, inviting him to increase the compensation. Had there been a will to resolve this debate in 1997, the government had the means to implement its policies.

Granted, this is a unique issue. We are not talking about taxation, social housing, the war on poverty or sports, but about human lives. As time goes by, week after week, month after month, the number of victims increases and we can assess the magnitude of the government's mistake.

Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary say that they did not have the relevant information concerning the actual number of victims. I am sorry, but I remember perfectly well the debate we had in this House, and it was not about the number of victims. The argument put forward by Mr. Rock, who was the health minister at the time, which was also the argument of the member for Sudbury and every Liberal health minister from 1993 to 2004, was that screening technologies were available during the period to which they did not want to extend the compensation.

It had nothing to do with determining the number of victims, but it had everything to do with the government arguing that the screening technologies were available and that public health agencies and agencies responsible for the blood supply system should have used them. From an historical point of view, we must keep this argument in mind. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to be extremely vigilant with regard to this issue. I am grateful to our Conservative colleague for that, and I think the Bloc Québécois has also always been extremely vigilant in matters such as this one.

The purpose of the motion in the parliamentary committee is to bring the government to right an historical wrong. Personally, I think that the government should apologize to the victims.

The Minister of Health should have seized the opportunity provided by today's motion to make a statement.

Today, for example, I spoke with someone from the Canadian Hemophilia Society. This is not just any organization; it has an official role to play as a representative in this matter. It so happens that the Canadian Hemophilia Society was not even aware of the nature of the discussions between the lawyers representing the victims infected before 1986 and those representing the victims infected between 1986 and 1990.

I understand that the legal process in which we are engaged imposes certain limits on the government. However, it is totally unacceptable that an organization such as the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which is authorized to speak on behalf of victims of tainted blood, is not kept informed of what is happening with regard to this issue.

I understand that the funds totalling slightly more than $1 billion that were put in trust no longer belong to the Government of Canada for administrative purposes. The managers of this trust act independently.

It is true that when these issues were debated in the House, we wanted such a mechanism to be put in place to prevent any form of political interference.

This does not, however, mean that it is not within the mandate of the Minister of Health to assess the situation from time to time and provide the lawyers involved in these negotiations with some very specific directions. I do not, moreover, believe that a number of the members here are any more informed.

It is one thing to have an independently administered program, as we have been calling for wholeheartedly, but it is quite another to keep parliamentarians out of the loop as far as progress is concerned.

I remember the take note debate we had just before the holidays. The Bloc Québécois, through its leader, the hon. member for Roberval, a man who very rarely descends to political partisanship, proposed to the other parliamentary leaders that a take note debate be held.

At that time, I asked the minister if he could provide us with guarantees that this matter would be settled by June. He was confident that it could. Even this past week, I asked the parliamentary secretary whether a cabinet memorandum had been submitted on this and what the status was.

Now it is April and I have learned that things are barely moving. Even if lawyers are not the fastest and most zealous members of our society, the situation is still this: here we are in April and the negotiations have scarcely begun.

What comfort can we find, then, in the commitments made during the take note debate held before the Christmas break? The wish had been expressed that this matter be settled before the summer adjournment in June. Yet the lawyers have barely begun their discussions.

This is where Parliament can bring some pressure to bear. The minister must give the lawyers a very clear mandate including performance obligations—we know what that means in legal language—so that, by June, official conclusions will be reached and the fund made accessible to the pre-1986 and post-July 1990 victims. This would remedy an historic wrong that has gone on far too long.

The Prime Minister should have risen in the House today to apologize to the victims on behalf of his government. Naturally, the Minister of Health was not present in the House. He is new, a young recruit. He was elected in the most recent election, in 2004. Of course, he was not here before, but, in the name of ministerial solidarity, he should have risen in this House. He would have brought greater credit to his office had he apologized to the House.

It would not be the first time. Brian Mulroney apologized to the Japanese community for the suffering it endured in the second world war. I repeat, quick follow-up was required, but Allan Rock gave an exceedingly technocratic speech. It was devoid of any hint of sympathy for the victims infected before 1986 and after 1990.

Again, I recall clearly an hon. member, whose name escapes me, who was a member of the rat pack when the Liberals were in opposition. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien excluded this member from caucus. This member had wanted to follow through and have the Liberals act on their promise to abolish the GST, which the journalists interpreted as “Give Sheila Time”. We have not forgotten that the former Canadian Heritage minister went public with a statement that, if the Liberals did not abolish the GST, she would resign. In politics, making commitments means keeping them.

In conclusion, today is an important day for the victims. The opposition has done its job. I do not doubt that there is compassion among the Liberals, on the government side. I am thinking about my committee chair, the hon. member for Oakville, and other members of the Standing Committee on Health who agree that what is needed in terms of historical redress is to broaden compensation.

The government made a historic error in the form of a terrible insensitivity. The Minister of Health allowed himself to be guided by terribly technocratic considerations. Nonetheless, I do not doubt that among the Liberals there are some people who want to redress this historic error.

The best thing the Minister of Health can do—and he is said to represent the left in the Liberal Party—is to give urgent information and directives to his lawyers to ensure that by summer adjournment, roughly the second week of June, the lawyers have sealed an agreement. We have to be able to tell the victims that we are finally going to make good on recommendation number one of the Krever inquiry and that all hepatitis C victims will receive compensation regardless of when they contracted the disease. In this situation we certainly cannot accuse people of being the authors of their own misfortune.

When you go to the hospital it is reasonable to expect the blood supply system to be safe. I must add, for historical purposes, that at the time, the Red Cross was in charge of the blood supply. The Red Cross had a very good international reputation. We all felt secure in the fact that this was the agency in charge. We were comforted by the fact that the Red Cross was in charge of these operations.

You know what happened next. Unfortunately, the supply was tainted. However, once again, the government was simply far too slow in acting on recommendation number one in the report of the Krever inquiry.

Today, we would have expected the Minister of Health to stand up, apologize to the victims and make a clear commitment on the mandates given to the lawyers. I am sure that all the members in this House will continue to follow this case and pressure the government as long as we do not receive a guarantee that money will be available for all hepatitis C victims.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was so absorbed by the speech made by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that I had forgotten to return to my seat.

I want to congratulate my colleague for his perseverance in this matter. He has shown us again today his great sensitivity with regard to the whole issue of tainted blood and the Krever report. We all know that he has been a great champion of this cause.

I would like to ask my colleague to explain to us, if we were to compensate victims infected before 1986 and after 1990, what impact that would have, on a daily basis, on the quality of life of those victims of tainted blood. How would this decision improve their quality of life? I remember seeing them saddened by the minister's response, when he turned them down. To them, it would have been a step toward a better quality of life.

I would like my colleague to comment on that so we can better understand this issue which, even after several years, is still being debated today.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I thank my colleague for her question. I am glad to some extent that I have enthralled her and that I have, deep down, made my first female conquest.

More seriously, I say to her that, if the number of victims who are entitled to compensation were increased, this would mean in reality that care and financial support for these people would be extended. Hepatitis C has different levels. Victims are not all in the same phase in the illness and, depending on the phase considered and the progress of this terrible illness, of course, care is different, as the annual and monthly payments should be.

I believe that the important thing is to have common solidarity. No one asked to receive tainted blood; this was within the government's responsibility for public health. For this reason, I think that this is an issue of historic redress.

I know that all members of the Bloc Québécois have followed with great compassion and interest an issue that we did not imagine we would face a few years ago. I know that the former health minister, Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, Pierre-Marc Johnson and other ministers were summoned to appear. Because of certain legal realities, they were unable to testify on this issue, but the fact remains that this historic mistake must be corrected.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate.

I regret what seems to be the slightly contradictory position taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. On the one hand he insists that the government is doing precisely the right thing and asks what the problem is. On the other hand, despite the announcement by the health minister as far back as November that there would be an opening of the window for hep C victims who were excluded from the original compensation package which covered only those who were infected between the arbitrary dates of 1986 and 1990, he was forced to acknowledge that not one penny has flowed from that announcement by the minister that there would be serious consideration of compensation for the previously excluded victims.

We got very confusing messages from the parliamentary secretary. He was absolutely indignant at any suggestion in this debate that there was not yet a clear, firm commitment from the government to act on the stated intention of the health minister to at least look at this issue. On the other hand it sounded as though he was washing the government's hands of the whole matter by reminding people that we are talking about a trust fund that has been set up at arm's length, that we need to find out how much of a surplus there is going to be in the fund before we decide what we can do.

I do not understand what prevents the government from doing exactly what the health committee recommended, which is to state clearly without equivocation and without further delay that the other victims who were infected outside of the 1986-90 window will be compensated. Then the details can be worked out.

There was no sense at all that the parliamentary secretary was prepared to respond to the sense of urgency in the health committee recommendation. The committee used the word urgent to get on with this, yet we saw none of that from the minister.

I want to state clearly the New Democratic Party's support for the recommendations that have come from the health committee. Our party also supports the spirit in which all opposition members came to the House this afternoon to speak in support of the health committee's recommendations.

I want to use the few minutes that are available to me to plead the case of another group of people who have been largely excluded from any fair level of compensation in relation to the blood contaminated conditions they are suffering. I raised this matter on United Nations Day which was dedicated to women and children suffering from HIV-AIDS. I know that time is short, so I will quickly set out the case of a group that has not been fairly and adequately compensated within this fund which specifically identifies that group as being eligible. It specifically identifies that group's circumstances as also being considered within the fund that we are discussing.

That group is largely women and children, a group of Canadians who have been secondarily infected with HIV. This group was specifically identified; it was clearly recognized and included in the terms of reference for the fund that we are discussing, that money should also go toward compensating those secondarily infected with HIV from blood.

At this point, it is relevant for us to keep in mind what Justice Krever stated:

The needs of those who have been harmed are the same, regardless of their cause, and whether or not fault can be proved.

The secondarily infected spouses and children with HIV are a group of approximately 100 people who received a much inferior compensation package under this fund which was specifically established for those spouses and children who became secondarily infected with HIV from blood contamination, namely the wives and children of those who received tainted blood. The compensation that was afforded these women and children was only slightly above the amount given for the level six damages for pain and suffering for hep C. The hep C compensation for loss of income, cost of care and medication was not provided to the secondarily infected. The result is that the compensation for this group of approximately 100 people, primarily women and children, is somewhere between one-quarter and one-third the level of compensation that has been provided to the hep C victims in the 1986 to 1990 window.

Clearly it is appropriate to bring forward the plight of these people. The unfair and discriminatory treatment of this group of 100 Canadians should be brought forward in a very open way. It must be acknowledged that they too have been excluded from full and fair compensation, although not totally. They have not been absolutely excluded, as the pre-1986 and post-1990 hep C victims have been totally excluded, but they have been very seriously undercompensated. One cannot fail to recognize that there has been discrimination in their not receiving a level of compensation that comes anywhere close to helping them deal with the horrific situation in which they find themselves.

Let me quickly give a little history as to the circumstances of these people, not exclusively women and children, but mostly women and children. It is not a pretty story. It is not a story understandably that those women or their children want to tell before the microphones in the public eye. They do not want to do press conferences to say, “Look at us. Look at what victims we are. Please hear our case”.

We are talking about women who were encouraged to continue their usual sexual practices with their HIV positive husbands. Some of them were actually told once the hazards became more clearly understood that they were being unsupportive of their husbands if they used condoms. Others were told that hemophiliacs were not passing the disease on to their wives. Health officials, regulators and health policy people utterly failed to recognize and at least inform these women about the risks to their health. No one really warned them as to what could happen.

For the most part we are talking about women who cared for their husbands while they were too ill from HIV-AIDS. The compensation that their husbands had received died with them. When these women die of the HIV that they have contracted, their children will be orphaned.

It becomes very serious for us to recognize that their financial needs have not been fully taken into account. The people in this group were in fact intended to be included in a fair and full compensation package, but they were given a far less adequate compensation package than those others who have received compensation in that 1986 to 1990 hep C window.

Some might say that is not what we are talking about today. What we are talking about is that this package has been opened further for consideration to cover excluded categories. We know that negotiations are going on. The Minister of Health made it clear that there are negotiations going on to determine the extent of unmet needs for those who have not been adequately covered or not covered at all.

These women in taking care of their children are not asking for some kind of special treatment. They are simply asking for the opportunity, which has not yet been granted to them, to be at the table for the negotiations about opening the fund further to those who have been previously excluded or not adequately compensated. They are simply asking for equal consideration and equal opportunity to have their case examined and their plight considered.

When the health minister stated that he was prepared to open the window to further compensate those who had been excluded or not adequately compensated previously, he stated that this was not a matter of legalities, that this was not a matter of politics, that it was a matter of doing the right thing. It is a matter of doing the fair thing. I would plead the case of the people in this group who have been excluded from fair and adequate compensation on exactly that principle.

If the health minister meant it when he said that it is not about legalities, the first package excluded a lot of people. The argument could be made by some that legally they are excluded, so why are we looking at opening up the fund to include those who were not included. We are doing so because it is the right thing to do and we congratulated the health minister when he said so.

Surely the case can be made that it is also the right thing to do. I would say it is imperative if we are going to do the right thing, that we look at the reality of some 100 people, women and primarily children, who through absolutely no fault of their own became infected with HIV. Sadly they are not just dealing with an ongoing illness, but effectively they have received a sentence of death. That is what we are talking about. Those women, themselves ill, are dealing with the incredible struggle of trying to provide for their children who will eventually become orphaned. For some of them it will be sooner rather than later.

There is no time to be lost. This is the time for equal and fair consideration to be given to the plight of these 100 or so Canadians. They should have a place at the table. Their circumstances should be recognized so that they have an opportunity to put their case. They are not asking that there be some guarantee given in advance. They are asking for equal consideration.

I hope that as we address the absolute unfairness of the exclusion of those who contracted hepatitis C before 1986 and after 1990 by bringing them in for consideration now, given the surplus of these funds and the unfairness of their previous exclusion that we give them the recognition. I pay credit to the health minister. I have differences of opinion with the current health minister on a lot of matters, but on this one I applauded him, my party applauded him and a lot of Canadians applauded him when he said that the wrong thing was done when those infected prior to 1986 and after 1990 were excluded and that we are now going to do the right thing, we are going to create a process of negotiation and review.

I am simply pleading the case, in the same spirit expressed by the minister toward those thousands who have been arbitrarily excluded with respect to hepatitis C, that these 100 or so Canadians will finally be recognized as having been woefully and inadequately compensated given their circumstances and their needs. We must also respect and act on the spirit of Judge Krever who made it very clear that, regardless of the cost, the need is the same for those who have been identified for compensation and that we should accord them equal treatment in bringing them to the table in discussions and creating the opportunity for them to receive their fair compensation.

A compensation package of somewhere between one-third and one-quarter of what was granted to the hepatitis C victims between 1986 and 1990 is simply not adequate, nor would it be adequate as we now move to do the right thing to extend the coverage to those victims prior to 1986 or after 1990.

Let us not have it said that we are not addressing this situation because they are not a large enough lobby group or that they are not as effective because they are not represented in the same way. I say that with nothing but total respect. I want to express appreciation and respect for the incredible work done by the Canadian Hemophilia Society and by other community based health advocacy groups that have worked together with the victims of hepatitis C to put their case forward.

However let it not be said that because this small group of 100 women and children principally do not have the same kind of lobbying clout, that their plight has been ignored and that we have failed to take the opportunity to ensure they receive fair and equal treatment as this whole package of compensation is being broadened to include all those who should be compensated fairly for the blood contamination that has resulted in their ill health and, in most cases, an untimely death in the not too distant future.

There is no time to be lost. I plead for the support of all members of the House in stating that this matter needs to be addressed.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this debate has already noted, the settlement agreement that was negotiated in 1998 and 1999 between lawyers representing hepatitis C victims, the federal government and the governments of the provinces and territories had a specific focus. It only covered Canadians who were infected with hepatitis C through the blood system between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990 and persons with hemophilia and thalassemia who received blood products during that period.

On November 22, 2004, the Minister of Health announced the government's intention to explore all available options to provide compensation to those infected by hepatitis C through the blood supply before 1986 and after 1990. Discussions started immediately following that announcement and are continuing.

However a process needs to be followed in order to ensure that a fair and appropriate resolution is reached. This involves many parties, including the courts that oversaw the 1986-90 agreement.

I am pleased that the government undertook to launch these discussions, and I trust it will reach a resolution as soon as possible.

It is also important to note the other measures that have been taken to provide support for those infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply.

The federal government invested $50 million into its hepatitis C prevention, support and research program. This program is supporting efforts that contribute to the prevention of hepatitis C infection. It is promoting the development and availability of tools and mechanisms in support of persons infected with or infected by hepatitis C. It is expanding hepatitis C-related research. Finally, it has been funding actions to increase Canadians' awareness about hepatitis C.

I am pleased to remind the House that this program was extended for two additional years through 2004 and 2005 federal budgets with funding of $10.6 million per annum. In fiscal year 2006-07, hepatitis C program activities will be considered within an integrated infectious disease strategy that is being developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. This support is important of course but we all realize that people with hepatitis C infections can face needs that have to be dealt with through the health care system.

With that in mind, in 1998 the minister of health of the day announced a $300 million transfer to the provinces and territories. The idea was to provide funding to the governments of the provinces and territories over 20 years for appropriate treatment and care for people infected with hepatitis C through the blood system before January 1986 and after July 1, 1990. To date, $200.6 million has already been transferred to provincial and territorial governments to assist them with the provision of hepatitis C health care benefits to people who are dealing with the impact of hepatitis C on their lives.

In keeping with jurisdictional realities, provinces and territories have been deciding the service mix that is best suited to the needs of their populations.

The federal transfer payments for health care services are indicated for the treatment of hepatitis C infection and medical conditions directly related to it, such as immunization, nursing care, new and emerging anti-viral drug therapies and other relevant drug therapies.

We are beginning to get a clear sense of precisely what the money is doing. For example, the Yukon government has used these funds for nursing staff, to help cover the costs related to visiting infectious disease specialists and for medications.

Ontario, which has by far the largest number of people with hepatitis C, recently conducted an audit of its hepatitis C health care expenditures. It found that the special federal transfer payments worth $66.3 million had covered most of its overall expenditures of $82.5 million. Those expenditures were for things such as laboratory costs, drugs, hospital, physician, home care and public health services.

British Columbia has drawn attention to its funding of liver transplants that people with severe conditions that are rooted in hepatitis C can require. Alberta is supporting state of the art laboratory testing and drug therapy among other initiatives.

Many provinces, such as Manitoba, have reported that they are using funds to help support the provision of the new combination therapy that is proving to be a success for many hepatitis C patients.

In such places as Nunavut and New Brunswick, some funds are enabling the transfer of hepatitis C patients to provinces where highly specialized services of liver specialists, including transplants, are possible.

Another aspect of the funding allocated to meeting the needs of hepatitis C victims was the recently completed lookback/traceback initiative. Under lookback/traceback, our government committed to paying half the costs of provincial and territorial initiatives that helped identify the donors and the recipients of hepatitis C infected blood.

This was a complex process that involved a review of all hospital medical records available and the identification of people who had donated infected blood.

One of the reasons this work was so important is that many people with hepatitis C infections do not even realize they are infected. For many years they have had no noticeable symptoms and no barriers to a typical life and are therefore not likely to take advantage of the treatments that have already been available and are doing so much to improve the prospects for people with hepatitis C.

The federal government's share of the lookback/traceback activities amounted to approximately $50 million by the time the initiative came to a successful end on March 31, 2004.

Finally, it is important to note that all Canadians are benefiting from the $125 million invested by the federal government in improving blood regulations and blood safety surveillance. This is far from the whole range of actions that our government has funded, of course. However I have been able to comment on the major elements of our work to date.

While no one would say the work is done, I believe it is fair to state that our government is taking sensible steps in conjunction with our partners to provide the care that people living with hepatitis C need.

Moreover, the government has taken the step forward to explore options for compensation for those infected with hepatitis C from the blood supply before 1986 and after 1990. We should let these discussions take place and follow the required process so that an effective settlement can be reached for all parties.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the Liberal member's comments and I have a very specific question to put.

After hearing the member say that the negotiation process was in place and that we should take a hands off position and let it take its course, I wonder if it is his view that those who have been excluded from the hepatitis C compensation package to date, namely those infected before 1986 or after 1990, should under any and all circumstances receive compensation.

In other words, is it his view that they should receive compensation as of entitlement in the same manner as those who have now been recognized for compensation who were infected between 1986 and 1990, or is it his view that whether they are included or at what level of support they are included should depend upon what is found to be left over in the fund as a surplus?

In other words, should they be compensated because it is the fair and right thing to do and on the basis of evident need, or is it his view, as seems to be the view of the parliamentary secretary, that it will depend on how much money is left over? Could the member please clarify which is the case?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Health stated on November 22, his intention is to explore all available options and provide compensation to those infected.

We have a process in place and that process needs to be worked out so people can receive compensation.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the member again. He simply did not answer the question. I know he has the right not to answer the question, but I wonder if he could please address the question.

He chose to reiterate what the minister has said, which is to explore options for compensation, but that is not my question. My question is about whether he now holds the view, as has clearly been the position of the Krever inquiry and as has clearly been the view of the health committee in bringing forward this recommendation for the second time, that those who have been excluded in the pre-1986 period and post-1990 period should in fact be compensated equally in regard to the compensation provided for those from 1986 to 1990.

He did not address the question of whether he holds the view that yes, he supports the recommendation of the health committee in that regard. The minister did not make this clear. Or is he taking the view that it will depend upon whether there is enough money in the fund? Because of course it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the funds are forthcoming, and one would think that on the government side there would be even more responsibility felt and undertaken.

If there are insufficient funds in the existing compensation fund that has been set up in a trust to ensure adequate compensation for those in the pre-1986 and post-1990 period, then it is our responsibility to find the funds and ensure that they are available. Is it his view that they should be compensated equally to the others if there is enough money? Or is it his view that they should be compensated equally to the others and if there is not sufficient money in the fund we need to figure out how to access the funds and ensure that they are available?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did have the pleasure of hearing the member speak earlier and I heard the credit that she was giving the Minister of Health. I think on a couple of occasions she credited him with this action. I think it is an action that the House respects and I think it is something we have to let play out. We will not know the results of it until the process is over. I think that at that point we can deal with those other issues.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on this important motion. It is not the first one of its kind that I have had the opportunity to speak on, because I do sit on the health committee and I dealt with this for some time there. In fact, I had the opportunity to bring forward the original motion this House debated earlier this fall with regard to compensating all the members of this group outside the window of 1986-90.

It is important for the House to understand this. At that time, the motion got 100% support at the health committee, from all sides of the House. The motion urged the minister to make sure that compensation was done appropriately. We waited for a considerable amount of time before voting another motion, one put forward by my colleague in committee in the same process. The difference between this motion and the one I put forward is that the government in power actually will not be able to hijack this one. The House will be forced to vote on this motion.

The last one should have come to a vote as well so that we would have clear direction on the motion for compensation of all victims outside of the window of 1986-90, but it did not. It was circumvented.

Now we are going to have an opportunity for the House to speak out loud and clear. The minister obviously is not getting the message. The minister thinks that he can just tinker around with the fund, the $1.1 billion that is left in a compensation fund that started at $1.2 billion, while victims continue to be victimized by this terrible disease because of a misuse of power, a miscommunication.

The Krever inquiry said that all victims inside and outside the window should be compensated. This government has simply failed these victims. I may be a little too close to the issue, a little closer than some of the others in the House. I am rather passionate about it. When we sit at the health committee and talk to a number of the witnesses who come forward, we get some compelling testimony, testimony that we can hear much more aggressively than that heard in the House. Perhaps I can share some of that testimony if I have enough time this afternoon, but what I do want to say is that we have to deal with this problem. We have the opportunity. We have the means to do it.

I listened attentively to my colleague on the other side with regard to the reasons and the rationale for not compensating. I have a very difficult time with that because obviously he has not listened to the Krever inquiry, which recommended treating everybody the same based on the essence of fairness, but I will just lay out the arguments that were presented here by the last speaker from the government side.

The first argument was that it is in the courts, that the courts have the money and it is at arm's length from the government. Regardless of that, there is $1.1 billion of a $1.2 billion fund that is still in the courts. What the actuarial report is going to find out in June is whether there is enough money. I do not think we need a report to find that out, not at all. We know exactly how much money is there. It is a very hollow argument.

The argument is that if the courts have enough money we are going to compensate. Really, the issue is not whether we have enough money to compensate. The issue should be whether compensating is the right thing to do. That is a decision that has to be made by the government and the House and hopefully in approving this motion we will come clear with that one.

The idea of whether there is enough money is not the issue. We know how many victims there are now. We know that the number put forward at the beginning of this debate was supposedly 20,000. We know that number was false. We said so at the time. The number is actually closer to 5,000. There is no reason not to compensate.

When it comes to the second argument, he is saying that the government did the right thing because it compensated within the window of 1986-90. I believe that is not appropriate. It is certainly not appropriate because of what I just mentioned.

Madam Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time. I think you are aware of that, so I will just continue.

The third argument was that the government has given $200.6 million to the provinces for the victims outside the window of 1986 to 1990. I believe that is what the speaker said. We have to understand that not $1 of that went to any of the victims. In fact, I would suggest, and even in the words of my hon. colleague he suggested this, that the provinces used this for alternative delivery of health care because they are stretched for health care dollars. They used it to be able to buffer their health care systems. None of that money went to those victimized by tainted blood.

The other point is that they put $1.25 million into the blood services, which needed to be shored up. That had nothing to do with the victims. It was just something that needed to be done to deliver a safe product to Canadians and to make sure that the health and safety issues were dealt with. It had nothing to do with those who are victims. To use that as an argument for not being able to compensate those who are outside the window makes absolutely no sense to me or to anyone in the House, I am sure.

What went on was absolutely shameful. The discrimination was not only against those who were outside the window of 1986 to 1990 and who were not compensated like those inside that window. There was also discrimination between diseases. Those inside the window were compensated for hepatitis C contracted from tainted blood. Those outside were victimized by tainted blood with hepatitis C as well HIV-AIDS, but HIV-AIDS did not have the restriction from 1986 to 1990. All of those infected through tainted blood who contracted HIV-AIDS from the same blood were compensated.

Not only was it discrimination between years but it was also a discrimination between diseases. It is an important thing not to lose sight of when we talk about fairness in the House. Here we are as members of Parliament representing the people of Canada, who expect fairness in all the decisions that we render in the House. If there is any decision that demands fairness, demands correctness and demands to be fixed at this time, it is this issue.

I have heard it talked about at committee. Members from the government side have said they were not here at that time, that they are new committee members from the Liberal Party. They say it was those who were in charge at the time. They say they were not here and so we should have an opportunity to fix it.

I want to correct the record or make sure that the record is clear. The decision was made in 1996. The members who are still in the House are many. They include the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Public Health and many of the cabinet ministers who are sitting in control of the decision making of the government and the country. They are sitting in the House in the same chairs now and are able to make a decision to correct the injustice. In fact, the current health minister, when he was the attorney general of British Columbia, called for compensation for all hepatitis C tainted blood victims.

There is absolutely no reason to delay a decision to do the right thing, to compensate those victims who are still being victimized by this terrible injustice.

As I said before, $1.1 billion is left in the fund. In fact, last year while continuing to pay out of some of the costs, there was $60 million more in income than there was in claimants. All of those from 1986 to 1990 who have applied are already compensated. The estimated numbers are now 5,000 from within the 1986 to 1990 period and 6,000 victims outside those dates, both post and pre. We know what numbers we are actually dealing with because many of the provinces went ahead and compensated through their funds as much as they possibly could. We actually know who will come forward. We know the numbers that are definitive. We know how much money we have spent. We know how much we have paid out.

When it comes to the amount that was paid out, I think it is worthy of note to understand that a good part of that money was not necessarily for the victims. A good part of that money went to the lawyers and for the administration of the funds. I believe my numbers are right. I think we are at around $92 million for that alone.

The point I am trying to make is very clear. We did the wrong thing by compensating only a restrictive window from 1986 to 1990. The government knows it and every member of the House knows it. We have the opportunity to correct that and do the right thing. Victims continue to die. Many of the victims who should have been compensated are already gone.

We have the chance to do the right thing. It is not a matter of dollars. It is a matter of justice. We should get to work and make it happen now. No member has come up with a reason or a justifiable argument against it. The committee has recommended it to the House. The House must do the right thing at this time.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, while I am always pleased to rise to speak on behalf of my constituents, I am personally disappointed that I have to rise yet again today on this issue.

Nonetheless, I feel it is my obligation to rise and speak on behalf of those who cannot: Canada's hepatitis C victims.

Last October 15 in question period the Liberal government reiterated its desire to keep thousands of hepatitis C victims from receiving compensation. Why? Simply because they did not get infected on the right day. This policy was beyond simple discrimination. It was a blatant example of political indifference toward those often too sick to fight for themselves.

When members of the House voted against extending the compensation to all victims, some members of the Liberal Party shed tears in an attempt to show some sort of sympathy for the thousands of innocent victims. Instead, all they did was show how cold-hearted and spineless they were when it came to standing up for their constituents and their convictions.

Today my colleague from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia along with others in the health committee have made another bold attempt to correct this wrong. The committee's report calls on the government to do what many reports have called on the government to do in the past. It is calling for the government to immediately provide compensation to hepatitis C victims without delay. That is what is right and that is what must take place.

There is no reason for delay. We know there is enough money in the original compensation fund to compensate all victims. Failure to do so before now is inexcusable. All the delay has done is deny compensation to thousands of victims who died before today. The government will likely take another few months to do the right thing and in the meantime more will die.

With the unanimous support of the health committee, a report was sent to the House for concurrence last year. The report requested that the government follow the Krever inquiry's recommendations and fully compensate all those infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood. The Liberals shamefully talked out the debate before the vote could be recorded.

Then on March 21 the committee passed another motion to request that the government immediately compensate all individuals infected with hepatitis C from tainted blood. This would sound like another trip around the same circus ring except for a new twist. Due to a new procedural rule in the House, any motion of concurrence of a committee report must be given three hours of debate and then voted on.

That is what we are doing here today. Clearly, we have not given up the fight for justice on this side of the House. The Liberals cannot talk this debate out and prevent a vote as they did last year. There will be no abdication of responsibility this time.

The Liberals know they failed to protect the national blood supply and that killed Canadians. Today, we have a much safer blood supply but a lack of vigilance to the safety of the system could cause us problems again. The government has shown a preference to protect itself before it protects the general public. One only needs to look at the multitude of inquiries in progress.

We in the Conservative Party have been calling for fairer, complete compensation for all innocent victims of the tainted blood scandal. We always have and we always will, so long as it is necessary. We have always said that those infected with hepatitis C unknowingly should not have to suffer any more than they have already.

We have heard the health minister say that he will discuss compensation for the excluded group of victims. Excuse us for being skeptical. Last time the lawyers got involved it cost a whopping $60 million. I am sure this time it will not be much different.

I hope the minister will ensure that victims get the compensation they deserve and that this does not become a financial boost for the legal community. If the minister can find a way to minimize legal costs and delays and get compensation to all those who deserve it, I will applaud his efforts. If he does not, I will not hesitate to tell every hepatitis C victim that the Liberals still care more about their party's survival than their survival.

The Liberal government likes to pretend that it treats all Canadians equally, but we know that is not the case and this issue only highlights this. We have two classes of victims and that is unacceptable. It was not the choice of the victim as to what day they became infected. If people get hepatitis C as a result of tainted blood, they are victims, period: no distinction, no second class.

This is a minority Parliament and I suspect this vote will pass. The only question now is the Prime Minister's willingness to act on his self-described democratic deficit. If the House votes in favour of this matter, it will be interesting to see what excuse the Prime Minister comes up with when ignoring the direction of the House. We know he ignored the committee and the appointment of Glen Murray to his patronage post. Ironically, it is my truly honourable colleague who won that riding instead of Mr. Murray. Given the actions of the Prime Minister and Glen Murray, I can only say for the constituents of Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia that they made the right decision on election day.

On a final note, I would like to thank my other Conservative colleagues and those from the other opposition parties for continuing to stand up for what is right. A special thanks goes to Dr. Grant Hill, a former member of this House, for his tireless crusades to see justice done. Also, my friend, Joe Haché, continues to be an inspiration on this file. It is a privilege to stand and speak in the House on his behalf.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Rural Communities)]

Madam Speaker, one of the questions that is sometime raised in debates and questions on the whole issue of hepatitis C is the substance of the settlement agreement. Based on what we are hearing, there is huge fund in place, but those who need that money do not have access to it.

We hear statements to the effect that the federal government intends to get its hands on the huge surplus in that reserve. However, one should be careful with the opposition's comments. These allegations are often preposterous.

This is why I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the settlement agreement fund for people who were infected with hepatitis C between 1986 and the mid-nineties. I specifically want to comment on the false notion that the federal government will siphon off any surplus.

First, allow me to point out the basic facts concerning this fund under the settlement agreement.

In 1998, the federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed to provide financial assistance to Canadians who were infected with hepatitis C following a blood transfusion between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990, and to persons with hemophilia who received blood products during that period.

This led to negotiations involving the federal, provincial and territorial governments, as well as the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in class actions before the courts in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

These negotiations resulted in a settlement agreement, thus probably putting an end to legal battles that would have lasted a decade. All the parties to the dispute, and the courts, approved the settlement.

In so doing, they agreed to set eligibility criteria that are based on consultations with Canadian medical experts on hepatitis C.

Many stakeholders had the opportunity to review the settlement agreement and they provided information to the courts before the latter gave their approval, in December 1999.

The hepatitis C settlement for the 1986-1990 period totals $1.118 billion. The federal government contributed $875 million, or eight elevenths of the total amount.

The provinces and territories are putting the rest of the money in a trust fund set up for compensation and related monthly costs.

Once the settlement agreement was reached, it was widely made public. Announcements were published in Canada's newspapers in April 2000 and once again in January 2001, to tell people who might be eligible for compensation how to obtain the applications or to exclude themselves from the agreement.

Within the settlement agreement, an independent and non government administrator was appointed by the courts. This administrator was Crawford Expertises Inc./The Garden City Group. The administrator establishes the application process. It makes decisions on applications and determines the payments made to applicants according to established criteria.

Thus, people who are eligible for payments and who are the most sick receive the most money. Furthermore, applications may cover loss of income, care costs or other particular expenses.

The first payments were made to applicants on June 20, 2000. The most recent data available are from March 4, 2005. Consequently, at the beginning of that month, the fund had already paid more than $427 million.

But what was the status of the fund and what about a surplus?

On the face of it, it is possible to see something in the applications for compensation. After all, when a report was made on the assessment of the trust fund on December 31, 2004, it indicated there was $890 million left.

The funds must be invested to allow the trust to make payments to eligible people during what is expected to be the next 70 years, since it is easy to imagine that a child who contracted hepatitis C before birth—you understand that he can then have it later on—let us say in 1988, would live much longer and would be eligible for compensation at some point during his life.

Second, we must understand that current levels of payment do not automatically guarantee future levels of payment. The conditions resulting from a hepatitis C infection can worsen or improve. Whatever the case may be, the fund must be able to provide adequate compensation. It must be able to provide compensation for lost income, until these individuals reach the age of 65.

Third, we do not know, currently, just how many people may be entitled to compensation. We continue to receive new applications, and this could continue until 2010.

That said, there is a process for examining the fund's financial status. For example, a group of lawyers representing the claimants, called the joint committee, is overseeing the settlement agreement. This committee is made up of lawyers representing Canadians with hepatitis C in the negotiations on the settlement agreement. This committee, under court supervision, oversees the administration of the agreement.

The joint committee is preparing to present an actuarial analysis of the fund based on the most recent data and experience acquired to date. It will provide the three courts that approved the settlement agreement with the information they need to determine whether or not the trust fund has a surplus.

The date for a hearing on this issue will be set considerably later than June 2005. A decision about scheduling will be made by the courts, but the Government of Canada will try to request that a hearing be held as soon as possible.

What will happen if the courts determine that there is a surplus? Could the federal government, as some seem to be suggesting, grab that money? The answer is simply no.The trust fund does not belong to the federal government. Its purpose is to respond to the needs of the beneficiaries of this trust, and it is up to the courts to determine how the surplus is to be divided.

The courts will make a decision based on a number of factors, one of the most important ones being the range of options included in the settlement agreement to deal with this type of possibility. Should there be a surplus, the courts might decide to allocate it to those covered by the trust fund or to measures that would benefit these beneficiaries the most, such as support for research on hepatitis. It will be up to the courts to decide.

Naturally, they could just leave the surplus in the fund. Whatever happens, it is clear that there is a special process to deal with any surpluses in the trust fund. The federal government is currently preparing for these hearings, in order to be able to put forward a reasonable and responsible position to the courts when the fund sufficiency hearings are held.

This motion is not appropriate, since the Minister of Health has already started to explore options to compensate those victims who contracted hepatitis C before 1986 and after 1990. And I am absolutely delighted by that.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay a compliment to my colleague from Winnipeg, our health critic, who brought this motion forward.

This has been around the House, as members well know, a long time. In fact, it predates many of us in this place. It basically goes back to the 1980s when Canadians were subjected to plasma infected with hepatitis C from blood that was received from places like, for example, prisons in the United States and Canada, and developing countries where there are no safeguards. As a result of that, many Canadians were infected with that very debilitating and often fatal disease.

The government then appointed Justice Krever to look into how this could occur in a country like Canada. How could we have a tainted blood scandal, if you will? Justice Krever uncovered a pattern of gross negligence and criminality, not only involving the Red Cross but Ottawa itself in terms of the handling of our blood supply.

After a number of years of investigation hearings across the country, Justice Krever concluded that all victims of hepatitis C as a result of that tainted blood should be compensated. Most Canadians agreed with Justice Krever. Everyone on this side of the House agreed with Justice Krever and many people on the other side of the House, that is the government of the day, the Liberal government, agreed as well that all victims should be compensated.

Unfortunately, and this is really why we are still debating this after so many years, not all those victims are being compensated. Only victims between 1986 and 1990 are being compensated. That is simply an artificial time period that the government threw up for convenience because it simply did not want to spend the money to compensate innocent victims of a tainted blood scandal.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley.

The government had an opportunity back in 1997, when Krever reported, to do what was right, that every Canadian considered was the right thing to do: compensate these innocent victims. It did not. It only compensated those between 1986 and 1990. If a person's date of infection resulted outside of that time span, he or she was simply out of luck, according to the government.

On this side of the House, as health critic for our party at that time, I take a lot of pride in being the first to stand in the House and demand from the government that all victims should be compensated. I was part of that very strong debate coming from this side of the House and really putting the wood to the government on that issue with the help of a lot of my colleagues. At that time, as members well know, we did not have a united Conservative Party. My colleague from the Reform Party at that time, Dr. Grant Hill, was another member of the House who led the fight to do exactly what we are speaking of, and that is to compensate all victims.

What do we know about what the government has done? We know that it did agree on a $1.2 billion package between federal and provincial governments to compensate those victims in the timeframe of which it speaks.

The government at the time was exaggerating the number of claimants who would come forward. That is its excuse for not compensating all victims. This we do know, that since the fund was set up, the $1.2 billion fund, there is still $1.05 billion left in the fund. In other words, more than enough money to compensate all the victims, not just some but all the victims.

What is so sad about this story is that we do know that the government lawyers have received $70 million out of the fund. They are the same people to whom the government is now listening. They are saying not to compensate all the victims.

My argument would be that the lawyers are looking after themselves very nicely, thanks very much. That is the same legal argument that the government always falls down on when it comes to defending its original position to compensate some, but not all. It is a bogus argument. It will not withstand scrutiny and close examination.

In fact, the Auditor General does not have the power nor the authority, nor does Parliament, to go in and peek behind the curtains in terms of how that fund is being administered. That is another example of how sad this regime is that the present government has set up. The government members all stood up in this House and voted for that, leaving people outside the package.

In fact, we have some members of cabinet presently in this room and listening to me speak who were forced by the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Chrétien, to stand in their place and vote down compensation for all members. It was a motion that came from this side of the House, brought forward by Dr. Grant Hill, to do the very thing that Canadians are saying would be the fair thing to do.

The Liberals are running out of excuses. It is as simple as that. The clock is ticking. Some of these people will actually go to their graves without having received a nickel of compensation from the Government of Canada for a disease inflected on them through no fault of their own. It does not get any worse than that. It is totally unacceptable.

I know families that are basically on the verge of bankruptcy because they were left outside of the artificial time limit that the Liberal government conveniently put in place. That is just fundamentally wrong, but that is how basic this argument is. It is about an artificial time line imposed by the Liberal Government of Canada on some unfortunate Canadians.

I often use this as an example. If a person were infected on December 31, 1985, that person would be outside the package. If the person were infected, for example, on January 1, 1986, that person would be inside. Does that make any sense? None at all and government members opposite know that.

What is annoying and what annoys a lot of Canadians is that they are forced to stand in their place by a Prime Minister to support the government position, knowing full well that they are doing the wrong thing. What does that say about this present Prime Minister and his battle to knock down the democratic deficit, or to do something about it to make this place democratic, so that members of his own government can stand in their place and do the right thing?

Nothing has changed. The present Prime Minister is no better than Mr. Chrétien who imposed the same set of rules on his members at the time. The same crowd, the same group of members on Wednesday evening when we vote on this, will stand in their place and deny the opportunity for these people to be treated fairly, the way that most Canadians would expect to be treated when there is a level of incompetence and, in fact, criminality taking place. Most of us would expect those people to be compensated by the government of the day.

That is what this motion demands. It has nothing to do with the arguments that we are hearing from the other side. Those are simply bogus arguments.

When we see Liberals standing up and pushing back on an issue like this, it tells us that there is something fundamentally wrong with them and in the way they deliver government to Canadians. It talks of their incompetence. It talks of their arrogance and it talks about their basic uncaring, when a government does that to its very members that were democratically elected to do the right thing in this place.

I suggest that all members in this House do the right thing on Wednesday night by standing up and demanding fair compensation for all the victims of hepatitis C. Do what Justice Krever said should be done. Let us follow Krever and do the right thing and compensate all victims. That is the challenge to the government.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech brought back to memory a situation that occurred in my own family.

The husband of one of my dad's sisters experienced difficulty with dizzy spells. He would sit down and forget where he was. Some analysis was he was diagnosed with a brain tumour. A decision was made to perform surgery. He had his surgery, the tumour was removed and he was right back to normal. However, he kept feeling sick and lo and behold several years later he died from hepatitis. During his operation, he received a transfusion of tainted blood.

He went to his grave without ever getting compensation because he was outside the envelope. I suppose nothing can be done now. He cannot be compensated now, but there might be some for his family.

The only reason I mention this as a comment is because I would like to urge all members of the House to vote in favour of the motion so at least those still living can get the compensation they need. Many of them are unable to work because of this. It is a direct financial and other loss to them. The government has an obligation to compensate them for their loss. I do not know why it continues to dither on this.

My appeal in this short intervention is simply to say let us vote in favour of the motion, adopt the report and ensure that compensation is actually in place. Let us stop dithering.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park. The argument comes down to exactly that. Let us do what is right and let us do it now.

My colleague used the term dithering. The government has been dithering on this ever since the Krever report was tabled in the House of Commons. We have been debating it ever since.

There is more than enough money in the fund to do exactly that. One of the bogus arguments the government initially had was that too many victims would come forward, but the number was hugely exaggerated. The fund started out with $1.2 billion, yet $1.05 billion still is left.

It is interesting to note that last year the fund earned $60 million more than what it paid out. I do not think that was invested in the market. I think it is in guaranteed interest bearing accounts. There is still a ton of money left in it.

The argument put forward by our health critic was so be it. If the Government of Canada has to spend additional moneys to compensate those innocent victims, then let it do it. It would be doing the right thing. If my math is correct and if the math of all the other actuaries to whom I have spoken is correct, the fund would more than compensate all victims.

Let us get on with the job and do it right. Let us do it on Wednesday night when we vote in the House.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, last week it seemed there was an orgy of spending going on across the country. We saw it when the Prime Minister visited B.C. in particular, throwing money around left, right and centre. We heard the agriculture minister announce spending for agriculture. It was a strange way to announce it because there was no plan behind it. A large amount of money was announced with very little plan or direction behind it. My colleague told me earlier he saw that in eastern Canada as well.

Could he comment on why he thinks the government finds it so easy to throw money around, almost as if it had no end to it, and yet when it comes to compensating these hepatitis C victims, it is difficult for the government to step forward and actually deliver the money to these innocent people?