Réal Ménard

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have several questions for the minister. I have received a number of e-mails from fellow citizens indicating their concerns about the national diabetes strategy. From 1994 to 2005, the government committed some $200 million to this, and there are some indications that it may not be renewed in 2005. Can the minister provide some reassurance to people with diabetes that the strategy will be renewed after 2005? That is my first question.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss with the minister the whole issue of drug costs. I believe that the minister is aware of the fact that, at present, the most inflationary item in the health system is the cost of drugs.

His predecessor struck a federal-provincial-territorial committee to look at the reasons for the high cost of drugs. It was agreed that there are three main reasons. First, new drugs apparently account for 30% of the increase. Naturally, the aging population was also a reason. This is a very important factor. And, finally, new therapies are more expensive.

The Minister of Health must show concern for this issue. It is up to the provinces to decide which drugs will be reimbursed, but the federal government is responsible for drug certification. In that sense, I will have the opportunity to put forward a balanced bill. Balance is in my nature; excess is not for me. My private member's bill will be balanced.

I would like to ask the minister if he has considered the issue of drug costs. Does he think that the medicine prices review board should also look at the activities of generic companies? Did he give any thought to the whole issue of the link regulations? Are our legislative tools balanced?

I will be very happy to discuss these issues with him when I introduce my bill.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, may questions be put to the minister?

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 15th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who also is a Montrealer, who is from this beautiful great region of Montreal, which is home to half the population of Québec.

There is a formula and an originality in Montreal in the area of regional development, which is related to the corporations for economic and community development. I think he has one in his riding. My riding includes the CDEST, the Corporation de développement de l'Est, with Thérèse Sainte-Marie, to whom I want to pay tribute. She is very involved in our community.

We know that corporations for economic and community development were created in the late 1980s, when extremely significant industrial changes were taking place. In the east, for example, Vickers, which was a shipyard, had shut its doors, like a number of labour-intensive industries.

It so happens that the federal government, over the past few months, has been somewhat reluctant with respect to permanent funding for the corporation for economic and community development. Development corporations receive more funding than do the corporations. Good for them. I know the good they do in the regions.

Nonetheless, I was wondering if we could count on our colleague to intercede with the minister in charge in order for the operating budgets of the corporations for economic and community development to be increased.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, the members did examine the agreement, of course, because they are professionals. Second, I understand that, in court, prosecutors will be able to make arguments like the ones we have been discussing for the past two hours.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words. He has caught me a bit off guard. I was not expecting such praise. I sometimes think it should come from both sides of the House but public life being what it is, my expectations are not too high.

That said, more seriously, I think that the Bloc members understand that we are seeing a minister who wants to take some action. We are hopeful that he will act. Not only do we wish him good luck, but we are ready to recognize that the minister is new to this House and that he is entitled to a honeymoon period when he needs our trust in him, and he has that.

It is true that when funds are in a trust, there are a certain number of legal constraints. Obviously, we want the government to press its case once the actuarial review provided for in the agreement between the trustees and Crawford Adjusters is complete. Moreover, I am convinced that all members of this House will do the right thing and that this minister wants to go down in history as the person who found a solution to all this.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I invite the parliamentary secretary to be very careful, because I cannot detect any hint of partisanship in my remarks. Moreover, I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health has a vivid imagination. I invite him to recognize the value of what I am saying. I believe all the members of the Bloc Québécois in this House work in a non-partisan way.

Like the parliamentary secretary, I recognize that when courts hand down their decisions, there is something restrictive about them. I understand the meaning of the word “trust” very well. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health must agree with me that when the review of the actuarial surplus is complete, arguments can be made to enlarge it. That is what we are talking about.

In any case, before going to court, the cabinet must make itself clear on this issue. I am simply asking that a commitment be made to do this before Christmas.

June as a deadline is feasible, but for the victims, every day and every week count. For them, June is the middle term, not the short term.

I agree with the secretary that the health minister is acting in good faith, is eager to solve the problem and wants to be known as the minister who extended the compensation. I trust him.

Nevertheless, the health minister needs to understand that our quest for justice has made us very cautious, since the government has never acted before. Everything is in place for the government to act. I trust the minister, but do not ask me, as a Bloc member, to abdicate my responsibility. We will put pressure on the government. We will act intelligently, courteously and according to parliamentary rules. Yes, we will exert pressure, because we know that, in politics, you have to see it to believe it, and so far we have not seen anything.

Now, good faith is presumed, and bad faith should be proven. Yesterday, the health minister said “Trust me”. That is what we are going to do, but we hope that there will be a clear commitment, not that we want to push him. I am very much aware that the minister is to be “handled with care”. However, we will exert whatever pressure is needed to get results.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the intervention of the member for Outremont, who seemed to think he was in front of a television camera. I must say that he was eloquent. This is obviously because of his past.

First, I would like to remind the House of a number of facts. In the 1980s, two viruses contaminated blood supplies: the HIV virus and the hepatitis C virus. It is important to remember that, as a result, 10,000 people in Canada contracted hepatitis C, some 1,000 contracted the HIV virus, and half of these people died.

Our colleague and health critic for the Conservative Party of Canada was quite right to remind the House that parliamentarians sitting on the Standing Committee on Health were very well advised to ask for a review of this file.

This is the thrust of the motion today. We are asking that the unanimous report of all parliamentarians who sit on the Standing Committee on Health be adopted and not only that this report be adopted unanimously, but that it be votable.

I must say, however, that I do not agree with the hon. member for Outremont when he suggests that we can completely disregard history. I am sure that the hon. members who were in this House in 1998 will remember John Nunziata, an active member of the so-called rat pack, and he was not alone. There was the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who went overboard at that time. It was not easy to deal with the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. We even recall rat pack t-shirts up for sale.

That having been said, we understand that this is a non-partisan issue. There is no doubt about that. But the Liberals cannot be changed. It is just not possible that this government decided to turn its back on one of the most humanitarian things that could have been done under the circumstances, that is, not to discriminate on the basis of chronology.

The Canadian Hemophilia Society told the government that 20,000 people was way too much in terms of traceback. We know that, as far as the traceback efforts to identify those who received blood transfusions was concerned, the figures were inflated. Minister Allan Rock even commented at the time that expanding the compensation program would bankrupt the health system.

Sadly, we must remember that the Liberals lacked compassion during the period in question. We are seeking today historic reparation, and this is an opportunity for all parliamentarians in this House. The issue may not be a partisan one, but do not expect us to act as if those infected before 1986 and after 1990 had already been included in the deal back in 1998, because that it not true.

I would like the hon. member for Outremont not to forget that, among the determinants of health, there is the noise caused by railroads. I hope that, as parliamentarians, we will be able to pass legislation before Christmas to give the Transportation Agency more power to ensure that hepatitis C victims can enjoy some peace and quiet, because right now there is also an issue of quality of life, and noise plays a role in that.

Now, with respect to the trust fund of $1.1 billion—that is a considerable sum of money—it is true there is an element of visibility in here for the government. Yet, of this $1.1 billion, $800 million has still not been used.

I really hope that the government will act very quickly, and this is the thrust of the report that was unanimously adopted by the Standing Committee on Health. We are asking for a two step commitment. We want the Minister of Health to consult with the cabinet before Christmas and to say publicly, because he will have consulted with cabinet and Treasury Board before Christmas, “Yes, in principle, at the cabinet table, we have voted for the extension of the compensation program”.

Then we will come to terms with the various imperatives. If the court does not allow us to act before June of 2005, we will understand that. Members will recall that these questions were decided by the courts at the request of Justice Horace Krever, from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

What we would like to see now is a clear commitment from the executive, from cabinet. This is what our very reasonable report is all about.

Second, we have to think of this. Why did the tainted blood scandal happened in the 1980s and 1990s? It happened because there was no control over the blood supply system. The situation was the following. The government relied on the Red Cross and its reputation. The idea was that the Red Cross having such a good reputation worldwide, it was not necessary to have a regulatory control. This should get us thinking about what happens when the public authorities are not taking their responsibilities properly.

It was only in 1989 that the House of Commons amended the schedule to the Food and Drugs Act, giving us a minimum of control over blood products. Before 1989, there was no control whatsoever by any public authority.

Of course, we cannot rewrite history. We understand that the Red Cross had a great reputation and credibility at that time. However, this should get us thinking about what it means to abdicate one's responsibilities.

I have no doubt that all members in this House want to extend compensation. I have no doubt about that. We cannot ignore the fact that, historically, the government has not been as sensitive toward the people who were infected. That being said, it has the opportunity to correct a wrong. It is true that, yesterday, I commended the health minister for his speech. During question period, in response to a question that I asked him, the minister said that the member for Hochelaga had recognized that the government was prepared to take the right action. I am willing to say that, if the government recognizes that compensation must be expanded, all Bloc Québécois members will certainly be very pleased with this decision. That is not a problem. However, we will congratulate it in the name of this transcendence, this broad thinking and this generosity of soul, since this is the attitude that must be taken in a file such as this.

However, it would have been advisable for the cabinet to address the issue much more quickly. How is it that we are not seeing a much clearer commitment from the Minister of Health?

That being said, let us work for the future and hope that, before the adjournment in December, such a commitment can be made. I know that all parliamentarians will work on this.

When we held this historic vote in 1998, the compensation plan was comprised of six categories. In the first one, as soon as antibodies were detected in the blood, one would receive $10,000. Depending on the seriousness of the case, one could receive cumulative compensation of up to $250,000. We will also recall that the government added, in conjunction with the provinces, an amount of $300 million to provide care for people who were infected during the period between 1986 and 1990.

Consequently, this is an issue of public health, compassion and responsibilities.

As parliamentarians we have simply delayed too long in putting this matter behind us.

The impatience comes, we must admit, from the fact that everything was documented. Justice Horace Krever was a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the highest court in Ontario. He had chaired a commission of inquiry into access to confidential medical documents in Ontario. He documented the abuses and prejudices that victims had suffered and what a responsible compensation scheme should look like.

Justice Krever chaired a royal commission whose terms were discussed in cabinet. We know that a royal commission must be authorized by the Privy Council. We cannot say that it was not serious or not binding. In 1995 the commission tabled its report.

We will remember that Justice Krever earned his reputation. In fact, some intervenors, among them the former minister Pierre-Marc Johnson, the Red Cross and Thérèse Lavoie-Roux went to the Federal Court seeking to mark out the powers of the inquiry.

As we remember, the Federal Court decision was that the Krever Commission could not find people criminally guilty for their actions, but that it could make recommendations. This Federal Court jurisprudence means that, today, the powers of royal commissions are limited in this area and it has left vestiges in the arguments surrounding the Gomery commission at present.

I repeat, it is a question of compassion, humanitarianism and responsibility.

Last Friday, I spent the morning in Montreal, on the avenue du Président-Kennedy, named for the Democratic president assassinated so unfortunately in Dallas, in November 1963. I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and spent the morning with them. They are volunteers. The Canadian Hemophilia Society was founded in 1953 and devotes a research budget of half a million dollars to finding out a way to get answers, through R&D, to all the illness involving the blood coagulation factor.

In the early 1990s, the Canadian Hemophilia Society was visionary because it told the government that its predictions were exaggerated and that there was no logic in making two classes of citizens. All of these victims were affected equally by their unfortunate circumstances.

A person who goes to the hospital emergency department and ends up being given blood products is not being treated carelessly or cavalierly. One expects public health authorities to control the supply, circulation and distribution of blood and blood products.

It will be 10 years ago next week that the Krever Commission started up, under Justice Horace Krever. Hon. members need to realize what it means to live with Hepatitis C. There are varying degrees, of course; not everyone is affected in the same way. But we need to keep in mind what it means in terms of resistance, fragility and worries surrounding the most ordinary of daily acts.

The volunteers of the Canadian Hemophilia Society are very courageous to get involved as they have. I have had a chance to talk about this with François Laroche, who comes like me from the Quebec CIty area, from Beauport.

They have always remained hopeful that the government might eventually review its decision. I hope that this will come to pass. I am confident that the Minister of Health, a former NDPer from British Columbia, will waste no time getting a brief to cabinet so that we may have something solid to go on.

I was happy yesterday to hear the Minister of Health refer to his determination. Since the Krever Commission, there have been five different health ministers. They could have settled this, and it would all be behind us. I know we can be assured that, by Christmas, cabinet will have been informed and the Minister of Health, with the support of everyone in this House, will be rising from his place to commit the entire government to this undertaking. When the Minister of Health rises from his seat to announce that the cabinet has adopted a resolution to allow compensation to be expanded to include victims from before January 1986 and after June 1990, I know that all hon. members will feel that our actions over the years have had results.

I can assure you that all Bloc Québécois members want to act in a non-partisan way on this issue. However, our desire to act in a non-partisan way will not make us forget history. We will not revive actions and policies that should not be revived. We would now like to remind the House again that this is a matter that warrants the full attention of all parliamentarians.

I will conclude by talking for a few minutes about the compensation of the HIV victims. You will recall that a federal-provincial-territorial agreement had been reached. They were talking about 300 people, which was not a lot. These people were given $30,000 lump sum, providing they agreed not to sue the government. It is still rather sad to see that these people are getting benefits, which to this day have not indexed. They have been getting the same benefits for close to ten years now. We all understand the effect of inflation and can appreciate that these people's purchasing power has shrunk significantly.

This is less widely known than the tainted blood and compensation issues. However, it requires our attention as well. When I met with Mr. Laroche, Mr. John Plater and Mrs. Ostrowski last Friday, I was told that there was some catching up to do in this area.

In short, we hope that the government will roll up its sleeves and announce a public commitment by Christmas. We will of course respect the prerogatives of the court. If the deadline of June 2005 is the one to be respected, so be it. However, we would feel much more comfortable if the executive were to make a much stronger commitment than what is being made now.

[Health, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, the Canadian Hemophilia Society and numerous other organizations representing the interests of the victims of the hep C virus have been asking the federal government to follow up on the Krever recommendation and to compensate all those who got hepatitis C from contaminated blood transfusions, or from the administration of blood products, regardless of the date of infection.

Can the minister confirm that close to $1 billion remains unused in the compensation fund, and that it is outrageous that the government would refuse to extend eligibility to people who contracted the virus before January 1, 1986, or after July 1, 1990?

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Madam Chair, I believe it would not be disrespectful of the MPs on the government side to say that in 1998 when that vote was taken, it was a vote that lacked compassion. Refusing to vote in favour of expanding the compensation is a gesture that indicates a lack of compassion in the group. Were the members who, as individuals, voted in favour of the government position lacking in compassion? We are not here to accuse anyone. Clearly, however, the government position was not a generous position. It was extremely stingy and not historically defensible.

Things have not changed so much that we can change our opinion on the government's actions. It was stingy and it still is.

Now, I am ready to recognize that the new health minister may be able to convince his cabinet and caucus colleagues that it is time to have another look. However, I do not think we will be expected to improve our opinions on the government's actions in the past. It is not a barometer for compassion. That is not what we need to talk about; what we must do is recognize that limiting the compensation period to 1986-1990 was a mistake. I think that with the passage of time, we must all see that.

Once we have said that, of course, the future belongs to those who want to work to convince the government to expand compensation. I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Burlington is one of those who want to work at correcting this terrible historical error. Our goal, here in the House, must not be to avoid recognizing that there was a mistake. Yes, there was a mistake. All the leaders recognize it.

I do not want to ask the hon. member for Burlington to rewrite history. She herself, of course, can show compassion. I ask her if she is still ready to rise in this House and recognize that her government's policy in 1998 was not generous; that it was stingy; and that it was a terrible historical error and must be corrected.