Rey D. Pagtakhan

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, when I develop public policy and participate in that process, a more fundamental question is not whether because there will be no floodgate of other cases we can do this for this group of patients. A more fundamental medical question requiring the utmost humanity is to consider all patients equally whether they seek damages or not. That is why the recommendation of no fault by Justice Krever to me is persuasive. But my submission is that the motion before us is premature because it is only focused on a group of patients, not on all other patients equally harmed by blood treatment.

Medical situations are complex and require a rational basis at all times. It is always a tenuous balance between risk and benefit. So I must say that the scientists of the day face a serious dilemma. But let me say in reply to the question that the compensation package announced by the territorial, provincial and federal governments is a response based on careful, sensitive and thoughtful considerations of all the facts and information at hand.

I know that no value of compensation can extinguish the pain and agony of all patients, whether they are included in the compensation package or not. I share their pain and their anguish, as my medical colleagues and other members of Parliament do. But I remain confident that they will understand this announcement was based on a public policy that is thoughtful and careful and fair.

I repeat, the motion before us pre-empts a thorough and careful debate on the whole issue of a statutory no fault scheme for compensating persons who suffer other serious consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products as recommended by Justice Krever or, for that matter, as a result of other treatment, not necessarily blood components or blood products.

That is why in specific response to the question of my medical colleague, now a colleague in parliament, it is not so much the worry about the floodgate of cases, important as it may be. We should consider all patients, even those without hepatitis C. For the opposition to now say we must compensate patients with hepatitis C because they suffered blood related injury, but not those other patients—

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the motion before us states:

That this House urges the government to act on the recommendation of Justice Horace Krever to compensate all victims who contracted Hepatitis C from tainted blood.

The motion raises fundamental questions and merits careful and thoughtful analysis, but let me say at the outset that as a physician before I became a member of parliament I share the pain and anguish of all patients with hepatitis C. In fact I have always shared that philosophy as a medical doctor.

The compensation package announced jointly by the federal, provincial and territorial governments last March 27 for Canadians infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system from January 1, 1986 to July 1, 1990 amounted to $1.1 billion: $300 million from the provinces and territories and $800 million from the federal government. The federal contribution represents 73% of the total compensation package.

Let me at once say that the government has not abandoned hepatitis C patients infected before and after this period, just as we would not abandon other patients whose diseases are also a result of treatment procedures, which always carry elements of risk. Our health care system will continue to look after them as the various levels of government across the country are committed to deliver the health care service we are proud of.

We will continue to be imaginative and perhaps we can challenge the Medical Research Council of Canada to conduct focus research to accelerate the discovery of a treatment for hepatitis C, to challenge our medical scientists and to provide them with the resources to do the particular type of research.

I am confident that provincial and territorial governments across the land will not sit idly by. They will be challenged even more to hasten their positive considerations of enhancing home care and pharmacare programs that will benefit hepatitis C patients as well as all other patients suffering from any type of illness.

The motion before us suggests that we should adopt the recommendation of Justice Krever to implement a no fault scheme for this group of patients with hepatitis C. Let me call to the attention of the House that Mr. Justice Krever made this recommendation for hepatitis C patients not because he did not care or neglected other non-hepatitis patients. Mr. Krever in fact made this recommendation for hepatitis C patients only because, as he said in his report on page 1045:

I acknowledge the force of argument made by among others the Pritchard Report that it is difficult to treat blood related injury compensation differently from compensation for other health care injuries. Given my terms of reference, however, it is not for me, here, to consider for any injuries other than those that are related to blood therapy.

It is clear from this statement by Justice Krever that what Justice Krever was suggesting was a no fault scheme not only to compensate patients with hepatitis C but also non-hepatitis C patients as long as their diseases are a consequence of tainted blood.

Earlier this morning I heard arguments from the opposition that it will not open the floodgates as though they were arguing that let us not worry about the other kind of patients. Let me state very clearly that even Justice Krever would like a no fault scheme for all those other types of patients without hepatitis C. Justice Krever said so in his concluding statement also on page 1045 in chapter 39 entitled “Financial Assistance For Blood Associated Injury” of his report:

I recommend that, without delay, the provinces and territories devise statutory no fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products.

Canadians will note from that quotation, and we in this House have a duty to particularly make this observation, that Justice Krever's challenge for such a plan is addressed to the provincial and territorial governments. He did not include the challenge in the challenge to the federal government as quoted in his report. The basis for this argument is to reduce the impact of blood related tragedy on Canadian citizens “to give some thought to the question of appropriate relief for those affected by the inevitable events”.

I am inclined to support such a recommendation. I am persuaded that in our current legal system the primary mechanism for compensating someone who has been harmed through the fault of others is a civil action for damages and that those in breach of duty to exercise reasonable care resulting in harm are negligent and therefore have a duty to pay. That civil tort process is a lengthy one.

I must underscore again that Justice Krever's recommendation is for all types of patients, not only hepatitis C patients who suffered injury as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products.

This House has not made a policy decision on this fundamental recommendation of Justice Krever. To make a no fault policy change only for hepatitis C patients, desirable as it might be from my perspective or from the perspective of others, is premature and would be unthoughtful of other non-hepatitis C patients equally injured by the blood system and perhaps injured by treatment procedures other than through the blood system. We have not in this House held that debate.

If members opposite would only be respectful and listen to the debate I am quoting from Justice Krever hopefully they will gain some pearls of wisdom. When they are worried about the rationale of this debate they begin to distract me but they cannot distract this member of parliament because the truth speaks for itself.

We cannot be selective for hepatitis C patients only because this is the group of patients who have captured the public consciousness at this time. Where were they before? Did we hear from the opposition before on this issue?

Let me come to the testing of blood donation for alanine aminotransferase, ALT, as noted in Justice Krever's report, volume I. The use of ALT to reduce the incidence of post-transfusion non-A, non-B hepatitis, most of which would later prove to be what we now know as hepatitis C, by 40% was first reported by the New England Journal of Medicine in April 1981.

But in June of the same year the Krever report stated: “The United States National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's ad hoc committee on ALT testing recommended against the implementation of ALT testing in favour of further study of its efficacy”.

It was only in February 1986 in the same report that: “The United States Food and Drug Administration's blood products advisory committee recommended that all blood donations for transfusion be tested for both ALT and anti-HBc, an antibody to the core of the hepatitis B virus, as surrogate, that is substitute, tests for non-A and non-B hepatitis”.

Madam Speaker, since my colleague shared his time with me and he only used seven minutes, perhaps you can give me the additional three minutes beyond my time.

I should also note from Justice Krever's report that it was only in July 1984 that the German regulatory authorities required that all products distributed for use in Germany be manufactured from ALT tested plasma.

Consideration of ALT testing in Canada had not been ignored. But Justice Krever noted in his report the editorial in the December 1984 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine by Dr. Alter and Dr. Holland who were investigators in the United States National Institute of Health study, and I quote from his report on page 642: “They did not, however, endorse the recommendation that ALT testing be implemented, and they said that the true efficacy of surrogate testing could be proved only by a randomised trial that compared tested and untested blood. By 1986, however, no such study had been undertaken”.

I would like to get unanimous consent to continue.

[Port Moody—Coquitlam, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today we welcome the newest member of the House in the government caucus, the member of parliament for Port Moody—Coquitlam. An eminent municipal leader in British Columbia for a quarter of a century prior to his election, the hon. member will share his wealth of experience with us as he takes his seat and represents the people of his constituency.

His byelection victory is even more impressive when one considers that governments seldom win in byelections, let alone safe opposition party seats. During the campaign the Leader of the Opposition said “A lot of people are going to be watching this riding, not just in B.C. but across the country, because it is the first chance for the voters to say what they think of government policy”.

The voters of Port Moody—Coquitlam made known on March 30 their approval of the government's policies and accomplishments, all done for the well-being of our citizenry and country. I join others in welcoming our newest colleague and the newest member of the Liberal team, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is March 31, the end of fiscal year 1997-98. Today the budget book of the federal government is balanced for the first time in almost 30 years. It will be balanced in the forthcoming two years, resulting in three consecutive balanced budgets in almost 50 years.

It can be said that the post-deficit era has begun. It is an era of new optimism and expanding opportunities for Canadians as we prepare for a new century.

We now have an economy with historically low interest rates and inflation. Thanks to lower interest rates, the monthly payment on a $100,000 mortgage is now over $250 less than it was in January 1995, a savings of over $3,000 per year. The monthly payment on a $100,000 small business loan is now over $180 less than it was in April 1995, an annual savings of over $2,200.

We now have an economy that has created over one million new jobs since the Liberals took office in October 1993. It is an economy with which the OECD says Canada will lead the G-7 nations in economic and job growth in 1998.

Indeed we have reason to be proud as Canadians. Not only will we be putting the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track. Our debt reduction plan will reduce the absolute level of debt, which I say to answer the anxiety of the opposition.

Earlier I spoke of the expanding opportunities for Canadians as we enter the new millennium. The budget builds on action taken in previous budgets by proposing a Canadian opportunities strategy. The aim of the strategy is to provide Canadians, especially young Canadians, with greater opportunities to prosper in a new knowledge based economy. This strategy takes action on seven fronts. Let me name them.

The first is the Canada millennium scholarships and Canada study grants.

The second is increased funding for advanced research to granting councils: the Medical Research Council, the National Research Engineering Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

The third is tax relief on student loan interest and improvements to the Canada Student Loans Act.

The fourth is measures that promote lifelong learning.

The fifth is helping Canadians save for their children's education through Canada education savings grants.

The sixth is supporting youth employment through an employment insurance premium holiday for employers who hire young Canadians in 1999 and 2000.

The seventh is expanding access to advanced technology by increasing funding for SchoolNet, the community access program and the Canadian Network for Advanced Research.

On the Canadian millennium scholarship program part of the budget let me say that the foundation for the program would be the centrepiece of the Canadian opportunities strategy. It is a comprehensive strategy designed to help create new opportunity for Canadians by expanding access to the knowledge and skills needed for better jobs and higher standards of living as we enter the 21st century.

The role of the Canada millennium scholarship foundation is to remove the barriers for low and middle income Canadians, especially young Canadians so that they can get the post-secondary education or the advanced technical training they need to get good jobs in the new economy.

Beginning in the year 2000 Canada millennium scholarships will be awarded to over 100,000 full time and part time students each year over the next decade through an initial endowment of $2.5 billion from the federal government. This is the single largest investment ever made by a federal government to support access to knowledge and skills for all Canadians. It truly reflects the commitment of the government to the youth of the country.

For full time students the scholarships will average $3,000 a year. Eligible students will be able to receive up to $15,000 in millennium scholarships over a maximum of four academic years of study toward undergraduate degrees, diplomas or certificates. The Canada millennium scholarship foundation is about access, not jurisdiction, with a challenge that is crucial to the future prosperity of Canada. All levels of government have a legitimate role to play and a responsibility to work together.

Let me touch on another item in the budget concerning allocating the fiscal dividend. The fiscal dividend is the projected surplus of total revenues over total spending that would arise in the absence of any new tax and spending actions since the 1997 budget. In our 1997 election platform, “Securing Our Future Together”, we pledged that over the course of our second mandate we would allocate our budget surpluses on a 50:50 basis. Half would go to investments in social and economic priorities. The other half would go to a combination of tax relief and tax reduction. This rule of thumb reflects the balanced priorities of Canadians. The government remains committed to this formula.

The 1998 budget, the first in our new mandate, reflects that commitment. The formula will be used as a guiding principle for planning purposes. Although the annual split may vary from year to year, already the impact for the 1998 budget over three years is 40% investments on social and economic priorities and 60% on tax relief and tax reduction.

Let me go to another topic on tax relief if I may. The budget delivers $7 billion of tax relief over the next three years. Yes, tax relief for low and middle income Canadians through an increase in the basic personal exemption and the elimination of the 3% general surtax on Canadians with incomes of up to about $50,000. These are two measures that will take 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls and reduce taxes for 14 million Canadians by the year 1999 and the year 2000.

In conclusion, let me ask all colleagues in the House to give their support to Bill C-36 which may be cited in short as the Budget Implementation Act, 1998. When we do this I am sure Canadians will be proud of all of us.

[Asia Pacific Hall, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is Canada's gateway to the Asia Pacific, home to about half of the world's total population, production and total consumption.

In the words of the Prime Minister “Canada knows that Asia Pacific is the future”. Hence Canada launched the Year of Asia Pacific on January 8, 1997 in Vancouver.

The year succeeded in firmly establishing Canada's credentials as a Pacific nation, forging stronger and more numerous human and economic links between Canada and its partners in the region.

To sustain this legacy, the Prime Minister announced last November Canada's contribution of $4 million toward the establishment of the Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University. This state of the art conference facility, the first of its kind in North America, shall be named Asia Pacific Hall.

Indeed British Columbia can take pride in providing the home for this enduring legacy of Canada's Year of Asia Pacific.

[Children In War, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week's issue of the Ottawa Citizen exposed the grim reality of children in war.

Today in Ottawa a roundtable on children soldiers is further probing this issue.

It is indeed appalling that children have been made direct participants in armed conflicts.

Whether they are kidnapped and indoctrinated to harm and kill or legally forced to go to war by their own government or pressured to volunteer because society has given them no better alternative, just the same it is a tragedy that pierces the heart of humanity.

Those who do not die return from war damaged psychologically.

Civilized nations have a duty to convince the world to stop making soldiers out of children.

Canada should campaign as a standard bearer to advance this objective using the fora of the United Nations, the Commonwealth, La Francophonie, APEC and all diplomatic engagements.

Let us put a stop to robbing children of their childhood.

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, child poverty is a pressing issue and the concern of everyone in the country. It cannot be eliminated overnight. It cannot be addressed by one level of government alone. The federal government has recognized this issue and its complexity and is therefore determined to continue to address it as a priority in collaboration with the provinces and territories.

That is why we have built the national child benefit system. That is why as a first step in our last budget we allocated $850 million to begin increased support to over one million children and their families starting this coming July. That is why we have allocated in this year's budget an additional $850 million to enrich this benefit over the next two years, $425 million as of July 1999 and another $425 million as of July 2000.

The goal of this additional initiative is simple: pooling federal, provincial and territorial resources to ensure that children are always better off when their parents leave social assistance.

In summary, when the annual federal assistance provided to families through the Canada child tax benefit system is fully implemented it will have increased by $1.7 billion, which is more than 30% since 1996.

The government is committed to giving our smallest infant and older children a good start in life. The national child benefit system will play a key role in fighting child poverty so as to help provide that good start for them.

This is our collective duty to humanity.

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to state that the Government of Canada is committed to providing all Canadians with the opportunity to access affordable post-secondary education so that they may prosper in a knowledge based economy.

The Canada student loans program recognizes the particular needs of students with permanent disabilities. A special opportunities grant of up to $3,000 a year is designed to offset certain exceptional education related costs incurred as a result of disability.

Students who are unable to pay their loans because of disability may also apply for a permanent disability benefit in the form of loan forgiveness.

Effective August 1 this year, Canada student grants will also offer up to $3,000 per year to students who have permanent disabilities and dependence to assist them in their full time or part time studies.

The Canadian opportunities strategy will also help Canadians, including Canadians with disabilities, to succeed in the changing economy. It provides for improved access to knowledge and skills for all Canadians through the new $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund, a fund which persons with disabilities will also be able to tap into.

The budget will also help Canadians coping with student debtload with tax relief on interest payments and debt assistance to those facing financial difficulty.

I also want to point out that the 1998 budget announced additional tax measures to recognize the cost associated with disabilities. Following the 1998 budget, tax assistance measures for disability and medical expense now represent $635 million per year in tax credits.

Our budget also proposes a new special tax credit for caregivers. In last year's budget $30 million for the opportunities fund to help between 4,000 and 6,000 Canadians with disabilities find and keep jobs was announced. Indeed the Government of Canada is committed to people with disabilities

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my debate, no freedom is absolute. There has to be a limitation. I must admit that I too stood and waved the flag. I too sang O Canada as a spontaneous show of love for the country.

I ask myself what would happen to House proceedings if we would do it every 10 minutes during question period. That is why I deferred to the wisdom of the ruling of the Chair.

On the question of the flag, I discussed it in my debate. It being so reachable, it can be played with, it can be used as a prop during the passion of debate. We have the two big flags on both sides of the Speaker's chair. That more strongly signifies the commitment to patriotism we have for this country. If I may say the Bloc's commitment—

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that we should be spending this time debating the issues that matter most to Canadians, the issues of the budget, health care, education, research, job creation and all those many issues.

I also concur with the member that we ought to discipline ourselves. We cannot tolerate any behaviour that will insult our colleagues. However, when the record says so, we must state the record. For that, we have a duty to perform.