Grant Hill

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says that there has been no criticism levelled at the provincial governments. It is funny that a federal member of parliament, facing the federal government that has the primary responsibility for being the policemen of the blood system, would criticize someone else.

The federal government has $800 million in the compensation package compared to $300 million from the provinces. Let me make very clear that the federal government is the main culprit in this issue. It deserves the main criticism in this issue.

I have a quote from Krever and this says it plainer than I could concerning the federal bureau of biologic:

During the 1980s, the bureau did not decide independently whether to use its authority to require that measures be taken to reduce the risk of non-A, non-B hepatitis. Instead, it relied heavily on information given to it by the Red Cross—

The very organization it was supposed to regulate.

That is why the federal government is being so criticized for this foolish decision.

[Hepatitis C, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader and the health minister all know that this is not a confidence vote.

This is a vote about whether or not every victim of hepatitis C from tainted blood should receive fair and just compensation. I can hardly believe that they will hang their whole process on a vote of confidence.

Nobody, not a single party in the House, will treat this as a confidence motion. I have given the government my personal guarantee of that.

Why then shall the government cause this to be a confidence motion?

[Hepatitis C, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, which Liberal said this: “When there are resolutions, as there are today involving victims rights, members of this party vote as they see fit?” That was the current health minister in 1996.

He was talking about exactly the same type of motion in the House, an opposition motion. Just what caused him to change his tune?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member has said that the impetus for our motion is a partisan one. It is not very often in this House of Commons that we get unanimity from the opposition benches. Therefore, I would like to pose a question to her. Since she says that my motives are partisan, what does she have to say about the other opposition members on this side of the House who unanimously have asked for a free vote on this issue; not a confidence vote, but a vote from the heart instead of a vote from partisanship? What does she have to say to that?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a medical practitioner from days of old, as I am. He has chosen to look at the specific issue of the ALT testing, when it was and when it was not available. That is a debatable question.

The government's main argument for not going down this road is that a precedent would be established that would cause an outpouring of frivolous medical claims. Since the precedents of HIV sit in front of Canadians and since the precedents of compensation for thalidomide sit in front of Canadians, does the member see any evidence of an outpouring of frivolous medical malpractice claims because of those compensation programs or can he find any evidence in international experience of such a precedent setting case showing an outpouring of frivolity when it comes to medical malpractice?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the motion today is pretty specific, to decide whether members of Parliament agree with compensating all the victims of hepatitis C as Justice Krever suggested.

I listened carefully to the member's commentary and I have not heard much on the actual motion. I would like to ask him a direct question.

Does he believe that Justice Krever's recommendation should or should not be followed?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr Speaker, the member is quite an expert in the rules and I claim not to be such an expert.

Let me read from the rules. On December 20, 1984 the House removed references in the standing orders which described votable motions on allotted days, that is today, as questions of confidence. That was removed. They are not questions of confidence.

I commit to the Prime Minister that I and my party will not make this an issue of confidence. The government will not fall on the basis of this. It cannot fall. If the Prime Minister says it is a matter of confidence, I think he is making a grave error. I once again strongly encourage him to allow members of parliament to vote with their hearts.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, moral persuasion is sometimes a powerful persuasion. The persuasion I see as the most effective is the persuasion of the victims.

We have a few days now between this debate and when the vote will take place. I simply ask the victims who have suffered to go to their MPs. I expect them to come to me with their faxes and their letters, but best is for them to look their members of parliament in the eye and express what this disease has meant to them. Look them in the eye and ask “Do you agree with giving compensation to some and no compensation to others?” When that happens I do not care what the Prime Minister says. I do not care what the Prime Minister does. An individual in their heart will have to say “I do not believe it is fair to turn some out on the street”.

The victims will keep this debate alive. The press have asked me over and over again how I will keep this debate alive. This is not for me nor is it for the member who also has had a profound interest in this issue. This is for people who have been harmed by a public system. Those victims will not go away. The government will have this hanging around its neck for the rest of this term unless it says that it made a mistake. The government does not have to lose face. We are not going to vote its members out of office for this but if they continue with this, their offices are at risk.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, some victims of hepatitis C from tainted blood arrived on the Hill on Monday. They asked for a debate in the House. They asked the Prime Minister for that very thing. They sent him a letter saying “Could we please debate this? We do not think it is fair that some individuals should be compensated and others not”.

The official opposition today is providing that debate by using our opposition day, a supply day, to do that.

The victims felt frustrated and angry and in fact impotent, they told me, and I, along with other members of my party, am honoured to be able to provide that voice.

The government's decision to compensate half of the victims is based upon some rationales. I would like to go over those rationales and try to refute each one of them in turn.

The first rationale is that the timeframe, 1986 to 1990, was unique.

The second rationale is that if they compensate everyone there will be a huge precedent set.

The third rationale is that the floodgates of medical claims would open wide and it would put at risk our health care system.

The fourth rationale is that since all 13 governments in Canada signed on to this agreement it must be right.

In turn, let me address those rationales. I consider them to be debating arguments rather than principle arguments.

The timeframe of 1986 to 1990 is an arbitrary legal phoney dividing point for the following reasons. It is very evident that regulators messed up; Judge Krever said so plainly and clearly. The special new test the government said was unavailable before 1986 was developed in 1958. I have practised medicine in this country and I have used that test for much of my medical career.

The ALT test was by no means new. In fact, as it became more and more useful for determining whether or not hepatitis C was present in blood, other jurisdictions used it much earlier than 1986. For comparison, in the United States it was used in New York in 1982. It only became a regulatory thing with the U.S. in 1986 when they said that since everybody was using it they should make sure that it was a federal regulation. In 1981 a premier official of the Red Cross in Canada recommended the use of this test. It was available and was accepted before. The date is an arbitrary legal date.

I do not mean to be really harsh on this but I think that decision is despicable.

Speaking on the issue that the floodgates would open, that the floodgates would sink our medical system, a precedent is a precedent. Two main precedents have been set on this issue in Canada for other medical issues, the thalidomide tragedy and compensation for HIV. I will be specific about HIV because it is so close in time and it is from the same contaminated blood.

There was no test available in 1989 for HIV. Compensation for all HIV victims in Canada who got HIV from tainted blood was offered and accepted. Has there been a floodgate of spurious medical claims because of that? Of course not. Canadians' compassion recognized that the severe effect HIV had on those individuals was a specific medical tragedy. Hepatitis C was as well.

The health minister went on to say that other medical misadventures like breast implants or obstetrical tragedies would be under the same cloak if we were to compensate all victims of hepatitis C. That is wrong. As I said before, I have practised medicine. I had medical malpractice insurance. If I made a medical mistake, I would personally be sued for that mistake. I am thankful that never occurred over a 25 year span. This was for personal errors. If a manufacturer were to make faulty medical devices, it would be sued. The minister's argument is absolutely wrong.

Let us go to the experience in other countries. Other jurisdictions have decided to compensate all victims of hepatitis C. Ireland comes to mind. I had a chance to talk with officials from Ireland. Their plan goes back to 1996 when they started paying individuals. I asked them if there had been an outpouring of frivolous claims or claims from other areas of medical malpractice. Zero. Not one single claim. The argument provided by the minister is absolutely ludicrous. It is just a legal argument.

In Ireland the officials said that their government tried to inflate the numbers of victims to make it look as if it would be a huge expense for the Irish public. That is an interesting thing which our government is trying to do. The Hepatitis C Society of Canada has told me that its number of victims is about one-third the number the government is trying to foist on us. I do not understand this. The effect of other precedent setting compensation packages on the medical malpractice system in Canada is one big fat zero and Canadians know that. Hepatitis C compensation would do exactly the same thing.

The other argument is that since all governments have signed on to this agreement, it must be right. Every single government in Canada is implicated in this tragedy. Krever has said that the provinces as well as the federal government are responsible. The federal government takes the brunt of this responsibility sadly, but just because 13 people rob a bank, does that mean robbing a bank is right?

The arguments fall completely apart. The regulators in Canada failed. A huge human tragedy resulted. Canadians were harmed. Compensation should be paid to all those individuals.

I have an escape for the government. I believe we should always try to provide an escape clause for the government. It knows it has made an error in this. Here is how it can save face, look compassionate and say that it has listened.

A compensation package for everyone should be based upon some principles. First it should be non-adversarial. They should not have to go to the court. Second, payment should be based on showing a direct connection between hepatitis C and a blood transfusion. That involves some scientific evidence. Third, there should be the ability to return in a non-adversarial sense if the disease worsens. Finally, there should be the ability to go to court if an individual is unsatisfied with the compensation package. They should not be forced into taking a compensation package.

These principles give victims dignity and virtually all the funds go to the victims, not to lawyers.

On the issue of the Prime Minister saying that the vote coming from this supply day opposition motion is a vote of confidence, that is another feeble excuse to give his backbenchers the ability to vote as they should. Surely the Prime Minister as an experienced politician knows this. There is a very specific reference in clause 168 of Beauchesne's saying that the standing orders have completely deleted the ability of a confidence motion to follow upon the debates from a supply day motion. It is plain to see. I am going to table this so that the Prime Minister can read something he should have known.

All we ask, and this is something that is sincere and honest and open, is for the government to look at this principle. If the government is absolutely certain that there should be no compensation for any other victim of hepatitis C, let members vote freely. If the government will do that, the victims who came to Parliament Hill on Monday, those individuals who felt impotent and alone and hurt by this government decision will say that they have had the debate and their day in the House of Commons of Canada.

That is my plea. That is my wish. That is my hope. I challenge the Prime Minister to allow that to happen.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

moved:

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.