Allan Rock

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the refreshingly constructive approach reflected in the member's question. Forgive my sense of shock, Mr. Speaker, but I think he is quite right.

There is a new development here. It is a significant development. One of the major partners in confederation has changed its position on an agreement that all governments had reached. Let us look at this new development. Let us find out from more than the wire story what Ontario is saying.

I have already spoken with the chair of the provincial ministers. He has indicated that perhaps a meeting of ministers at this point would be appropriate because in the last analysis, our responsibility is together—

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the costs of the health care system are paid by the federal government and by the provinces. Each year, we transfer money to the provinces for the health care system.

Regarding compensation of victims, I again wonder whether Quebec will be contributing financially for those victims infected before 1986, as Ontario has apparently done.

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, something important happened this morning: Ontario changed its position. We must now find out from Ontario the details of its new position and also find out whether Quebec will take the same position and provide a financial contribution for those infected before 1986.

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when the ministers of health came together a couple of times on this issue, we developed a position that we all shared.

Today Ontario has taken a different position. That is an important development. I spoke to Clay Serby, who is the chair of the provincial ministers this year, just before two o'clock. He agrees that ministers of health should look again at this issue.

Once we understand what the position of Ontario is, we will be in a position to respond to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the history of this better shows that had it not been for the federal government, there would have been no compensation package at all.

When we did come together, we developed a position that all governments agreed to in relation to those infected before 1986. Today's development is a new one. The ground has moved and an important partner has changed its position.

I am telling the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we will take that position into account. When we understand fully what Ontario is saying, we will respond.

[Hepatitis C, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we learned just moments ago of the apparent change in Ontario's position, I think the third position in the last five days.

I think we should get the particulars on Ontario's position. This is obviously a new and important development. It is a departure from the position that had been shared by all governments very recently. We will get the particulars on Ontario's position and respond to the hon. Leader of the Opposition when it is fully understood.

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member demonstrates that he does not have any idea what leadership is all about. He thinks leadership is the minister of health for Ontario or Quebec saying to victims infected before 1986 “Oh yes you should be compensated but we are not going to do it, let Ottawa do it”. He thinks that is leadership.

Leadership is having the courage to take a tough position on a difficult issue as a matter of principle and to stand by it. If he does not realize it, that is exactly what this government is doing.

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is entitled to his view but the facts as laid out by Mr. Justice Krever make it plain in our view that it was in the beginning of 1986 that there was really a turning point.

That was the stage at which there was enough knowledge about testing that those responsible for the system should have put the tests in place. As a result, some 22,000 people were infected between 1986 and 1990 when the tests were put in place. As a result governments, provincial and federal, have offered cash payments.

The member goes beyond that and says all those who were sick should be paid cash. Tommy Douglas—

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is no question there were tests available before 1986. Some American states had them, some parts of Europe as well. The judgment of those who know is that by January 1986 there was enough information that those responsible here in Canada should have put the tests in place. Before that it was speculation, it was uncertainty. January 1986 was the turning point.

On the numbers the member asked about, Mr. Justice Krever accepted the analysis of Health Canada's director of the laboratory centre for disease control on the number of victims.

[Hepatitis C, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not express the view of his party in Saskatchewan. His party, which forms the government in Saskatchewan, stands with the federal government on the principle involved.

Tommy Douglas, called by many the father of medicare, would surely be the first to say that medicare cannot be sustained if the principle on which we are going to proceed is if a person becomes ill they not only get treated, they get paid.

It is an important principle. Surely payment should be for those where there is fault. That is the principle on which we have proceeded.