Allan Rock

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense.

Coming to the point, there are those beyond the political forum who are able to see that the governments of Canada are right in the approach they have taken to this issue. I refer, for example, to the 16 deans of Canada's medical schools who met last weekend and whose executive issued a resolution saying that indeed the governments are right in offering compensation to those who were infected in the 1986 to 1990 time period.

It is good public policy. We are all—

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we applied the same principle in the case of hepatitis C victims that we did with HIV victims. We accepted the notion of responsibility, or fault. In the case of HIV victims, it is clear that, during the period in question, the government could have taken action to prevent these infections. We applied exactly the same principle.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is entitled to his view but we disagree. We are not alone in this. We say that if governments are to pay people because of sickness or illness and nothing more, then we will not be able to have what Canada uniquely has, which is a government funded public health care system.

The principle that should govern when it comes to the question when should governments pay cash to those who are harmed through risk inherent in the health system, is that payment should be made based on avoidable harm. Could we have avoided this? That is what the Pritchard committee said in 1990. We are following exactly that principle. This is not some vague, legal—

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his colleagues spent much of the last few weeks urging us not to take a legalistic approach to this issue. Now he is asking us for a legal opinion on liability. The member for Macleod put opposition very well last week.

The member for Crowfoot should know that we cannot pay cash compensation on the basis of illness. It has to be on the principle of fault.

We believe in making the offer we have to the victims of 1986 to 1990 with all the other governments in Canada. We have dealt directly with the issue facing governments.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows it is not appropriate to offer cash payments to people because they become ill. I do not think anyone suggests we can run a country like that. We have offered cash payments to people who were harmed in a way that could have been avoided if governments had acted in a timely fashion. That is what underlies this offer of settlement.

As to research, it is in the interests of all victims of hepatitis C that research focus on treatments and cures if we could find them. It is in the interests of all hep C victims that we do what we can to improve the quality of treatment.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, all the governments of Canada have entered into an agreement that is fair. It reflects the reality that if we are going to keep a publicly funded health care system in this country and operate on the right principles then we should offer cash payments to people who were harmed in a way that was avoidable. That is the principle. That is the policy that underlies this position. It is a position that is shared by every government including the governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

We have made an agreement and an offer to the victims based on the right principles.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that in the statement he made last Thursday the hon. member has adopted the position of the government.

Our position has been that we cannot simply pay people because they become ill. The sympathy we feel for people who become ill is reflected in the fact that we maintain one of the world's best systems of health care and we provide them with that care.

When governments pay cash compensation, we have said, should depend upon an element of fault. The hon. member has agreed and in view of the position we have expressed I think he should withdraw the motion he has put before the House.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Krever report made it clear that fault on the part of the federal regulator was in January 1986 not insisting that the test be put in place.

The hon. member is caught by the facts of this case. Any fair reading of the Krever report makes it clear that it was January 1986 on that the federal regulator should have insisted that the test be put in place. The hon. member has said that we should not pay cash compensation except where there is fault.

I invite him, in view of his position and in view of the Krever findings, to withdraw his motion before the House.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first, if we were to do what the hon. member suggests we would not have a health care system for very long because we would not be able to afford it.

Second, the hon. member should talk about this issue with his colleague from Macleod, because the hon. member for Macleod last Thursday in the House accepted the point that governments should not pay cash to people who are injured when there is no fault. “No fault, no compensation, I accept”. Those were his words.

The hon. member should talk to his colleague. He understands this issue. The hon. member should try as well.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should remember that the government has one position. It was a position that was developed with all governments in the country. It is an offer of compensation of $1.1 billion, to which we are contributing $800 million, to the 22,000 victims in the period of 1986 to 1990.

The hon. member should also remember that we do not and we cannot compensate people because they become ill. If we did that we would not have a health care system.

We are offering compensation during a period where governments could and should have acted. That is the right thing to do.