House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 56% of the vote.
Hepatitis C April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the governments of Canada, including Conservative governments, decided to compensate the individuals infected during the period between 1986 and 1990, when governments and officials could have acted but did not. It was not the courts, but rather the governments that decided and accepted responsibility for the 1986 to 1990 period.
Hepatitis C April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the ministers of health of Canada looked at this situation, made a difficult decision and said that the principle of who should be paid cash or compensation should be determined by who was infected at a time when it was avoidable, if we had acted as we should have.
Every commentator who knows about this chronology, who looked at it, has said that the beginning of 1986 was the time when we could have taken steps to avoid the infection. Before that it was a risk in the system, like all the other risks people face. That is what sets the period apart.
In answer to the member's question—
Hepatitis C April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong.
I personally was involved with Mr. Rochon in the discussions on this question. We did not determine our position according to the amount of money available. We did so based on the principle of government responsibility. And together, Mr. Rochon and I, the Parti Quebecois and I, decided that the principle of responsibility would determine which of the victims would be compensated.
Hepatitis C April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member considers that the Quebec minister of health has abandoned victims of hepatitis C, because he agrees with us. He took the same approach, which was to compensate those who contracted the virus between 1986 and 1990, the period in which those responsible could have acted to prevent infection.
Hepatitis C April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, our decision was based on the criterion of the government's responsibility. All of Canada's health ministers agreed that our approach was an appropriate one.
The entire health care system always entails risks for every member of the public. Is the hon. member suggesting that all governments should compensate all victims all the time? That is not possible. So we made a choice, and we decided on an appropriate guideline.
Hepatitis C April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that what takes courage is to make the right decision in the long run for the public health system in Canada. That is what takes courage.
It would be easy to write a cheque to everybody who has a claim because we all feel personal compassion for people harmed through no fault of their own, but that is not the issue. The issue of running a government, the issue of trying to save medicare in this country is how many receive cash payments because they were harmed without fault by government. That is the tough question. We had the courage to answer that question in favour of the public health system.
Hepatitis C April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, like others in the House, refuses to come to grips with the real question here, the tough question: When should the governments of Canada pay cash compensation to people who are harmed inadvertently, without fault, through risk inherent in the medical system?
Her party colleagues in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan did come to grips with that question. Those ministers of health were at the table with me, with all ministers across the country. We considered that question. We concluded that we should pay to compensate those who were harmed when it was avoidable, and that is what we are doing. 22,000 Canadians were harmed. It was avoidable. They would—
Hepatitis C April 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that debate was about something completely different. It was about the criminal justice system and the rights of victims before the courts.
In all that these hon. members have said today and in the past about this issue there is one question with which they refuse to come to grips because it is the most difficult question of all, namely, can we sustain public health care in the country if we make cash payments to all of those who are harmed, regardless of fault, through risks inherent in the health system.
They will not come to grips with that question but Canada's 12 ministers of health faced it and decided that what was right.
Hepatitis C April 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I take it the member is not asking for a legal opinion.
As a matter of public policy, the governments have done their best to determine which cases are those in which the public should pay cash to people harmed by the system. The best we can do, acting honestly and doing the best we can by people while respecting our responsibility in government, is to say that when we look at the history which Mr. Justice Krever spread out in front of us, there was a period of time during which governments could have acted and should have acted and they did not. Together we are contributing—
Hepatitis C April 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that as long as he is there to ask questions, I shall be here, as long as the Prime Minister wishes me to serve as Minister of Health, to respond. I shall respond in a straightforward manner. I shall respond honestly and with feeling by saying that this is a tough issue. It is not easy. It is difficult.
None of us likes to say no to people who have been innocently harmed and who are asking for something which we cannot give. I am here to say, as I will say tomorrow, next week, next month and next year, that as a matter of public policy all governments of this country took the same position and we are doing the right thing. This is the agreement we all came to. This is the agreement by which we will stand. It is the only way we can maintain a sustainable public health care system in this country.