Allan Rock

[Hepatitis C, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear, when confronted with a situation where there are people harmed by risks inherent in the medical system, governments have to choose. Part of leadership on the part of the government is making tough decisions to protect the long term sustainability of the health care system.

This is the age of the class action. It is the age of claims against governments. Just last week we were sued in a class action by those who claimed that mercury fillings are causing health risks. Is the member suggesting the government should make cash payments to all those who have claims arising from the system?

[Hepatitis C, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member refers to this government but she must also refer to the provincial governments who have taken the same position on the basis of public policy, Tory governments, her own party in Prince Edward Island, her own party in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta.

Just last week Canadian researchers disclosed that thousands of people lose their lives every year because they use prescription drugs as directed but have adverse consequences. Is the member suggesting we pay cash compensation to the estates of all those victims? The implications of that approach for the health system are serious—

[Hepatitis C, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks as though this was the unilateral act of one government. All governments took part in this. In fact Progressive Conservative governments in Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta all took part in this agreement.

We are paying $1.1 billion to 22,000 victims of hepatitis C. Is the hon. member suggesting we pay cash to all those who are affected by adverse reactions to vaccines? Is he suggesting we pay cash compensation to all those who have outcomes in the health system which reflect the risks? I think not.

[Hepatitis C, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in many ways the easiest thing to have done would have been to write a cheque and pay cash to everybody. In fact one of the reasons we get into public life is that we want to help others, particularly the sick and the vulnerable.

At the end of the day those who are in government, those who have positions of responsibility, must make tough decisions, must make responsible decisions about where cash payments should be made to those who are harmed through the public system.

On this issue and in this instance we see every government in the country in a remarkable display of unanimity coming down on one side—

[Hepatitis C, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Minister of Health said at all. What the Minister of Health said is that if we look at the tough question of when should governments pay cash compensation to those who are injured by risks inherent in the medical system, then you are approaching a difficult question of public policy. Thirteen governments agreed on that question of public policy, that in this instance they should pay for the period during which governments could have done something to change the outcome. Governments could have acted and did not during those four years from 1986-1990. That is why we chose that period. It is a very broad question beyond that as to whether everyone harmed should be compensated.

We concluded that you cannot keep the public system of health care in this country if you are going to—

[Hepatitis C, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks as though this was a unilateral act by this government. In fact it was a decision shared in by all governments, indeed Progressive Conservative governments among them. The Government of Prince Edward Island, the Government of Ontario, the Government of Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative Government of Alberta all agreed that this is the appropriate approach.

I say to the hon. member, do not duck the tough question. Face the tough question of public policy. That is what the ministers of health did and we believe we have done the right thing in terms of public policy.

[Hepatitis C, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that we find unanimity among all the governments in Canada on one issue, let alone an issue as difficult as this one. All the governments in Canada agreed on the public policy question of compensation for hepatitis C victims. It was not easy. It is a tough issue.

The hon. member does not paint it correctly when he describes it as he did. It is a very broad question of just where the state's role is in paying cash compensation to people who are harmed through the health system, through medical procedures which all inherently carry risk. I urge the hon. member—

[Hepatitis C, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, our priorities in this matter are shared by Quebec's Minister of Health and the Government of Quebec. We shared the position expressed in the agreement. We agreed with all ministers, all provincial, territorial and federal governments that, for us, the priority is to maintain the public health system in Canada, and therefore to compensate only those who contracted the illness during the period between 1986 and 1990, during which time the governments were responsible.

[Hepatitis C, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member belittles the legal analysis and then he proceeds to create it by talking about negligence and fault.

The member illustrates the difficulty of the question because if in fact governments are going to pay for that for which they are responsible through fault, then indeed the ministers of health are right in saying the period 1986 to 1990 is the period during which compensation should be offered.

Before that hepatitis non-A, non-B, which is what it was called, was a known risk in the blood system but the authorities agree that it was not until the early part of 1986 that Canada should have put the test—

[Hepatitis C, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member cannot escape the larger point. Whether it is breast implants, whether it is pharmaceutical products that caused death or other damage, the broader question is at what point does the state have a responsibility to pay cash compensation to those who are injured because of risks inherent in medical procedures or medical devices. That is a very large question.

The ministers of health of Canada, all of them from all governments of all stripes, in a very unusual move were unanimous in saying that in this particular tragedy in the years 1986 to 1990 when something could have been done, that is the period when compensation should be paid.