Allan Rock

[Hepatitis C, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness we live in a country in which the people who are infected, no matter when they were infected, have a wonderful health care system to rely upon.

For those who were infected during the period 1986 to 1990 all governments have come to grips with the question of when government should compensate those who are harmed by the system.

The hon. member knows that every day in every health care facility there are procedures carried out that involve risk. Is she saying that the public health care system should compensate everybody?

[Hepatitis C, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ignores distinctions that do not suit her purpose. She is slipping away from the difficult dilemma in confronting the difficult principle that has to be brought to bear in cases like this one.

For those before 1986 thank God we have a health system in the country that will care for them and a standard of excellence to look after them in their illness. Thank God they will be treated. Thank God they will be the beneficiaries of excellent research in the country.

For those before 1986 we have a medicare and a health care system to look after them in their illness. For those after 1986, in the period to 1990, we are acknowledging that—

[Hepatitis C, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what all the governments of Canada have done, all governments of all political affiliation, is apply a single principle. That single principle is that public intervention to offer assistance is appropriate when it can be identified that at a point during the chronology something could have been done by those responsible to change the outcome.

The hon. member should think through the implications for the publicly funded health care system if we are to adopt the principle that everyone who is harmed, regardless of any circumstance, will be compensated.

[Hepatitis C, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition uses high sounding phrases but he does not come to grips with the dilemma facing governments in this situation, a very difficult dilemma.

We are dealing with a medical and health system in which there are sometimes risks. Before 1986 the risk of infections through the blood system was well known. After 1986 it was known and there was something that could have been done about it. That is the difference.

Where do governments compensate? Do they compensate women who have high risk deliveries and babies delivered with brain damage? Do they compensate the people who have anesthetics and suffer adverse reactions? Mr. Speaker, this is—

[Hepatitis C, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this terribly difficult decision was made by 13 governments in the country. All the provincial governments joined with the federal government in coming to the conclusion that for the period 1986 to 1990, when something could and should have been done, government should accept responsibility to compensate.

As a result, as the Prime Minister has said $1.1 billion is being offered as assistance to the victims who were infected during that period, as well as those who were infected by those people.

[Health, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond to such undifferentiated generalities, but I hope the member will know, among other things, that a science advisory board chaired by Dr. Roberta Bondar, a distinguished Canadian scientist, working with 15 or 20 other scientists at the top of their fields is now looking at the scientific capacity in Health Canada, including in the health protection branch.

We are committed to the safety of the public. We shall do what is required to ensure we have the scientific expertise to ensure that the highest standards of quality permeate every aspect of health care.

[Hepatitis C, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have explained the rationale and the approach that governments have taken and it is clear from the record.

Medical procedures and forms of treatment bear with them an inherent risk. When people go into the hospital for an operation sometimes things go wrong and they are harmed.

What differentiates the period for which we are offering assistance is that something could have been done at that time and was not. That is the difference between the years 1986-90.

[Hepatitis C, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the question in this difficult case is in which period should government step in and take the extraordinary step of compensating those harmed through the operation of the system.

The answer to that question is in that period during which this was not simply an unforeseen risk but during which something could have been done and was not done, that is the period for which compensation should be offered and that is the position of the governments of this country.

[Hepatitis C, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would look at the history of the matter he would see that the facts themselves speak clearly for distinguishing the period 1986 to 1990.

I might add for the hon. member's benefit that we are offering compensation not only to those who were contaminated with hepatitis C during that period, but also to those who may have contracted HIV, either through a spouse or a parent, as a result of contamination through the blood system.

All governments in this country believe this is the right and responsible way to act.

[Hepatitis C, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the chronology of the tragic events which led to the hepatitis C infections through contaminated blood is now very clear. It is a sad history.

One feature of that history which I have been stressing, which was very influential on governments, was that during the four-year period from 1986 to 1990 many of those infections could have been prevented had those responsible for the system acted as they should have.

The federal government is contributing $800 million and the provinces are contributing $300 million to a fund totalling over a billion dollars to assist and to aid those who were infected in that period.

We believe this is good public policy. We believe it is the responsible way—