Allan Rock

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 13 ministers of health, including those from Saskatchewan and British Columbia, took into account what the Krever commission had recommended. We took into account the need for compassion but also faced up to our responsibilities as ministers of governments who have to make the right decision.

In all those circumstances for the reasons that were explained on Friday and developed here in the House today in response to other questions asked, we chose to proceed as we did. It is noteworthy that all governments in Canada acted together in making that decision.

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's position is that we have offered compensation. Details will be negotiated with the victims' legal representatives, and I hope negotiations will begin immediately.

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member can play to the gallery if he chooses, but this minister sat with his fellow ministers in front of those very victims on Friday. We sat there for an extended period taking questions from the victims. This minister has met with those representatives. This minister has spoken to the members of the Hepatitis C Society. He has met with the victims of before 1986. Then this minister made a decision and that is my responsibility.

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is entitled to his view.

I can tell him that ministers of health from across the country looked at this tragedy. They decided that the period 1986 to 1990 is set apart from all the rest of the history because it was a period during which something could have been done to change what happened.

Before that, it is very difficult to distinguish the tragedy of those who were infected before 1986 from those who have an adverse outcome from any part of the health or the medical system when people act in good faith and unintended consequences occur.

[Health, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my intention is simply to discuss with the provinces our shared priorities in the health care sector, which includes home care or community care. We are moving toward ambulatory care, as Minister Rochon is doing in Quebec. It is important to have a community care infrastructure to support the shift toward ambulatory care.

I intend to discuss a joint approach with Quebec and the other provinces, and to reach an agreement with them on what is a priority for Canadians.

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I take a different view of the facts. My provincial colleagues, my counterparts, take a different view of the facts. I have explained the principle upon which we proceeded. The member is entitled to disagree.

This is the basis upon which all governments have approached this matter. If we are to compensate people who are harmed however tragically through no fault, with people acting in good faith based on the evidence that is in hand in the medical system, then that is a very dangerous course on which to proceed.

We have identified the principle upon which we have acted. All governments are agreed that this is the appropriate approach.

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I think it is clear that 1986 was the year of demarcation, when countries to whom we compare ourselves, such as the United States, put in place as a matter of standard practice a test for looking for this contaminant in blood.

This is not a partisan issue. At the table last week with me were ministers from Conservative provincial governments, from NDP provincial governments, who all agreed as a matter of public policy that this is the right and the responsible course to take.

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Krever did his job. He was speaking about just the blood system. He made his recommendations. Then it was up to governments to do their job, to take responsibility for making decisions about the health system in general.

I have explained to this House and to the public of Canada the basis on which we proceeded. The distinction between this and the other cases referred to by the hon. member is that in those cases they proceeded on the wrong principle. Here we are proceeding on a rational analysis, a basis of principle which will remain a distinction justified by the facts. It is a distinction with which I believe the Canadian people will agree.

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the best history of all of this tragedy was written by Mr. Justice Krever who spent four years going through the evidence. It is clear from the chronology that 1986 was the turning point. That was the year in which the countries to whom we compare ourselves internationally, for example the United States, adopted surrogate testing. That was the turning point.

It is for that reason that all health ministers agree that the period 1986 to 1990 should be the period during which we make a distinction compared to the rest and that is the period during which compensation will be paid.

[Hepatitis C, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall and I do not think my colleagues, the ministers of health, can recall any decision which has been more difficult than dealing with this issue of compensation for those who innocently were tainted by contaminated blood.

However, we also agreed that we should proceed on a principle. We agreed that we should look at the situation to determine whether distinctions could be drawn. To say that anybody who has an adverse consequence from the health system, no matter fault, no matter good faith, no matter the state of scientific knowledge, should receive compensation is not a principle on which we—