Joe Volpe

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member opposite on a very emotional and passionate intervention. I remind him that people on this side of the House are no less sensitive or compassionate. As I said in my earlier intervention, we let our actions speak as loudly as our words.

We have in the past through the Minister of Health engaged all victims of this terrible tragedy in consultations. We have kept them involved and have considered all their needs. They were brought to the table, which led to the package that has received nationwide attention over the course of the last month and a half.

I may be a little unfair here and I will do a mea culpa if I am. The member and the member who preceded him wanted to draw attention to the fact that all of us share a particular responsibility. His colleague, the member who preceded him, was very forceful in indicating that the federal authority bears full responsibility for the tragedy. I know members on the opposite side of the House want to reflect on the way the blood system worked.

Yes, there is a federal regulator. The provinces, as they know, are directly responsible for administering the health care system. The Red Cross at the time was responsible for co-ordinating and delivering the blood system. Together they had a responsibility to the public for the safety of the system.

I know members on both sides of the House when they quote Krever will remember what he said in the interim report, that what Canadians wanted was a system that was accountable, transparent and, above all, safe.

When we are talking about responsibility I know members on the other side want everyone to remember that this is a shared responsibility and words like fully do not enter into the conversation, into the dialogue, and should not be part of the rhetoric.

What should be part of the debate is the important steps taken by the federal authority starting from the interim report of Krever to move immediately and forcefully on all aspects of the report that related to the federal responsibility to ensure that we have at the very beginning confidence in a blood supply that was to be as safe as any other in the world. We started doing that a couple of years ago and have continued on that basis. That should be a priority.

We should also ensure that the accountability is transparent and that everybody understands where it comes from. I know members on the other side, even when they are prone to rhetoric in the House, which I imagine is the proper place for it, will not want to forget where the lines of responsibilities lay and will lie.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the discussion about a date is causing some confusion. It is not an arbitrary date. It is not a whimsical date. It is a date everybody is looking at.

We are talking about a period in which something was generally available, a mechanism was generally available and people could have done something and did not do it. It is important to understand that. We are talking about something that all interveners have suggested, that somebody else is responsible for a condition which is regrettable and tragic. Everyone acknowledges that but the moment that we recognize that the fault is inherent we have to point the finger. The finger was pointed specifically by those who have investigated the situation as starting about 1986.

If the member opposite wants to as well discredit other previous speakers, for example the member for Macleod who talked about tests being available in the seventies in which he as a responsible medical practitioner engaged, and he wants to refer to that as a point of reference, that is fine. Let him as well address some of the issues that flow from that.

I think it is important to underscore that this is not an untenable position. It is a position that everyone has agreed has some basis in reason and rationality. For him to engage in hindsight and the accuracy of the hindsight about tests being available, I ask him to think again about whether they were generally acceptable and whether there was action on them.

The reason the 1986 date was fixed, and it was not arbitrary, is authorities recognized that something could have been done then and was not done.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the leader of the NDP for acknowledging, as she heard my presentation on the matter, that the Government of Canada has been acting responsibly, reasonably and purposefully on behalf of all victims. I initially called them consumer groups but I indicated that they are sufferers, victims of hepatitis C.

I am happy to acknowledge that for once there has been a member of the opposition who has thought through the presentations of the government and has agreed that there is merit.

With respect to her question about whether I am addressing the issue presented by her motion directly, I would like her to reflect a little bit more on the first few words I used in my intervention. Specifically we have already over the course of negotiations that led to the offer which is under discussion talked with representatives of hepatitis C victims. We talked to the individuals themselves. There were consultations by the federal Minister of Health in all cases. All of those issues were brought forward in the negotiations with the provincial and territorial health ministers.

When someone speaks through actions, does that not indicate they are acting in the same responsible fashion that the opposition members would suggest we ought to adopt? If we have kept victims, victims representatives and victims groups in the loop of consultations leading to the package under discussion, have we not already done what many would suggest we ought to do?

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose in an environment such as this where people are trying to take the high moral ground about who is doing the best for whom it might be worthwhile for all of us to reflect on what is taking place. It is important.

Part of this national debate on blood is to note that the consumers, and we have called them the victims of hepatitis C, they have always been involved in the process. Their input remains crucial and critical to the refinement of the policy, so much so that we have turned directly to victim representatives in order to establish how that initial package of $1.1 billion should be spent.

I am not happy about the climate but it is important to keep in mind that ministers in this government and especially the current Minister of Health have had extensive consultations with representatives of groups affected by the blood crisis, as did ministers in other jurisdictions.

The consumer perspective was an integral part of the process of negotiations and consumer representatives were appraised of developments throughout the process. Representatives of groups such as the Canadian Haemophilia Society and the Hepatitis C Society of Canada met regularly with a variety of politicians and their views were fed into the process at various stages.

The blood system is ultimately about people, altruism and equity, not federal provincial relations, not partisan politics and not political advantage. As soon as we come to realize this not only will we have a more constructive debate but we will all be better off.

When Canada's governments agreed to offer assistance to Canadians infected by hepatitis C through blood they were building on a base of knowledge and the considered views and inputs of many groups. Consultations are continuing and will continue as formal negotiations with victims and their representatives proceed.

I will address one of the more technical aspects of offering financial assistance so members will be able to appreciate the importance of consultations and open lines of communication with groups such as the hepatitis C society. As many members in the House are aware, governments are offering to settle litigation. An offer to do so differs therefore from the standard approaches to program development and the amount of money governments put on the table does not flow into a clearly defined program to render benefits but rather is placed before the courts as part of an effort to negotiate a settlement of legal claims arising from a specific set of factual circumstances from the past.

I draw the attention of the House to the importance of the three class actions initiated in three provinces during the 1986-1990 period. As is normal, when the courts are approached to resolve conflict, settlement is always a preferred option. The Minister of Health has been on record for quite some time about his desire to settle the litigation in an expeditious way so that plaintiffs would not be obligated to wait years to determine how the courts would rule on their particular cases.

Many Canadians are likely not familiar with the mechanism of a negotiated court approved settlement. While this way of doing things carries many complexities, it has several advantages. First, the negotiations take place under the aegis of the courts so there is an emphasis on fairness in the final determination of that settlement. Second, both sides of an issue are brought to the negotiating table to work out the details of the settlement in a way that is both transparent and accountable. Third, that flexibility is available to both sides in the determination of the specifics of a settlement package so that many aspects of what is inevitably a complex problem, which hepatitis C poses in society, can be addressed.

Negotiated court approved settlements have been used on several occasions in the past in health areas to deal with the complexities of injury from health systems. While negotiated court approved settlements are not perfect venues for addressing all social problems, in cases where the issues are difficult and there has been an adversarial context, they offer a way forward which is both fair and open. Consultation with and involvement of groups and their representatives is inherent in the process.

There has been some suggestion in society that we can substitute for court mechanisms through other processes such as mediation, arbitration, et cetera. While these alternative dispute mechanisms are gaining popularity, in the present state of affairs in the justice system most affairs are transacted using traditional mechanisms. The seriousness of the blood tragedy and the long term importance of these negotiations to the lives of those affected argues in favour of employing a well established, well understood mechanism to achieve a settlement.

Accordingly, governments have instituted negotiations with plaintiffs through the courts. One of the major advantages of this approach is that it can accommodate a variety of what are called structured settlement negotiations. This means that far from being a simple once off transfer of funds, a settlement can involve a variety of mechanisms to accommodate medical need and medical risk over time.

Government negotiators will be indicating a preference of ministers for an initial lump sum payment combined, and I stress that word, with variable payments over time geared to severity and disability. This is a suggestion only and plaintiffs may have different views, but it does indicate the power and potential of the structured settlement context to meet individual needs over a lifetime.

While we are in the early phases of considering what long term implications of hepatitis C from the blood issue are, during the course of these negotiations governments will be displaying their knowledge of the epidemiology, natural history, research dynamics and treatment potential associated with hepatitis C so that the best evidence and research can be mobilized to achieve solutions in this area for a large number of people.

At the same time the negotiations will take into account different preferences arising from different circumstances of the plaintiffs. The process is therefore very flexible and open to a very wide group of people, input and many points of view.

Another important element of the negotiated court approved settlement context is the potential that it offers to design a national solution to this issue which was initially a regional class action. Certain provinces through their class action legislation have the potential to create national classes to which all Canadian residents who qualify could subscribe.

Part of the dynamic of the negotiated court approved settlement will be to ensure that such a national class context emerges. This is not to say that individuals will lose any of their traditional rights before the courts, but rather to emphasize that class action legislation provides a potential to generate national frameworks for resolving issues of health injury.

One thing we want to do at all costs is to avoid the balkanization of approaches to an issue and issues that are fundamental as those raised by the blood tragedy. A Canadian in Newfoundland should have exactly the same rights in this area as a Canadian in British Columbia and others in between. The justice system should not be used as a vehicle to advance benefits to some at the disadvantage of others.

The courts have traditionally addressed medical injury using a particular format: pain and suffering and economic loss. This format has been engaged in the case of hepatitis C as well and is inevitable on the basis of the calculations which will be made in and around partial or total liability in this area. This does not mean that we need to be limited to this format in determining how a settlement could be structured. Indeed a structured settlement could be based on a variety of formats, including medical need over time.

The power of such an approach is that it would allow individuals in like circumstances to be treated alike and individuals in unlike circumstances to be treated differently. This would undoubtedly enhance the perceived fairness of any settlement.

Mr. Speaker, I know you want to cut me off on this but I appreciate the fact that you have been attentive so far and I thank you.

[Police And Peace Officer National Memorial Day, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague opposite has been in this place for such a long time that he should know his party and the parties on both sides have members on the House procedures and affairs committee that make decisions about how to deal with the motion.

While the government side supports the intent of the motion, it also respects the decisions made by the all party committee.

[Police And Peace Officer National Memorial Day, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion to designate the last Sunday in September as a national police and peace officer memorial day. I do so on my own behalf and especially on behalf of my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General and I hope on behalf of all other members on this side as well.

For the past 20 years Canadians have honoured police and peace officers in a memorial ceremony and reception for the families and colleagues of officers killed in the line of duty. That memorial takes place on the last Sunday of every September. Each year this memorial service has been conducted on Parliament Hill. It is always a well attended event. In fact it is a day when all of us set aside our differences and pay our respects to those who sacrificed their lives so that we can live safely in our communities.

Chief Thomas Welsh first introduced the service in 1978 in response to the shooting death of Ottawa Police Constable David Kirkwood in 1977. Since then Constable Kirkwood's memory is honoured each year along with others who lost their lives so suddenly and tragically.

Now in its 21st year the memorial service has had in attendance special guests such as the Governor General of Canada, numerous solicitors general, members of the fallen officers' families and police officers from around the world. It is a solemn occasion to pay tribute to the men and women who have given their lives over the years to protect all Canadians. It is an occasion for families and friends to remember their loved ones. More important it is an occasion for all of us to remember that part of the reason we live in a safe and just society is because of the dedication of police and peace officers.

Each year we hope that new names will not be added to the list of the memorial. Sadly this has not been the case. While Canadians live in one of the safest countries in the world there have been times when danger could not be avoided and when those on the front lines have lost their lives while protecting the safety of others.

Although those in law enforcement garner a great deal of respect from Canadians they are also facing unprecedented challenges.

In our current social environment there is a public perception that crime is much more prevalent than it actually is. Even though crime rates have been steadily decreasing in recent years, the perception is that crime is on the rise. Police race relations, youth gangs, violent crime, organized crime, drug trafficking, smuggling, hate crime and even fear of crime are at the forefront of the daily challenges police face across this country.

These competing demands make it even more necessary for police, our communities and government to continually look at how we can do things better and to find new ways to meet these problems directly. Responding to crime and criminal behaviour is no easy task. The very nature of police work involves some intrusive and at times aggressive interventions in order to control situations and to solve crimes. It is important to provide a fair and equitable framework for police work in legislation.

As part of this government's safe homes and safe streets agenda, we have done much in the way of improving the tools with which police are able to carry out their duties. We have worked very hard to introduce legislative reforms that strike the right balance.

In addition to the memorial tribute each year, this government continues to honour the work of peace officers across Canada by doing what we can in our capacity to provide the tools that those in law enforcement need to do their jobs as safely as possible. That means providing legislation that tackles crime head on such as the anti-gang legislation which was passed last year. It means focusing correctional resources on those who need it most. It means ensuring that we continue to live in safe homes and safe streets.

This motion speaks to the need to officially recognize a service that has taken place for over two decades. It has become a tradition we observe each year and it is clear that the families and colleagues of fallen officers count on all of us to pay tribute to the memories of those who are no longer with us. It is a time when we all pause to reflect on the contribution our police and peace officers make to our society and to honour the fallen.

A formal national memorial day such as the one proposed in this motion will serve Canadians well. Quite often it takes a ceremony of this magnitude for us to realize that our safety sometimes comes at the cost of our best and brightest peace officers.

While many of us take public safety for granted, Canada is one of the few countries in the world where we can walk in our streets and feel relatively safe.

Public safety is a priority of law enforcement for this government. This is demonstrated on a number of fronts. It means providing legislation to tackle crime head on such as the anti-gang legislation which was passed last year. It means focusing correctional resources where they will be most effective. It means taking crime prevention seriously to ensure that we will continue to live in safe homes and safe streets.

An official recognized national police and peace officers memorial day would provide Canada with a specific occasion to express our appreciation for what we have. This government is committed to taking a balanced approach to reducing crime in Canada which includes the underlying factors that lead to criminal behaviour.

The hallmark of our efforts includes close co-operation with federal, provincial and territorial governments. It is essential in order to build an effective and efficient criminal justice system.

The record on public safety speaks for itself. Since the last peace officers memorial, this government has taken steps toward making Canada a much safer place to live. First, we have introduced legislation to create Canada's first national DNA data bank so that repeat offenders can be apprehended more quickly.

Second, we have supported studies that tell us more about the nature of crime and what we can do to change the behaviour of those who commit criminal acts.

Third, we continue to work with our partners across Canada and beyond our borders to stop crime in its tracks.

Fourth, we will continue to take tough measures against violent and dangerous offenders.

Fifth, we remain committed to making improvements to the legislative foundation of Canada's correctional system, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, where the need for change is demonstrated.

There is more to be done and this government is prepared to take on the task. In the name of public safety and for the safety of those who work each day to enforce our laws on the front lines, we will continue to build on our successes and to learn from our past.

This government supports Motion No. 342 and I am sure all members will do the same.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1998, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me on behalf of the Minister of Health to support the opening remarks made by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment on Bill C-32 and to bring to this debate the perspective of the Minister of Health.

Health Canada's mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health as a colleague opposite indicated during question period. To protect and promote the health of Canadians is a federal responsibility embedded in the constitution.

The Department of Health plays an important role in the application of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and will continue to do so under the new legislation, which bears the appropriate title of an act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.

I would take this opportunity to remind members of our responsibilities under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

In conjunction with Environment Canada, the Department of Health conducts investigations to identify substances requiring immediate attention, it evaluates the risks presented by such contaminants, drafts regulations under the act, such as regulations on the provision of notices and the evaluation of new substances and, finally, develops national strategies to control toxic substances.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was and will remain a significant legislative measure for protecting public health. Other legislation generally focuses on controlling substances in products, whereas this act controls the dumping of contaminants into the environment at source throughout their production and use.

Canada's action on lead is a good example of the significant and measurable benefits to human health that environmental legislation can and does make. We have a variety of legislative means of controlling exposure to lead in Health Canada through for example the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, the Hazardous Products Act and the Pest Control Products Act. These have all played their part in reducing risks to human health.

It was only through the use of CEPA that we could control a major environmental source of exposure for the general population, lead in gasoline. Similarly, regulatory controls have been put in place under CEPA for PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, used in the past as insulation fluid for transformers; and dioxins and furans, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans, which are toxic byproducts from the incomplete combustion of chlorinated material.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is an important mechanism for addressing the issue of toxic substances because of its framework for identifying, assessing and managing toxic substances. This is what Canadians want, a comprehensive approach for managing toxic substances throughout their life cycle, that is, from production, through use, to disposal.

The basis for economic progress is wealth creation. At the core of wealth creation is the contribution of knowledge, knowledge of how to transform the gifts of nature into wealth. It is essential to remember first that nature's gifts and how abundantly we have them here in Canada are not infinite. This is not a bottomless treasure trove. Second, it is salutary to remember that human development is at the core of sustainable development. One cannot have sustainable development without healthy people, a fact that we have underlined in our department's sustainable development strategy entitled “Sustaining Our Health”, tabled in parliament in December 1997.

I know my colleague who spoke a moment ago would want to take note of that as being a little different from his recollection of history and parliament at least as it relates to innovative legislation from this government.

I would like to take this opportunity, though, to remind hon. members that the preamble to the declaration on sustainable development to which Canada committed by signing agenda 21 of the Rio declaration states: “Human beings are at the centre of concern for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature”.

It is these twin targets that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has in its sights. It is an act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health. This legislation then is is intended not only to protect our environment for its own sake but it aims also to protect the environment because of its direct links with human health. These are not disparate targets but vitally linked, linked for life.

One is reminded of the saying that our fate is connected with the animals, from Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring published in the early 1960s, a book which did so much to promote the awareness of the need for environmental protection.

I know Mr. Speaker remembers the environmental movement of the 1960s. You lived through it as a young person in university. I recall your activist days at Queen's University and then later on in Toronto. You earned quite a name for yourself in this regard. I know you did not want me to draw attention to that. But in view of the fact that members opposite are interested in the activities of all members of this House prior to their presence here in this institution, I thought it would be appropriate to draw attention to the fact that you were not always a Speaker nor a member of parliament but quite an active and interested citizen of this great land.

While we are happy that movement generated your presence in this House, it is also worthy of note that the environmental movement of the 1960s culminated in the establishment in Canada of a strong federal presence on the issue with the formation of the Department of the Environment in 1972.

We have come a long way since then when a series of high profile ecological disasters worldwide spurred on the environmental movement. Our view of the issues has changed as has our means of protecting the environment.

In Canada this federal involvement began with the environmental contaminants act in the mid-1970s, legislation which seemed fine at the time. By the mid-1980s it was clear the act needed expanding and strengthening. In 1988 the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was launched.

As the cornerstone for federal environmental protection with the arrival of the 1990s it was time for the review once again of the administration of our environmental protection legislation by a parliamentary committee. I might take a moment to compliment the committee on its whole and on its individual representation for the fine work it has done over the course of this last parliament and in this current parliament in coming forward with suggestions that have been incorporated in this legislation.

I would like to express on behalf of the Minister of Health my appreciation and admiration for the work of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development in laying the groundwork for the bill before us today.

It became clear from the committee's review of the present act that it could be and should be enhanced in several ways to focus more on pollution prevention and so contribute in a more significant way to sustainable development and the health of future generations.

With this very concern about the future there is the need for all of us not think in terms of business as usual or development without regard costs but about what we should do now to build a sustainable future for generations to come. That makes this bill to renew and revitalize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of critical importance as we prepare to enter the new millennium. We believe the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act is an essential tool in helping to shape the future of sustainable development.

The renewal of this act will satisfy at least two federal priorities by increasing the effectiveness of the environmental protection in Canada and by meeting the objectives of the Liberal government such as making pollution prevention a national goal and enhancing the role of the public and setting timetables for phasing out releases of those toxic substances which are of most concern.

Members will know that chemicals in one way or another are an essential part of technological development. Because of our dependence on the environment for our well-being both now and in the future, those chemicals that are assessed as toxic persisting in the environment and tending to build up in animal and human tissues must be prevented from gaining entry into the environment.

I therefore support Bill C-32 for the following reasons: its prudent approach, which consists in taking steps to avoid possible damage; its adherence to the principle of pollution prevention, which consists in taking steps to prevent contamination; its concern with reducing the overall costs associated with environmental pollution, that is to say, not just repercussions on the public's health and well-being, or its costs in financial terms, but also its impact on the cost of health care in Canada; and its science-based decision-making process.

Under the provisions of Bill C-32, the Department of Health, in conjunction with Environment Canada, will continue to assume responsibility for setting objectives and drqfting guidelines and codes of practice for the protection of human health.

In addition, and in order to respond to public concerns about the effects of pollution and toxic substances on health, the department will step up its efforts to assess and manage risks associated with new and existing chemical substances and with biotechnology products.

The federal government is increasingly aware that international action is required to address pollution from outside the country. In response to this new priority, the Department of Health will take the opportunity offered by the new bill to broaden its sphere of activity and move from a mere assessment of international atmospheric pollution to a more global assessment of international air and water pollution.

To provide comprehensive protection for Canadians in the most effective of manners, Bill C-32 complements but does not duplicate other legislation. As an illustration of this effort the federal government has included a consequential amendment to the Food and Drugs Act and regulations as part of Bill C-32. This amendment allows the Minister of Health clear authority for the first time to collect and assess information on the environmental impact of foods, drugs and medical devices under the Food and Drugs Act. To provide comprehensive protection for Canadians in the most effective manner, Bill C-32 complements but does not duplicate other legislation.

The Canada-wide accord on environmental harmonization was recently signed by the federal, territorial and most provincial environment ministers. The accord is evidence of a strong national desire to provide a co-ordinated response to environmental protection. In this context I mention the recent endorsement of the principles of co-operation on health and the environment by all levels of government which ensures a co-ordinated approach to the protection of human health from environmental contaminants.

These principles underscore the importance of environmental integrity to human health and affirm that governments in Canada are responsible for ensuring their decisions to protect the health of people and the environment for creating conditions that encourage individuals and communities to adopt sustainable practices. But we recognize that governments alone cannot solve the problems. I am encouraged by the efforts of the chemical industry which has been on the forefront of engaging in the challenge of sustainable development with its reasonable care program.

Environmental protection is an important matter for all Canadians. As we have seen in the results of recent public opinion polls, most people see issues of environmental quality largely in terms of health, their own and that of their children. They are willing to take part in protecting the environment to accomplish those goals.

In response to the recommendations of the standing committee, Bill C-32 explicitly recognizes that protecting the environment and human health is a responsibility that must be shared by all sectors of society. The present Canadian Environmental Protection Act includes participation rights. The renewed act will give the Canadian public the right to examine all phases of risk assessment and management and to provide recourse if it has reason to believe the government has failed to live up to its obligations.

Aboriginal people with their unique history and knowledge of environmental management have an important role to play. For the first time the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will include aboriginal peoples as partners in environmental protection.

Concepts such as pollution prevention and sustainable development had just emerged when the first Canadian Environmental Protection Act was drafted. It was also the case for concepts such as globalization. Today, the world is smaller. No country can live in isolation, particularly when it comes to toxic pollutants.

Canada must be ready to face the challenge of globalization. The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act will be an essential element of the federal government's strategy to take a proactive approach with environmental issues, in a global context.

The act provides a whole range of options beyond direct regulation to monitor toxic substances, and this should help us move toward an approach that better reflects the principles of sustainable development.

I provide a quote from a previous minister of health, Mr. Marc Lalonde, who did so much to promote the emphasis on preventive care in public health with his report “A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians”. He closed this report with a quotation from the Bible: “Who shall prepare for battle if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound?”

The proposed new CEPA gives a very clear and certain sound. It signals to all Canadians this government is serious and is truly committed to pollution prevention and sustainable development. Canada needs this legislation for the 21st century and beyond. I strongly urge all members to support it and I thank them for their attention.

[Health, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member opposite will join all members in this House in applauding the wisdom of this government in some of the measures it indicated already in the budget.

We have indicated several billions of dollars worth of extended benefits through transfers to the provinces. There is a transition fund that is designed to improve research and development in the area of health sciences. There is an additional $800 million that the federal government itself put forward for hepatitis C. The hon. member would probably be delighted to know that the CAPC program has been expanded to $100 million.

I do not know how much longer she would like me to go on, Mr. Speaker, but I—

[Health, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has tried to confuse several issues here. I thought she was going to be talking about hepatitis C, but I gather that she abandoned that. She must have abandoned that after she heard what the Saskatchewan health minister, who is a member of her party, indicated about the cheap partisan treatment of this issue.

If the hon. member has another specific program she would like to address, I would be delighted to address it.

[Hepatitis C, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the bluster is going to be impressive for all those going through this terrible time. It would be more helpful to recognize the fact that there is something available already.

In response to a previous question, I gave the House an indication of what the ministers of health of all the jurisdictions are considering and that is the assistance under the current social safety net which, by the way, we support but they do not. In addition, we have left open all the opportunities still available to them through every other type of procedure, both legal and governmental. I indicated—