Joe Volpe

[Hepatitis C, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this issue tugs at the heart strings of everyone. I indicated to all members yesterday that the governments of Canada, all of them taking into consideration the suffering of all the victims of hepatitis C, put together a package that addressed the most immediate concerns of a clearly identifiable group. All of them did that in partnership. They said at the same time we are not stopping any others from pursuing all avenues open to them through the procedure—

[Hepatitis C, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I just said to the member a moment ago. The Prichard commission recommended the general criteria for determining compensation should be under a scheme that would pass the test of avoidability, that the principal inquiry to determine if an event is compensatory should be whether with the benefit of hindsight the injury could have been avoided by an alternative diagnostic or therapeutic procedure.

That is what doctors, justices and lawyers presented as evidence to the governments of Canada—

[Hepatitis C, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it would probably irk the member opposite to know that the Government of Canada and all its partners at the provincial level have been studying this very profoundly and have been relying on expert support for all their decisions.

I make reference to a report by Robert Prichard who is now the president of the University of Toronto and a blue chip committee concerning all compensation schemes for persons suffering significant avoidable health care injuries. We recommended general criteria for determining which significant medical injuries are compensatory under—

[Hepatitis C, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned what I did yesterday I was trying to give an indication to all members who are concerned about hepatitis C sufferers that there are plans in the works to try to alleviate the most immediate consequences of this debilitating disease.

I gave an indication that the provincial health ministers together with the health minister of Canada are working on the plans available under the social safety net that included CPP and all other types of programs. Those discussions are ongoing and would be put into effect for—

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments because as earlier on in the day, the debate has moved partially away from the issue at hand and on to political tactics. Political tactics are fine. They are partisan and everybody who watches this debate understands this is a side issue that does not have much to do with the motion.

On the substance of the motion, I am sure that all those following the debate want to be appraised of the issues at hand. The last speaker along with the other colleague from his party made references to federal responsibilities and leadership on the matter of infection. He will know and he will want everybody following the debate to have a full understanding of all the players who had a role in the management of the blood system.

I wanted to make some comments so I could have an opportunity to give them a full appraisal of the issue. He will recall for everybody who is engaged in the debate that one of those players, the one responsible for administering the blood system, as of this coming September will cease to have existed, the Red Cross, a venerable institution.

Second, the provincial authorities responsible for administering health care have also participated in this and have put forward a package for everyone to consider. I know—

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is important for all members who want to be productive and instructive for all who are watching this debate to give a sense of direction and focus as to which aspects of what I have just described as the avenues available for all victims they object to.

I have pointed out that the legal route is always there. Nobody wants to curb those rights. There have been none diminished. Second, the social safety net which we have worked hard to reinforce, restructure and solidify is there for each and everyone and will be enhanced in these cases. Third, one very specific component is the disability function of the CPP which will address a most urgent and immediate need for those who precede that first option.

The offer we have on the table I might remind all members that came after much discussion and debate with all partners is one that must in the end be supported by an independent arbitrator, i.e. the courts.

If members on the other side of the House are objecting to people coming forward and in the spirit of co-operation trying to resolve the most urgent problem that is directed to the period in time when governments could have acted differently and did not, then I think they should identify those and say so. They should do that rather than engage in what has become the prattle of what will happen on procedural motions in this House.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment. Forgive me if I again try to shed a little elucidation on the issue at hand today. I am sure members of the general public watching this debate are not finding the focus on the internecine party and partisan issues very helpful or productive to the discussion at hand. One could wonder whether parties that vote en bloc are being disciplined to a vote but others are being coerced into a vote. I do not think that is very helpful to the debate.

What might be worthy of understanding is that all victims are still capable of accessing the social safety net that is there and is enhanced for everyone. I refer specifically to additional health care services that will be provided for all those who are victims. Second, there is the Canada pension plan disability component that addresses urgent and immediate needs. Third, there is always the procedure which I mentioned earlier on that have not been abrogated, that have not been limited, that have not been dismissed which is the opportunity of every victim and his or her family to proceed either individually or in class before the courts for compensation.

None of those avenues have been restricted or diminished. It is important to keep those things in mind to frame the debate.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I know you will accept that this is a time for questions and/or comments. I wanted to reflect on the date that the member gave us in his presentation. It was a good presentation and one that deserves consideration by all members. I was trying to be helpful by giving an indication that 1987 falls within those parameters. If I did not hear that correctly or if there is an error then it might be helpful to the people concerned to correct that. I do not mean this to be trivial or partisan. It is an important thing to keep in mind.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I find, as usual, that a debate on such a sensitive and emotional issue requires very careful reflection. I am moved, as I am sure all other members are, by the example of Chase and others. I have a very close friend in my riding who is a cause for some serious concern.

I think the debate would be helped along by recalling a couple of things. If I am wrong perhaps the member opposite will correct me. First, the offer that is proffered for victims to consider is based on the acceptance that those who were infected at a time when governments could have done something different and did not, that this is a case where they ought to then come forward with a package similar to the one that we have addressed.

Second, perhaps in this specific case it might be worthwhile to remember that 1987, if I heard the member correctly, is a date that is included in that particular package.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on such a serious topic as this I hope you will interrupt me if I engage in shameful partisan snipping. What I would like to do instead, contrary to the tone of some of the discussion so far, is to ask the member whether he has reviewed the facts as they stand before everyone, victims, assistants and members.

The member probably will recall that all victims have recourse to the courts. Very importantly, what is associated with that is that no action by the Government of Canada is taken to deprive people of an opportunity to seek compensation in the courts.

As I said to the previous speaker, the compensation package offered to a group of victims is dependent upon the accord of the courts. There has to be approval by the courts if the package is accepted. That does not preclude any other packages that may be sought afterward. It is an important distinction that makes members opposite feel uncomfortable. However, this is the case in a society where we have the rules of process determining everything that ought to happen.

If the member opposite wants to continue to speculate on the internal politics of all parties in this House, then that is a good way for him to determine the priorities of the people he would pretend to represent. From our side we have put something on the table which gives everyone an opportunity to consider it thoughtfully, deliberate and to make a decision. That does not exclude anyone. The rules of procedure allow everyone to seek satisfaction. The Government of Canada does not close the door on any of that.