Joe Volpe

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising the issue of political discussions in this House. This is of course the place to have political discussions. I think he perhaps deterred debate a little when he talked about procedures and the significance of procedures in the House. However, what I think he really wanted to talk about were the merits of compensation packages placed before victims for consideration.

If I could be allowed a moment I would like to present this to members of the House for consideration so they can understand exactly what it is that 13 different governments in this country established after taking into consideration all the health priorities, government priorities and concern for each and every one of their electorate.

The governments came forward with a package to establish a $1.1 billion fund to compensate victims. They also stated that services would be provided by the provinces over and above the normal services.

Finally, and most importantly, something we should not ignore is that there is a third component to this which is that the courts must accept all of the deals or go on to what is available to everyone right now which is access to the courts for consideration of—

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because it allows me to remind myself and everyone else that the motion gives us an opportunity to address the entire issue.

Like the member opposite, I was a little dismayed that we were not addressing the issues as he presented them or had begun to present them but we were talking about procedures.

Since he has raised the question of the relevance of Judge Krever's impact on the motion today, I regrettably could not finish so that I would have satisfied his question prior to its being raised.

I will take the opportunity to do that now. I want to advise him that in dealing with Judge Krever's very comprehensive report one must take into consideration the nature of risk in a complex biological substance such as blood and blood products. Canadians understand that even when safety is at its highest, the very nature of blood means that we can never let our guard down.

Judge Krever advised Canadians that because of the nature of blood there should never be complacency about safety. How to make a safer, better system which is prepared to face new and emerging threats to safety is one of the key challenges facing all those involved, including governments, scientists, medical and technical specialists, patients and donors.

Health Canada is a regulator of the blood supply system. Health Canada regulates blood and blood products under the Food and Drugs Act and the department conducts national disease surveillance. Those roles preclude active involvement in the operation of the blood system, but as a regulator Health Canada is committed to the same high standards of accountability, openness and transparency that we expect from the provinces and territories in the operation of their blood systems. Canadians deserve no less.

Let me describe some of Canada's recent efforts to strengthen the blood safety system, which is directly relevant to the member's question. First, Health Canada has established a blood safety council to advise the government on matters of blood safety and to be a source of information and guidance on such matters from a national perspective. Consumers sit on this council.

Second, the department is working actively with other partners to reduce risk of bacterial contamination of blood. Third, it is developing a regulatory framework that will take blood regulation forward into the future. It has an expert advisory committee on blood regulations to provide expert input on specific blood regulatory matters. Fourth, disease surveillance capacity related to blood safety has been strengthened. A blood-borne pathogens unit has been set up and improvements in field epidemiology have been made. I am happy to say that today Canada has a stronger capacity to respond to new and emerging blood safety risks as a result of such improvements, improvements recommended by Judge Krever. This is evidence that the government attaches great importance to blood safety.

Members want to know that the government is working to identify potential new threats to the safety of our blood supply and that it is ensuring that never ends. The government will provide a million dollars a year to the Canadian blood services, money that will be specifically targeted for blood science, research and development. That funding will keep Canadians in the forefront of blood science and maintain Canada's position in international blood research.

I know members want me to use the rest of the time to point out that in the new system Canadians are building, better science will be there to support strong and effective regulations. It will be there to help the system meet the highest safety considerations and it will be there out in the open for all stakeholders to review.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the previous two interventions and to the questions and answers associated with them. I am more relieved now that we are back in focus. I thought initially, without being sarcastic, that the issue was no longer one as indicated by the motion but rather one of wrangling about parliamentary procedures.

It is important that on an issue like the one before us today we think in long term vision, we look at the errors of the past, we try to reconstruct and go forward.

In dealing with the complex issue of assistance for those Canadians infected with hepatitis C during a time when the blood system could have responded differently but did not, it is important to point out that all Canada's governments, the territorial and provincial governments of all partisans stripes as well as the federal government, have taken decisive actions to ensure that such tragic events do not occur again. It is a point that should be kept in mind as we debate the issue over the course of this day.

It is also important to keep in mind that public faith and confidence in blood safety have suffered as a result of past events. We should not exasperate that. Canadians need reassurance that the blood supply, the blood system today, is safe and effective in Canada as it is in any other country. That is what I would like to speak about today, the progress made by governments to resolve the issue of confidence in blood safety.

I am pleased to inform the House on how governments, this government in particular, are working together with partners to build a new, safe and integrated blood system. In speaking about that progress, I will be speaking about partnership. Restoring confidence in blood safety and building a better blood system hinges on bringing many partners together to achieve a common goal. Partners and stakeholders are essential to any effective national system. This spirit is our guide in building a better blood system where all stakeholders can have confidence that they play a role and have a voice that will be heard.

In Canada, as elsewhere, governments, consumers, those harmed, their families, specialists, scientists and others have all been working to ensure safer blood supplies and better systems of delivery.

In Canada we have made a great deal of progress in designing an appropriate structure for our new blood system. Working closely together with our provincial and territorial partners who own and operate the blood system as a part of their health care systems, we are well on track with transition plans.

A transition bureau has already been appointed. The bureau is working hard to ensure that the new Canadian blood services is up and operating as soon as possible with a target date for September 1998. Of course many operational details still have to be worked out. However, all those involved are committed to making the transition as smooth, as seamless and as safe as possible.

Canada's new blood system is a product of consensus and partnership among all key stakeholders. This is only right because the blood system belongs to each one of us.

By continuing to work together partners and stakeholders will achieve a new system in which we can all take pride. This is not just a technical or management exercise. Rebuilding confidence means earning respect and the good faith of blood donors, consumers, patients and all our citizens.

Mr. Justice Horace Krever's commission provided a clear assessment for Canadians about what went wrong in the 1980s and how we can ensure that it never happens again. Justice Krever set a path that governments and stakeholders are following. The way he has shown was drawn from what he heard during the extensive hearings of the commission and his careful deliberations on the events of the past.

One way we can show we have learned from the past is by building a system with all the feasible safeguards to ensure the past does not happen again.

Throughout the course of public hearings of the commission consumers, transfusion medicine specialists and management experts identified many deficiencies in the old blood system. They identified flaws as a lack of systematic, co-ordinated and rapid response in the face of emerging safety risks. They saw a lack of accountabilities for safety and governance. They saw rigid financing arrangements that did not reflect the focus on priorities of safety. They observed a fragmentation in blood science and research and development. Governments saw all this as well.

The Government of Canada took a lead role in bringing provinces and territories together to discuss ways to solve these problems. We asked consumers and scientists to join in the discussion. We consulted, we listened and we considered options.

Last September at a meeting in Fredericton, Canada's health ministers built on the substantial progress that had already been made and made a decisive step forward in the creation of a new, single agency to manage Canada's blood system.

The new Canadian blood services moved a step closer to becoming fully operational by September 1998. That agency will be responsible for managing all aspects of an accountable, fully integrated blood system. It is based on four key principles that government set out for the new blood system in 1996, principles which partners and stakeholders endorsed with enthusiasm.

First, the safety of the blood supply is of paramount importance if we want to earn the confidence of Canadians.

Second, a fully integrated approach is essential if we are to have a clear and coherent system in which all participants work effectively and co-operatively.

Third, accountabilities must be clear so that people inside the system and outside it know who is responsible for action.

Fourth, the system must be transparent because it needs to operate in full view with its windows and doors wide open for public inspection. All those involved in the planning of the new blood system will examine his advice carefully.

Let me say a word about Quebec. So far, Quebec has decided not to be a part of the blood system plans. Quebec is pursuing its own efforts to incorporate the blood system operations in its health care system.

Ways to collaborate with the Canadian blood system and the new blood system can be discussed. Of course blood and blood products used by patients in Quebec have to comply with federal regulations for safety and efficacy, the same as anywhere else in Canada.

What role does the federal government play in the new blood system? The role is quite different from that of the provinces and the territories. The provinces and territories are responsible and accountable for the national blood program. They set funding, broad health policy objectives and ensure the overall integrity of the system. The Government of Canada is supporting them as they manage the transition to the new system. This is very much in keeping and consistent with our role in pursuing better ways to improve and enhance the health of all Canadians.

For that reason, the government agreed to provide a grant of up to $81 million to support the start-up of the new system. Will the Government of Canada play other roles now and when the system is up and running? Of course.

Blood safety is a priority for the government and the government will continue to work to make blood as safe as it can be.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Come on, Randy, tell us who it is.

[National Organ Donor Week, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that this week is National Organ Donor Week, a time for us to focus and to recognize the special generosity of those who donate organs and tissues.

During this week professional and voluntary organizations encourage families to discuss and make decisions about organ and tissue donation. In addition, health professionals are urged to examine ways in which they might participate in the organ and tissue donation awareness process.

All levels of government are working together to enhance Canada's organ and tissue donation and distribution system. I invite Canadians to consider organ and tissue donation and to sign a donor card or the consent portion of their driver's licence if they have not already done so.

I would like to thank the thousands of Canadian organ and tissue donors and their families for their selfless gift of life. I would also like to salute the many volunteer and professional organizations that promote and support organ and tissue donations during this week and throughout the year.

[Hepatitis C, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the compensation package that is on the table is one that all victims can access.

It is those victims who regrettably are limited to a time when we can identify the cause. Those who do not want to participate in that package are quite free to proceed in the courts.

I remind the member and all members in the House that there is a third party: all negotiated offers are subject to court approval. Those who prefer to go a different route still have that option.

[Hepatitis C, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for all those who have suffered from this terrible tragedy. However I think it is important that the member keep in mind that the estates of the victims who have since passed on are also eligible in the compensation package.

All governments of Canada of all political stripes have taken to heart the need to address this issue in the best possible fashion.

The member opposite ought to take a moment to reflect on the fact this is something extremely positive that all victims can access. Should they wish not—

[Hepatitis C, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to review some of the details of the package that are there for consideration.

It is true this represents a combined negotiated approach. All governments of Canada, all political parties of all stripes, have come together to put an offer on the table to address the needs of victims that were longstanding and were facing a long process in the courts.

We all agreed including stakeholders that—

[Hepatitis C, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, compassion and fairness are to be seen in the package itself. There is an offer on the table representing $1.1 billion that victims can access as well as an estimated value of $1.6 billion for services in addition to those that are regularly provided under Canada's health care system through the provinces.

This represents in my view a very fair and compassionate address to a problem that has been longstanding and that we want—

[Hepatitis C, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite has taken a very calm approach to a very serious problem.

Ever since the Krever commission submitted its report and even before, the Government of Canada, in collaboration with its provincial counterparts in the health departments, has taken an approach to deal with the issue on a fair and compassionate basis.

The package that is now before Canadians represents just such an approach. We hope people will take a look at the package as it is and address it in the very many positive points that it presents for victims of this tragedy.