Rob Merrifield

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. member mentioned, if I was correct in what he assumed last evening, which was a take note debate, that the opportunity was there to put that to a vote. I think that is what he said. I would say that would be against the procedures of the House and as a former House leader he would know that. I would ask that he correct those statements.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I find it absolutely alarming, when we want to do what is right by the victims who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood, that the minister, who sat in his seat last night and suggested in a take note debate that he wanted that too, would sit in the same seat today and vote against a motion in the House that would urge him to do exactly what he said he wanted to do. I find that amazing.

From my hon. colleague's perspective, what does she think the minister's motive was in doing what he did just a few seconds ago in the House? I would like to ask for her perspective on exactly what happened and why the motion she put forward to extend hours to limit debate on this actually happened.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to answer that one.

We could have and probably should have debated this issue until 10 o'clock this morning if we were waiting for the outcome of the U.S. election. It would have been appropriate to do so because this important issue has been on the minds of Canadians for a long time. Whether a person is impacted or not, a sense of the fairness of this issue drives Canadians to understand that it was a dark day in Canadian history and needs to be corrected.

With regard to the comments of the minister last evening, it seemed to me that he was trying to say that he wanted to do the right thing, but he had not yet talked to cabinet. If he had talked to cabinet and said that he had been discussing it with his colleagues and there were some details they needed to work out before it was done, I would feel a little bit more comfortable, but that is not so. In fact, he has not even approached cabinet yet.

We have to understand who is in cabinet. The people in cabinet are the same ones who were there in the last Parliament. I very aggressively let them know how much money was in the fund in just the last few months, yet they were unwilling to consider it. There were all kinds of excuses why they could not pay and compensate appropriately.

Forgive me if I am a little skeptical of, maybe not the intent of the minister, but perhaps the ability of the minister to do the right thing in this case. That is why the House has to encourage cabinet and the minister to do the right thing on this issue and it needs to be done now.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to answer that question.

We actually have documentation showing that the government was aware of the possibility of the problem with tainted blood in the blood supply in Canada as far back as 1981. That is no excuse. We could go around and around on this one, but that is a terrible legacy. Outside the window we knew about the blood and we should have been liable as a country back that far and beyond.

We should compensate those who are victimized by tainted blood through no fault of their own. We should treat them fairly from one side to the other. We cannot just pick the window of 1986 to 1990 and think that we are doing the right thing. That is almost worse than not dealing with them at all, because we are treating one segment completely different from the rest for absolutely no reason. That is why it is very important.

That is why the health committee looked at this very seriously. We made a motion on it urging the government to move on this immediately. We need concurrence of the House to do that.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Health presented to the House on Monday, November 1, 2004, be concurred in.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

This is a very important motion and I would like to explain exactly how it came to the House. This is a motion that was made in the health committee and it was a unanimous decision by the committee. Unanimous decisions are not all that striking in themselves but the House has to understand that this decision was made unanimously and it went against the direction in which the government has gone for the last two parliaments.

It becomes very significant when government members will sit in a committee room, discuss the issue and realize that they were in error for the direction in which the government had been going on the issue of compensation to hepatitis C victims outside the window for the last seven years, or even a decade. It becomes a very significant issue to understand how it came to the House.

We made the motion in committee. It was a unanimous decision to compensate all those victims outside the window. There was another motion made in committee which was to bring it to the House and have it reported here. It was reported on Monday so my notice of motion was for the concurrence of the House to recognize that the decision of the committee is the right direction in which to go. We are asking the House to concur with that motion. It is a very legitimate request and we believe that the House should concur.

There is $1.1 billion left in a compensation fund that started at $1.2 billion and all of those who are within the window have already been paid. We know the numbers outside the window are much reduced compared to the estimates that were made initially. There are about 5,000 left, maybe 6,000 at the very most. There is absolutely no rational reason why we would not compensate outside that window.

We had a take note debate in the House last evening to discuss the issue. The minister said that he would like to pursue this and plans to take it to cabinet. When I looked at the cabinet ministers I realized that a number of cabinet ministers who were against this for the last decade are still sitting in cabinet. Therefore, I am a little nervous about the direction in which they will go when they are in the cabinet room. That is why it is very important for the House to send them a message urging them to do the right thing.

There is no reason that this should not happen. The funding is there, although the decision should never have been based on the funding. It should have been based on fairness.

We have to understand that all of those outside the window who were impacted by tainted blood who got HIV and which progressed to AIDS were compensated. It is only the hepatitis C victims. Not only was there discrimination of the individuals, it was also of the disease itself. Because of that, in the sense of fairness if for no other reason, all victims of tainted blood should be compensated.

It was a terrible time in the history of this country when the citizens felt that the blood system was safe and it was not. The government knew. It had been forewarned that it was not safe but it proceeded. We could go on and on with the rationale and the history of the situation. I do not know if it is important to do that at this time. What is important is that we make sure that the House has an opportunity to speak to the cabinet and to the government in power with regard to doing the right thing for all Canadians.

The decision in 1998 should have been to compensate all those outside the window, which coincides with the Krever inquiry. That was the right thing to do then. It is the right thing to do now. We still have time to do the right thing and I encourage Parliament to send that message.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Madam Chair, my colleague is right. The numbers were obvious at the time. I think that will be an historical fact. It is not something we really need to debate. The political will was not there to do the right thing, and that also will be an historical fact.

Woe to us if that happens on our watch. We have an opportunity to change that. We need to do it. The fund is there, the money is there, the victims are still there and the opportunity to do the right thing is there. The minister says that it is complex and we have to think this and think that. However, it is not complex; it is very simple. We either do the right thing or we do not do the right thing.

When it comes to the actual numbers, as my colleague says that will go down as an historical fact. He is absolutely right. I encourage the House to soberly consider the opportunity that we have before us.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Madam Chair, it is interesting when the member says we have no power to control what is actually in the courts. We had the power to limit it from 1986 to 1990 when we actually had the figures to know that it was the wrong decision at that time.

It actually scares me when my colleague suggests this because what he is really implying is that we could make a decision in this House and it would not mean anything. I believe that the decision should have been made not based on how much was left in the fund. The decision should have been made on what was the right thing to do for the victims of the day.

To say that we cannot access the funds is a shallow argument when one really looks at what the member is saying. That is like saying, “Oh, we have a little bit of gravy left over so we will apply it to try to ease our conscience”.

That is an inappropriate way to look at this. We had the figures back then. We need to do the right thing now. We needed to do it in the last government when there was a majority in government. The government had a majority in the House. It had total control of this. Nothing has changed from a year ago, as far as the fund goes. All that has changed is perhaps the pressure that has been applied to this issue at this present time.

Let us just make it happen now. Let us stop pointing figures and make it happen. We can get into a lot of the politics of it and I think the government of the day should wear some of the politics of it. That is fair enough. When one makes decisions, one has to live by those decisions and pay the price for them if they are the wrong decisions. I think that is fair. Let us move on this now. We have to do it and do it in an aggressive way.

I would like to challenge my colleague. Tomorrow he will have an opportunity to vote in this House and to put feet to his words if he really wants to compensate victims. So let us see that happen.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to rise to add to the debate this evening with regard to this important decision. I hope the minister and his colleagues in the Liberal Party are genuine about some of the comments I heard this evening.

This is a new Parliament, a new phase, with a minority government. My greatest hope is that the House will truly reflect the will of the people who put us into office, which is the democratic reform that I sense is necessary in this place. I see this House as somewhat dysfunctional and my hope is that during a minority government we can actually add some democracy to this place. If true democracy breaks out I want to be here. I want to see that actually happening because it is very important. I know we jest about it somewhat, but it is not a funny matter when members of Parliament are not able to reflect the will of the people who put them into office. That is the fundamental right of democracy. That is what it is all about.

This issue has gone on for almost a decade. Victims have passed away during the time that the government in power said it was feeling the pain of the victims and understood the plight and wanted to do what was right. Well, I hope so. I really do. I will give it that option. I am going to lay it out as easily as I possibly can so that the government can truly reflect its words this evening.

I have the privilege of serving as the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Health. At the very first meeting we came to I brought forward a motion that we compensate all victims following the Krever inquiry. Mr. Krever spent four years on the inquiry and said that all victims should be covered, in light of the size of the fund, particularly. The motion was before the Standing Committee on Health and the committee, to the credit of all parties, agreed unanimously to the motion. The motion was then reported to the House yesterday. When it was reported to the House, I gave notice of a motion for concurrence for that motion. That will happen tomorrow afternoon.

Tomorrow afternoon we will ask the government in power and Liberal members, given the words the members of government have spoken this evening, if they would actually put feet to those words, and stand and support the motion that was a unanimous decision of the Standing Committee on Health.

If their true intent is to work as aggressively as possible, and that is what the minister and his colleagues just said, to compensate the victims of hepatitis C outside the window from 1986 to 1990, then it should be a very easy thing for the House to reach a unanimous decision tomorrow afternoon. That would be a great day and a great victory, not for any one party but only one group, those who were victimized.

It is not going to solve their problems, but it is a step toward the fairness of treating them all equally. I think that is what has been overlooked in this entire debate. It is something that absolutely has to happen. As members of Parliament, as leaders, and as legislators we must be responsible and responsive to the needs of those people, in fairness as true Canadians.

I want to bring the potential of tomorrow's motion to light in this debate tonight. I also want to talk about some of the facts of this fund. The fund was set up with $1.2 billion. That is a lot of money. Some $300 million has been paid out of that fund. In that fund, because of interest and so on, there is $1.1 billion left in the fund after everyone is paid out within that window of 1986 to 1990. In fact, it grew $56 million more than it paid out last year.

Therefore, when $1.2 billion is put in and $1.1 billion is left and everyone is paid out within the window, the idea of not having the funds to pay out the rest, when we actually know those numbers, is not valid. The government, at the time it made the decision, said it was not sure how many were actually going to come forward, how many victims were really out there. Its numbers were 20,000 or 22,000 plus. We said those numbers were wrong and we were right, the numbers were wrong.

In fact, through the other fund the minister talked about, $300 million went to the provinces to compensate some outside that window. We know what those numbers are now. We know that there is going to be roughly 10,000 total. Those are estimates, but they are fairly close, and we know what they are. We know that the fund will be able to facilitate paying everyone out fairly and justly.

The reason for not paying out evaporates. It was never there originally. That is my frustration this evening when I hear the sounds of compassion coming from the other side. This has been a fight. These words and these arguments were used for the last eight years since the Krever inquiry reported and they fell on deaf ears. Did the government not believe it?

Even as early as last year I personally challenged the health minister of the day on her numbers. We said that we have the money to compensate and these are the numbers. It was all there, yet the minister refused to hear these arguments and understand them. This evening we are all of a sudden supposed to think that there is a complete reversal, that the lights have come on, and there is a new revelation and new information about the numbers. The numbers were all there. They were there a year ago; they were there three years ago. They were there in 1998 when the House was whipped into a vote that went against those victims outside that window.

What is interesting is that we say there are new members. I know some of my colleagues are brand new to the House and they say it was not their fight back then. Maybe to some degree that is true. We had this debate in the Standing Committee on Health and we started looking at the fact that those who are in power in the cabinet today were here back in 1998 when the decision was made.

I can say the Prime Minister was there. I can say the Deputy Prime Minister was there, the Minister of Finance was there, and the Minister of State for Public Health was there, and the Minister of the Environment was there. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs, National Defence, Human Resources, Agriculture, International Trade, Indian Affairs, Veterans Affairs, International Cooperation, the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers, the government House leader, the President of the Treasury Board, and I could go on and on, they were all there and they are here today. They had all this information over that same period of time.

Forgive me if I sound a little skeptical about what might happen in the vote tomorrow. I am here to lay out as aggressively as I possibly can, and that is what I think a debate should be, the arguments for why we should stop playing games and think of the victims.

I would like to end by thinking about those victims because they are really the tragedy of this whole debate. They were the ones who, through no fault of their own, contracted hepatitis C when the government knew the blood system was faulty and the potential of risk was there.

Some of the problems that happened with this disease have been talked about. They include fatigue, jaundice, nausea, hair loss, unresponsiveness, forgetfulness, trouble sleeping, weight loss, problems with water retention and so on. They are debilitating.

In fact, I want to read part of a letter that I received from a constituent in my riding. It says it all. It was from a woman whose husband contracted hepatitis C before 1986. She wrote:

I was married to a man who had a zest for life, had many friends, was popular in the community through volunteer work, enjoyed sports and loved his job. But because of hepatitis C, he was now shunned by his community. His many friends slowly disappeared and he couldn't play sports any more. He felt that all the years of hard work to establish a good reputation at work had been compromised somehow. But besides the mental damage he had endured, there were the physical changes. After losing 40 lbs. to a weight of 125 lbs., his hair fell out in clumps and his body was covered with rashes and cracks, and bled. He had constant migraines and vomited regularly. When I look in the mirror, this is the man that I had married at one time.

This just a small portion of the countless number of letters that have flooded in from victims right across this nation. It was a sad day when the decision was made in 1998.

Looking ahead, we have an opportunity to correct that. We cannot erase the wrongs of past years. That is beyond our ability to do. However, we can do something for those remaining victims and their families before it is too late. We have the power to do that. The victims are watching. Canada is watching. Let us do the right thing.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, this is an interesting subject. Would my colleague comment or agree with me on this? I would have felt much more comfortable if the minister had risen this evening and said that he had been examining this since he received the portfolio, that he knew this concerned the last Parliament because of the number of questions and the amount of pressure that was put on by opposition on this issue and that knowing the now number of dollars in the fund, he initiated this as something to be looked at. I would have felt much more comfortable and I think the victims and Canadians would also felt more comfortable had he done that.

The problem I have is the minister stood this evening and said that cabinet would have to look at this. That means the cabinet has not even talked about it. I do not know how this cabinet will feel about it. I know exactly how the past health minister felt about it because I asked her the questions in a very aggressive fashion, not more than just a few months ago.

There were just as many funds then as there are now. Would my colleague agree with me that there is some suspicion with regard to the sincerity of what is happening? Perhaps it is the new dynamic of a minority government and the pressure that we as opposition can put on this issue now, more than the true intent of wanting to do right by hepatitis C victims.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I was intrigued by the minister's comments.

First, he said that the issue was very complex. To some degree that is true, but to some degree it is not complex and is very simple. It really boils down to an issue of fairness and compensating those who were victimized through no fault of their own. One group from 1986-1990 was treated completely different from those outside that window.

Not only was it discriminatory for those individuals with hepatitis C outside that window, but those who were victimized by tainted blood and contracted HIV-AIDS were all compensated. They were completely outside that window and yet it was only hepatitis C victims between 1986-1990 who were compensated.

This is an issue of ultimate fairness and it goes against Canadian values and principles, that we treat people fairly and equitably. That is why in the Conservative Party we are so adamantly against the way in which the government treated hepatitis C victims for the last decade and so insistent that we follow the Krever inquiry. We looked at this for four years and came up with the recommendation that everyone outside that window should have been compensated.

We are looking at it and saying that we should consider the other victims because the fund is more than what we expected and the number of victims was not as great. We told the government many years ago that the numbers were false. I am a little suspect when the minister stands here and says cabinet is considering it. I think cabinet should do more than consider it.

Would the minister comment on what consideration, more than what I have just laid out, the cabinet would make in terms of compensation?