Ujjal Dosanjh

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, let me reaffirm on the previous question. The government of the day felt that it was the appropriate decision to make on hepatitis C. Circumstances have changed, and we are making what is now the right and responsible decision.

However, on the issue of the Internet pharmacies, the Prime Minister and I are of one mind. The Prime Minister has said that very clearly. The Prime Minister supports the positions that I have taken. Once again, it is a very difficult issue. It is an issue of adequately safeguarding the safety and supply of drugs for Canadians. We are looking at all options in the event that we need to use them to safeguard that supply. We will continue to monitor the issue and we will continue to look at all the legal options available for us if and when they are needed.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I believe the right thing is being done. Lawyers have been mandated to discuss all available options. I believe it may take several months. I said that before, and I am prepared to say that again. These are difficult issues involving several thousands claimants, several sets of lawyers and several class actions. We have to talk to the provinces and territories and to all the lawyers on behalf of the claimants.

These are very sensitive issues. I do not wish to politicize the issue at all. That is why I have conducted myself in an extremely non-partisan fashion on this particular file.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I was not here and I do not want to be judgmental about these issues. These are difficult issues at any time. I think all of those who made the decisions felt that those were appropriate decisions for those times. Times have changed and circumstances have changed.

It is important that we remember when we make difficult decisions, we are not always right. Quite often we are right and quite often we may not be. What we are doing today is the right and responsible thing to do. It is important that we not now interfere in the discussions that are taking place by talking about the mandate the lawyers might have.

Lawyers have been given the mandate to look at all available options to provide financial compensation to the hepatitis C victims, pre-1986 and post-1990 and as part of the consideration, they will be looking at that potential actuarial surplus.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

I appreciate that, but it is important to remember that cabinet deliberations are confidential. Yes, the deliberations took some time. This is not an easy issue. This is a very difficult issue with a long history and with a lot of tears shed both by the victims and those who had to make tough decisions.

I appreciate all the history. Having appreciated all the history on all sides of the House, it is important that we take whatever steps we take after due deliberation.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would urge the hon. member to resist the temptation of making remarks after I have answered the question so we can move on to his next question. Otherwise, we will get bogged down with respect to the previous answers as well. That would be a good practice.

I appreciate that he is new in Parliament. I am new to this place myself, although I have some earlier experience. It would be wonderful if we could move from question to question without unnecessary commentary.

With respect to the hepatitis C question--

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is important to remember that the Auditor General made some excellent recommendations. Yes, the Department of Health has not moved as fast as it should have due to the issues of privacy and consent.

We just saw a press release from the Assembly of First Nations indicating that, while they actually agree with some of the recommendations made by the Auditor General, they are concerned about issues of privacy and consent.

We may not need consent and privacy in collecting the information. However, in preventing abuse, preventing double and triple prescriptions and unnecessary prescriptions, we do need disclosure. The Department of Health is trying to buy upgraded computer equipment so that we could actually deal with these issues at the point of sale. We are making the best efforts that we can.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, if the hon. member insists on making a remark after I answer a particular question, then I should be able to answer that remark in addition to the question that the hon. member asked.

My position on the tobacco issue remains what I said in my earlier responses.

However, with respect to the new question, let me say that the Department of Health accepts all of the recommendations, without any reservation whatsoever, made by the Auditor General. They are good recommendations. We will follow through with those recommendations.

I will ask the department, as we change according to the recommendations and implement those recommendations, to consult with the Auditor General from time to time to ensure that the Auditor General is satisfied with the changes as we are making them.

The Department of Health, long before I got here, attempted to make some changes. There are issues of consent and privacy that are involved, and that is why the speed of the change was slow. It is obviously not as fast as I would have liked it to be.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Absolutely not, Mr. Chair. We will never side with big tobacco. We are not siding with big tobacco now and we will not do it in the future. We are simply trying to protect the Canadian taxpayers so that the class that is certified is not unnecessarily illegitimately broad. That is the only reason why we are there.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, obviously, this is not an easy issue, but it is not a simple one either. Yes, I am a strong proponent of tobacco control.

In my earlier life as the attorney general and the Premier of British Columbia I took several actions. I was the first one in the country, as attorney general of British Columbia, to commence legal proceedings against tobacco companies for doing the damage that we alleged that they have done.

It is important to recognize that the action here, on behalf of the Government of Canada, has been brought about as a result of the government being forced to be a third party in the action that has been brought in British Columbia against Imperial Tobacco. The Government of Canada is not there of its own volition.

The Government of Canada may eventually apply to be struck as a third party; however, in the meantime, to protect the interests of the government and the taxpayers of Canada, it is important that the government is there and acts in the best interests of Canadians so that the class that is certified to be a class in that action is not unnecessarily broad and illegitimately broad. That is really the only purpose why the government is there at this point.

[Health, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue of the adequate supply and safety of drugs for Canadians and we are continuing to monitor the issue. We believe there are no shortages at this time. However we are looking at all options to deal with the issue.