When this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 last sat, it had been considering the Estimates of the Department of Health. During those Estimates, the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) had moved a motion which reads: that this committee recommend that the Legislature and the House of Commons hold a free vote on whether to extend compensation to all victims who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood.
The motion was under debate when proceedings were interrupted at 5 p.m. yesterday for private members' hour.
The honourable Minister of Natural Resources had three minutes remaining.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to conclude my remarks. I understand the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is prepared to speak and that we had agreed that we would be prepared to hear fully from both sides of the table on this issue.
I just summarize my main point of interest from yesterday which is that I think we have to be careful that we do not divide on the lines of partisan disagreement and forget about the fact that we are looking for the best solution, one that does not set a precedent that we cannot live with but at the same time being well aware of the very difficult and very unfortunate circumstances that many people find themselves in in relationship to this issue. I will conclude my remarks there.
* (1440)
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I first wanted to say that I think every once in a while, not often enough, but every once in a while in this Legislature we have the opportunity to have an exchange of views about fundamental issues. I think that with very few exceptions the remarks made yesterday were helpful in some ways in pointing out the dimensions of the debate.
I want to say, in particular, I thought that the honourable Minister of Natural Resources' (Mr. Cummings) remarks, who just concluded, I found to be an honest struggle with very fundamental questions, and I want to compliment him on his struggling with the issue in particular. There were also some moments of humour. I had not ever heard about the Clapham omnibus, but now that I know about it, I can say that I have gained something from my honourable colleague for River Heights. He claims he has ridden on that particular bus, and I have not, but it is an interesting test.
I want to say, first of all, that I think all of us on both sides of the House are well aware of the legal and ethical and political ramifications of this issue, and my honourable colleague for Osborne did not make this motion lightly. She put it forward, I think, at relatively early opportunity, and, of course, the minister will remember that we asked in the fall sitting of the House questions about compensation for hepatitis C sufferers. So this has been an issue on our minds, as it has been on the minister's mind and on the public's mind for some time since it was first understood that there was a new variant of hepatitis that was blood-borne and, obviously, then, could be contracted through that mechanism.
So I do not take exception to the remarks of the honourable minister who suggested that we have to rise above pure partisanship. I think that is very true, and I think that we, at least on our side of the House, have tried to do that because we hold this issue to be one of a deep ethical content, and deep ethical questions cannot just be lightly struggled with. They are not questions that can be just tossed off as though there were simple answers; there are not.
I want to start by recognizing a concept that was perhaps most popularized by Ivan Illich, who wrote about iatrogenic illness. Iatrogenic illness is essentially illness contracted from and essentially caused by modern medicine, that is, that in modern medicine's quest for dominance over disease it sometimes unwittingly and sometimes with knowledge introduces into the practice of medicine risks which were not there. Obviously, before we knew how to do blood transfusions we could not get anything from transfused blood because we did not do it. Before we did general anesthetics, we could not have the kind of pneumonias that often accompany the effects of general anesthetic on some particular individuals who appear to be more susceptible than others to respiratory distress after a general anesthetic.
Iatrogenic illnesses are illnesses that come about as the result of modern medicine. Depending on the authorities that you seek to learn from, iatrogenic illness counts for a great deal of what we wind up treating in our illness care system. It is very well known that a large number of admissions to hospital by seniors are as a result of the improper use of drugs that have been prescribed for proper purposes. It is well known that sometimes drugs interact in ways that are not predictable and cause very serious illness, and in the case of my father, for example, caused his death.
Now, he died of anaphylactic shock, which is just a pretty word for a severe allergic reaction to an iodine dye. In the little hospital that he was being treated in they did not yet know apparently that you are supposed to do skin tests before you administer that particular drug. This was in 1965. He simply went into shock as soon as the drug was administered and he died. We did not hold the hospital system liable for that. We did not sue the doctor. We did not run around blaming people, because in some ways his life had been saved by the medical system several other times. So in some ways it does not make sense to rush around and scream blame. That is an issue that is being raised by honourable members opposite: where do we compensate and where do we not compensate?
We probably, as a family, could have had a case if we had wished to do so, but I think that the honourable Chairperson and perhaps the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) would recognize that the ethics of small towns are that one does not do that, at least in this country. The notion of rushing out to sue somebody for malpractice in 1965 was a rare notion. I wish it were still rare in many cases because, to reference what the minister said and what the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) said, it is not in anybody's interest that we become more and more litigious as a society. I do not think it ultimately works well for a society that wants to stay together.
That being said, I think there is a clear principle for compensation in the case of this particular problem. I want to frame it this way, had a nurse in the Health Sciences Centre contracted hepatitis C as a result of a needle stick, as a result of an accident, in which he or she became exposed to contaminated blood and contracted AIDS or hep C, there would have been no question of his or her entitlement to compensation. It was an automatic for a number of reasons. It is automatic because of the recognition of the risk that health workers face in their jobs, so they are ineligible for compensation. It is also automatic under the principles of Workers Compensation. That I think is the principle that is most useful to think about in this case.
For there to be a compensable injury in a workplace in Manitoba or any other jurisdiction in Canada for that matter, there does not have to be any negligence at all on the part of the person claiming the injury or on the part of the employer. It is simply not a question before the board as to whether there was negligence or not in terms of the compensation issue. The question of negligence is only relevant as to whether there is some penalty to be levied on the employer for having a workplace site that is unsafe and whether that employer then is liable for criminal or civil penalties, but not as a question of compensation for the injured party. That is not the issue at stake. The minister has some question about that, and I would be interested to hear his views on this.
But as far as I understand, the nurse would be compensated automatically because she contracted her illness in the course of her work. If she received her hepatitis C, if she was stuck with a needle or whatever happened to pass on the infectious agent at work, there would not be a question. But the patient in the same facility is to be judged by two different standards based on the time of whether a diagnostic tool was available or not. I think that is not a sufficient principle on which to deny compensation for a broadly suffered injury.
The principle of compensating people for injury--and I go, for example, to the case of Federal Pioneer Electric and the two families who are finally, after many years, awarded very significant compensation, because a member of their family died from pancreatic cancer which has been linked to the exposure to heated mineral oils, by the work of a Manitoba doctor, Dr. Annalee Yassi, by the way, a very well thought of epidemiologist and occupational health research physician.
* (1450)
Now, the issue is not here. Was the workplace at fault? The workplace at the time that the exposures first occurred did not know that this was a problem. They did not have any knowledge of it but, nevertheless, Workers Compensation says this is a compensable injury. Whether or not there was knowledge that the oils were a problem, whether or not there was negligence in exposure, whether or not the ventilation systems worked properly, that is not an issue. The only test of whether or not there should be compensation is was the injury as a result of exposure in the workplace. No questions are asked about negligence in regard to the direct compensation of the worker. The negligence issue is a separate issue.
I think there is another principle in which we can look at this and that is the notion of what happened in Manitoba last year. In spite of the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) words about taking responsibility for where we choose to live, there is no argument that if someone's livelihood or house was damaged in the flood, they are eligible, without any conditions, for some kind of compensation. Now, they may have to pay a deductible, and they may have to pay some depreciation, and they may not get all of their losses covered. Those are all questions of how much compensation. But the principle of compensation is not at issue. All who received an injury are to be compensated, and they are to be compensated by the public purse.
There is a reason for that, and the reason is in a civil society, one of the marks of a civil society is its banding together collectively, through legislation and through its governing structures, its elected structures, to save its members from injuries that would prevent them from being able to continue to be part of the civil society that they have been born into or joined voluntarily. So we do not quibble about people who are flooded out. We discuss with them the level and nature of their injuries and we may audit their expenses, but we do not say to them that they are not eligible because they live on a flood plain. That is not what we do with that. We do not do that with tornadoes. There are many other things that we simply say it is an expression of our collectivity as a society that we compensate people, usually in groups, who are affected by something beyond society's knowledge or control. We do not rush around looking for someone to blame for that. We do try to take preventive measures.
That is why I hope this question of compensation does not go down the road of when was the test in Germany available and when did the first research report come out that said that there was something going on in our blood supply, because that kind of parsing of history I do not think will serve the real issue here.
I think Mr. Justice Krever had it right when he said that something of this magnitude comes along relatively rarely but, when it does, only society acting collectively has the resources to be able to offer some form of compassionate compensation for the families and individuals involved.
Simply I think this is a question of civility and not a question that belongs under tort law. If we are a civil society, then we will find ways to work collectively and compassionately to offer some level, some tangible level of compensation that goes a small way to alleviating the pain and distress and in some cases the loss of life associated with hepatitis C.
We have accepted the principle of no-fault insurance in our car system. This does not mean that there is no responsibility on the part of automobile manufacturers or drivers or builders of highways to act diligently, but it is to say that when push comes to shove and we have serious human injury or loss of function that we need to provide some compensation for that and get on with life and not spend years and years and years going through the courts.
So I think that if we could work out how to compensate all those who suffered HIV infection, then I think we could equally work out how to compensate those who have suffered from the same essential mechanism of transmission, an infection from hepatitis C. I do not know how many funerals the minister or his colleagues have been at for people who have died as a result of AIDS. I have been to a number, and I know a number of people continuing to live with that disease. I do not know nearly as many with hepatitis C, although I have one friend who has recovered actually after a great deal of treatment. It seems to be in remission or whatever happens to the virus after it stops what it was doing to him. He lost a lot in those two years that he was sick, but he is reasonably well again and I am very glad for that.
So I do not know the scope of it in Manitoba, but I am led to believe that the numbers in Manitoba are actually quite small, of people with significant hepatitis C involvement. There are many more who appear to not be reacting to the virus though it may be present for whatever reason. We do not understand the mechanisms I guess completely as to why some people get so sick and some people seem to continue to function quite well without reacting.
So I would put forward those thoughts on this issue. It is a complex issue, but I think it will be very hard to maintain at the end of the day that there is a date, and, of course, the trouble with dates is that they are quite exact. They do not allow for much variation. So at 12:01 on January 1 of some year, people will receive compensation, and those who appear to have received their transfusions on New Year's Eve will not receive compensation. I think that principle will ultimately fail us as a principle on which we can test our compassion and our civility as a society.
So I do not know whether the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) wishes to speak next, but I would be happy to hear the thoughts of the minister. I know we are going to continue this debate. I am sorry that the government is not prepared to have a free vote on this issue either here or in Ottawa, but I do think it is an important debate and I welcome the opportunity for putting the comments I have on the record.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Mr. Chair, I just want to respond to some of the points raised by the member for Crescentwood, and I would agree wholeheartedly with him that this is, I think, one of those occasions in this Legislature where we really do have a very thoughtful debate with a very difficult ethical, legal and moral issue. I think all of us who have come to this issue, and particularly as a provincial Minister of Health who had been working with his colleagues across the country and been immersed in this issue for some--almost a year now--nothing about it is easy. I appreciate his comments and some of the points that he raises.
* (1500)
What I would like to just say in responding is I do agree with him wholeheartedly that it is society who ultimately has the wherewithal, in many cases, to deal with the personal disasters that afflict us as individuals from time to time in our lives, or may afflict us from time to time, whether that be a natural disaster that wipes out our home or a disaster of illness or unemployment, that collectively we share some responsibility in one pool or another of the community to provide for that common need, that individually we could not be expected--for most of us at least who are of more limited means--to be able to provide for our own ability to deal with that disaster.
If that is a health disaster, a severe illness--we all remember the days before medicare where a severe illness, as my father used to say, you lost the farm, and that we decided as a society over time, and I think it was a good decision in Canada. One of the things that, I think, distinguishes us from our neighbours to the South is that recognition that illness, or the ravages of age which is a more common affliction, should not wipe out our ability to support our families and earn a living.
As well, he has flagged the disaster assistance program which is not in itself a compensation program, and that is one comment I would make. I have had the opportunity to be intimately involved with that program in my early years as an MLA when I had some major natural disasters happen in my constituency--windstorms, et cetera--that caused a great deal of damage, and so I worked very closely with the Disaster Assistance Board and many constituents.
One of the things we often forget that that is not a compensation plan in the sense of compensating for loss. The purpose of the disaster assistance plan is to ensure that people are returned to some livable condition, that if they have lost their home that they are able to be put in a position where they have shelter if their means of earning a living have been significantly damaged and there is some assistance to assist them to be able to again return to earning a living.
The reason I raise that is I know one of the issues in my area--and the member knows a little bit about my constituency. I have a large cottage, or summer population, more rightly, I think, so a weekend population as opposed to summer, because those places are well used throughout the year, but having gone through Disaster Assistance programs, we have never provided compensation for loss of a second residence, for example. My constituents who had lost their primary residence received assistance. In some cases, there was a debate as to which was a primary residence or not, but the purpose was not to compensate for loss but to be able to have people not left without basic shelter. If a person's second property was destroyed, they received no benefit because they had a home. They had shelter for their family.
I flag that because it is part of what the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) flags as our collective responsibility in the community to ensure that no one is left destitute by some of the ills that can happen in our life. When we, as ministers, discuss this issue--and I know it is often forgotten in the media debate around it, because it does not make for a very short clip on the media--but whatever, whether it be compensation, whether it is negligence or for non-negligence, what anyone has been talking about is really in essence a top up to the existing social safety net that is in place.
Now we may argue whether that safety net is adequate or not adequate, and I probably agree with the member, or he may agree with me, that there are many parts to that that I have found in dealing with constituents that are inadequate, particularly for people who suffer from a number of disabilities or are in a position where they do not contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. There are certainly areas where that can be strengthened. But we, as a society collectively, already have built elements of a safety net. We certainly provide for the health needs of individuals. In the case of Manitoba and a number of other provinces, we provide home care, certain support for pharmaceuticals and other basic health needs, so that whether you are injured by negligence, your own doing or just life, no one, for whatever reason, goes without medical compensation.
We sometimes forget that and take that for granted, but if one were living in the United States or a jurisdiction that did not have our medicare system, your ability to access health care would be dependent on whether you insured yourself or there, in fact, was a negligence. If you were injured in a manner and did not have your own insurance, you would be really dependent on charity. We thankfully do not have that in Canada nor would I ever support that, but as part of our social safety net, we already provide the health side.
We also provide income supports. Some may argue that it is not sufficient, but certainly through the Canada Pension Plan, which we all contribute to, there is a disability component that was designed to provide some income replacement for individuals, who, through whatever fault or no fault at all, are unable to earn an income. I have a number of constituents, as I am sure the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has as well, who have come down with cancer or heart disease or other ailments through no fault of their own and are unable to earn a living and are reliant upon the Canada Pension disability pension or other private disability insurance that they have obtained in order to support their families and to be able to replace their income.
So there is already that element of a collective responsibility that I think has to be recognized. One may argue that it is not adequate, and in many cases I would share that view, but it cannot be forgotten.
The main point, or one of the issues, the principles that the member talked about, was no-fault. He used the example of a nurse working in a hospital versus a patient. He is right, that there are two ways of judging whether an individual who received hepatitis C or any other injury during the course of their work or employment in that facility, who then would be unable to work, is compensated versus a patient. The reason for that is one that we actually have wrestled with as Health ministers because the Krever commission does recommend a no-fault system of compensation for blood into the future. That becomes important for us as Health ministers in planning for the new Canadian blood system which we, in fact, will be owners and responsible for. That is an issue that we are still wrestling with: how do we ensure the future in blood. It is a very complicated issue which we are exploring currently as, in essence, the trustees of the shareholders, who are the public, of that new blood system. The difference between the example of the member here today in using the no-fault is that in every no-fault system it is decided that there shall be that system and any one injured under that no-fault system, the planning to finance that system has already been put in place.
So, in the case of the nurse who works in a health facility, they are in fact--their compensation is in essence prepaid or anticipated and paid for by the public as employers or owners of the facility into a pool to cover any injury on a predetermined basis in terms of the level of compensation. Things like pain and suffering are not covered, and other parts of the tort system or compensation under tort are not usually covered in no-fault. There is a balance between having a certain level of coverage for every injury, and the trade-off is not being able to have the full benefits that you might receive under tort if there was a negligence.
But those no-fault systems were planned for and put in place in Workers Compensation, in automobile insurance in the case of Manitoba. So they have already been set up, established and financed. So the nurse who may have contracted hepatitis C in the course of their work in essence has already been enrolled in an insurance plan that provides a predetermined level of coverage should the circumstances, that being inability to work arising out of the course of work, have been met. Patients are not part today of a no-fault scheme in our health care system. They are still part of the tort system, and they of course can only seek compensation if there was in fact negligence.
I found the member's introductory comments about injury in the health care system very interesting. It is not an area I am as familiar with as he, and his comments make eminently good sense, and it is one of the issues with which we struggle in dealing with this issue. Do we provide at some point in time compensation beyond the safety net, the existing safety net, for those who are injured or conditions made worse because of their interaction with the health care system? We have not yet today or any time in the past made that decision, nor have we started to put away the money to support that kind of insurance scheme. We have operated probably because no one has addressed it in the tort system.
Mr. Justice Krever, when he does recommend a no-fault system for a new blood system, there is some good sense behind that, but if we are to do it, one has to also put in place the financing and how one is going to set aside the resources to anticipate potential need into the future. We as provinces, who have been left with the mess to clean up quite frankly from the Red Cross, in putting together a new Canadian blood system, that issue is one that is now on our table that we are attempting to address. Regrettably, this was never put into place in the past. The financial resources were not set aside to have a no-fault system, to compensate people who may be injured by our blood system or health care system where there has been no negligence.
* (1510)
I appreciate the member's comments, but it is difficult to draw the analogy to the no-fault system when we have not put one in place nor have we to date agreed to that or put the funding in place to support it. So I appreciate his comments and his analogies. Where we go in the future, at some point he may want to provide some advice and direction as we wrestle with this issue on a national level, but I thank him for his comments. They were very instructive, particularly on his own involvement with his father.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I certainly appreciate this opportunity to put some comments on the record on what I consider a particularly important issue. Whenever an issue regarding a matter of a free vote comes up, I think all members should very carefully consider its implications, not only of the free vote, but understand very fully the ramifications of a vote in any particular direction. I have not seen the particular wording or position that we would in fact be voting on, so that causes me some concern. But be that as it may, I want to perhaps put on a few comments which outline my concerns and perhaps, in due course, the Minister of Health could address these concerns. I would like to raise those with him in the course of my comments. I think this is a very appropriate time for reflection, for ensuring that we are going in the right direction procedurally and, above all, that we are doing the right thing in terms of any substantive result.
I want to put my bias on the record very clearly and that is that I am in favour of no-fault insurance schemes, and I think that they have been very effective in a number of situations. Having said that, I know that cautions have been made in any no-fault scheme, and we have to take a look at those cautions when looking at any particular no-fault compensation or insurance scheme.
The Workers Compensation Act, of course, is an act that has embodied, to a large extent, the principle of no-fault insurance. That no-fault arises in a very particular context. It is not a universal no-fault; that is, compensation is not granted for every individual who suffers an injury no matter where it occurs. The injury itself is related to a specific location or activity and that is to the workplace. The compensation is very closely related to the insured activity that is the subject of the scheme. So, for example, in our present Workers Compensation Act--and I would say that this is not unique to Manitoba, but it certainly is indicative of every Workers Compensation scheme across Canada--the injuries that are compensated are compensated in respect of a particular activity.
The issue then is to what extent should, in an area like Workers Comp, that compensation be extended. Well, I know that we all feel very, very deeply about what has happened to hepatitis C victims, and we are committed, I believe--and I certainly am committed--to ensuring that they receive the full benefits available to them under our medical insurance health scheme. We certainly believe that. Similarly, a work person or worker who is injured, let us say outside of The Workers Compensation Act circumstances, that is, or injury on a workplace, that person would only be entitled to compensation provided that the injury falls within the scope of the insured risk. While it might seem unfair that a worker who is working would be compensated for, let us say, a broken foot, while a workmate who perhaps broke his or her foot at home and is under the same disability is not compensated appears to be inherently unfair, and yet when the act was passed it was felt that defining the limits of compensation was necessary for the viability of the particular plan.
It should be noted that it is just employers who pay the premiums. The employers pay the premiums for a certain insured risk. That then becomes the extent of any possible liability, and a worker working within that defined risk can be assured that if injured he or she will be compensated. The worker who is injured outside of the context of his or her work would not be eligible for benefits under that particular scheme.
On the other hand, it should be noted that the worker who is injured at work receives no-fault benefits but has lost his or her right to sue under that particular Workers Compensation scheme. Indeed, if the worker falls within the scope of The Workers Compensation Act and the injury is a compensable injury, they have even no constitutional protection to insist that they are entitled to any type of compensation outside of the scheme. Indeed, the only one who has a right to proceed against a tortfeasor is in fact the board itself who becomes vested with the rights of the worker who was injured within the scope of employment.
* (1520)
Now the worker injured outside of the scope of employment cannot derive the benefits of The Workers Compensation Act, but in fact has all of the common law remedies available to him or her to recover any loss which may have been suffered. Of course, along with the right to recover for any loss, including pain and suffering, comes the risk of not being able to recover anything because no negligence has been proven.
So it is a trade-off in the context of The Workers Compensation Act that governments, labour and business agreed to. This has been a principle that has been well recognized not only in Canadian law, but in terms of ensuring that workers in a workplace are not unduly exploited. If in fact they are injured in the course of that work, they have a remedy, regardless of fault, by being able to apply to the Workers Compensation Board for recovery.
I bring that particular example to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and this committee in order to place this discussion in a larger context in order to elicit, I think, information, direction, comments from other members who may well be aware of the Workers Compensation scheme and yet believe that this particular situation which we have here should not follow that same type of format, that the risk insured against--if I can use that expression, borrowing it from The Workers Compensation Act--should be any risk at all that any user of the blood system of Canada has been put to regardless of negligence, regardless of whether there has been a scheme put in place.
I note that the government of New Zealand at one time had a comprehensive no-fault insurance scheme that effectively insured every person in New Zealand against any injury so that, regardless of where that injury occurred or who was to blame, a person could be compensated. I recall when I learned about that in law school back in the mid-'70s, early '70s, Professor Dale Gibson was a strong advocate of that type of comprehensive no-fault scheme that had been implemented in New Zealand. Now I guess from the lawyer's point of view that is not necessarily a good thing because the lawyers would all be put out of work. From the general opinion of the population of Manitoba, maybe that is not a bad thing. I do not know, but I know that there is a lot of frustration from time to time with the legal system and this requirement of having to determine fault. So I can see why particular governments such as the government of New Zealand proceeded to act in the way in which it did.
Now I might hasten to add that entire system eventually collapsed upon itself, given that there was no ability to sustain that kind of a comprehensive no-fault insurance plan. There was simply not enough tax dollars to compensate people to the extent to which the plan demanded it. Perhaps then the issue was, and which might have or should have been addressed, perhaps the benefits were too generous. I am not familiar enough with that scheme, but I think this committee could do well by looking at perhaps the New Zealand example and their comprehensive no-fault insurance scheme to see whether there is not a solution that can be found in that particular situation.
I would also point out in drawing back, and I point this out for the benefit of the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), whenever the limits of any compensation scheme are eroded and compensation is awarded on an unprincipled basis, that is, without legal basis, then you inherently run the risk of the scheme collapsing, as it did in New Zealand. That is, in fact, the situation that many Workers Compensation Boards found themselves in over the last decade or so. I know our Workers Compensation Board here in Manitoba during the NDP years virtually was on the brink of collapse because of an unprincipled approach to the granting of compensation without a careful consideration of the funding necessary to achieve that social goal. So, while the goal of no-fault compensation for anyone might be admirable in the abstract, it is always very important to remember that in the end someone has to pay for it.
So I know in that context our government undertook certain reforms which, without prejudicing the workers in this province, were able to reform the operation of the board, put it on a solid setting, and thereby ensure future generations of workers, including the present workers, that if they were injured in the course of work there would be somewhere to compensate them from, a pool of money from which to compensate them.
Unfortunately, in the province of Ontario the NDP government did a similar thing, with the horrendous result that the board in Ontario racked up a $12-billion to $14-billion deficit during those NDP years, $12 billion to $14 billion, which is almost twice the total provincial debt here, Mr. Chair. That is quite remarkable. All I say is that again one has to be mindful of eventually who pays and, while the goal is admirable and the social need is maybe demonstrable, we need to consider that issue very, very carefully before we simply proceed in a direction where we do not know where it is going to land up.
Because we can say to workers here in Manitoba today that if you are injured on the job, there is a fund which we can recover your losses from and you will be paid on a no-fault basis. Unfortunately, the workers in Ontario, due to the policies of the previous government, have virtually bankrupted the fund by which workers could be compensated. That is a tremendously dangerous thing to do.
I am not saying the situation with the hepatitis C here is absolutely parallel. I am simply saying that before--
* (1530)
An Honourable Member: It is totally different.
Mr. Toews: Well, the member says it is totally different. Perhaps she can explain to me in due course how it is totally different so that I can determine which way to vote on this particular matter, but--
An Honourable Member: Well, you are not going to get a free vote anyway.
Mr. Toews: Well, the member says I am not going to get a free vote. That remains to be seen but, while I am here, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) should realize that I do have a right to put my comments on the record so that even though the member might think my concerns about the hepatitis C situation and the victims of hepatitis C are not well founded, I happen to be very concerned. It is not just people who come from left-wing parties who have those types of concerns. I think the people of Manitoba generally--[interjection] Well, again, the member for Osborne feels that she has a better argument, and I am prepared to listen, but I want to put my concerns on the record so that it can be part of this broader discussion to determine exactly where we should be going.
Mr. Chair, I think this is a tremendously important matter. I know that the real short-term agenda here of the NDP is to simply embarrass the government. That is not my concern. My concern is that what they have provided us with is an opportunity to discuss what I consider a very important issue. For that reason I thank the members for allowing them to have this type of discussion, because these are the very important types of debates that we can get into from time to time and let the people of Manitoba know that we, in fact, are seriously considering these concerns.
Now, again, the Ontario government under the NDP virtually bankrupted the Workers Compensation system and, thereby, left in jeopardy thousands of injured workers. It is a tremendous concern that I have, because in the end of the day, who is it that cares about those injured workers? Is it the government of Ontario, which was an NDP government, who left nothing for the workers other than bankruptcy and debt? Or is it the government of Manitoba who said we owe an obligation to injured workers to ensure that they are protected? So my concern here is that whatever direction we go into, I want to assure that this is absolutely the best way of proceeding for those victims of hepatitis C.
The other analogy, I think, that we need to draw on is the Manitoba Public Insurance analogy and the no-fault. I want to say that our government has been very progressive, adopting ideas, not from a point of view of ideology because certainly no traditional Conservative government would implement a no-fault insurance plan such as that we now see in Manitoba Public Insurance situation, and the reason our government went in this direction was because of the concern that the tort system was destroying the ability of an insurance system to be self-sustainable. I know that there are still bugs to be worked out in that system, and we have recently received a report from a former NDP cabinet minister who, while being generally complimentary about the MPI program brought in by our Conservative government, thought that there should be changes. Again, I believe our government will address those concerns and make those changes, Mr. Chair, in a manner that is not ideologically driven, but rather driven out of a desire to ensure that Manitobans as a whole benefit.
So, again, I do not think members here need to be concerned about the bona fides of our government in respect of ensuring what the best system is. We are committed to finding that best system.
But I raise one last concern, because I know that my time, at this time, is drawing to a close, but I want to have an opportunity to discuss this a little further yet, because I think there are some interesting issues. Those issues relate to the nature of a national program. Our colleagues in the NDP party always talk about national programs, and I, for one, am very supportive of a national program as were, in fact, Health Minister Allan Rock and Saskatchewan NDP Health Minister Clay Serby, who on behalf of all provincial governments including all the NDP governments, adopted this particular plan to provide Canadians who were infected by hepatitis C virus through the Canadian blood system between 1986 and 1990.
I am at first puzzled, now, why would the NDP here be opposing what their colleagues in government have adopted in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan? That leaves me wondering. I think we need some more information. One of my concerns, and I know how the NDP here are trying to undermine this national program, maybe this national program is not a good one. I do not have enough information on that particular point and we need to discuss that more. I know that there are other speakers here who will be discussing that and sway me one way or another, but the issue of this particular national program is compounded by the constitutional right to mobility.
If Manitoba broke ranks and said, we will compensate all hepatitis C victims regardless of when it occurred, whether it was between 1986 and 1990 or not, then every single hepatitis C victim in Canada would be entitled to come to Manitoba, every hepatitis C victim could come here to Manitoba and collect, not out of a national program, which I usually find members of the NDP supporting, but it would overwhelm and destroy the resources of this province.
So, Mr. Chair, and for the benefit of the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) rather than destroying a national plan which would then overwhelm the resources of the provincial government, maybe we have to examine, in fact, why the NDP would be opposing a national program here and yet supporting it in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Maybe the difference is that they are not in government here and can make irresponsible promises. We need to be responsible and I need more information in order to make that responsible decision.
* (1540)
On the other hand, it may not be that it is simply because they are in opposition. They demonstrated their irresponsibility in spending when they were in government, so maybe this is just a philosophical continuation of that irresponsibility into opposition, indeed, after 10 years of opposition, they have still not learned that our social programs require sustainability, that without sustainability everyone loses. So we must be careful with our resources, and we must be fair to the victims. And so that, Mr. Chair, is certainly my concern as I listen to other speakers participate in this particular debate, and I welcome any comments from either the Minister of Health or perhaps other members.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I am pleased to be able to say a few things on this very important matter which actually relates very directly to people. It is people and victims that we are speaking about and that we think about in government, and we are attempting to deal with issues that actually relate to and affect real people.
First of all, I think it is important to note that I think everyone on the government side has a sympathy and a sympathetic feeling towards the people who have been affected by this hepatitis C. It is obviously a very difficult disease. It has psychological sides to it as well in that people are, in fact, symptom free for a great number of years possibly, and they simply do not know when, in fact, they may begin to encounter some of the chronic symptoms of the disease. So there is certainly a sympathy for those people who have this particular illness, and for many who are in the chronic phase, but for others who are living through the psychological concerns of whether or not they will, in fact, experience symptoms.
I am also very interested--some professions are also somewhat at risk of this disease, and I know dentistry, for one, has been a profession which has had to take special care and make sure that professionals within dentistry are given as much information as possible so that they can protect themselves in their particular profession. So it is one that has come to my attention and has been important to me, to our family, for some time in terms of a very special interest in looking at this issue and also making sure the public is aware of how, where possible, they may be protected from this particular illness.
This was a really difficult issue for our Minister of Health, for governments across the country. There is a proposal put forward by the federal government to deal with a compensation system for people who have hepatitis C, and there is a requirement to, in fact, share some of this responsibility. But there is no question that the federal government needs to take the leading role. It was up to our minister, then, to look at the proposal and to make comment on the proposal, but it is, in fact, up to the federal government to determine what proposal they are prepared to put forward.
It is also important to note that we are all citizens of Canada, that there is basically one taxpayer paying either the provincial share or the federal share of the compensation package, and all of those issues had to be weighed by our Minister of Health and also by the federal Minister of Health. This made the compensation package, I am sure, quite a complex issue to deal with. I am just trying to think of how much time in fact it has taken them in terms of working on this issue, but I know that it has been some time, in fact, and that there has been a great deal of public discussion during the time that they have been deciding on the compensation package and that they have had an opportunity to hear from many people who are affected by the disease or who have a particular interest.
So I start my comments by saying that I would express sympathy, certainly, to those who are dealing with the disease. I also would say that I know how long and hard our Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has worked along with his colleagues across the country, colleagues that I would comment, as my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) did, of all political persuasions. This was, in fact, arrived at by governments which are NDP governments, which are Conservative governments, which are Liberal, and this took, obviously, a hard look at the issue. Those people who were involved in looking at a compensation package had to put aside some of their perhaps philosophical views, or if they were in government, they had to recognize certain realities in relation to their role of government and their view in responsibility to direct service to people.
I note that the lead minister provincially is the Health minister from the New Democratic province of Saskatchewan, so he had to also look at the issue, in fact, in the light of reality. That really the basis of the discussion today is to get some information to make sure that information is available and on the record and information which reflects a reality.
I would like to talk for a moment about the fact that this is a national program then, proposed by the federal government, worked on by the federal minister and in consultation with the provincial ministers of Health. There is an importance to this as a national program because members across the way, in their discussions with us, have constantly said that there has to be a kind of certainty for people when they receive health care across the country, wherever they receive it within the province, wherever they receive it across the country. That underscores the importance of this program being a national program, because if someone contracted the disease in one province and happened to move to another province and then needed to collect on a compensation package, which compensation package would they collect from? Would everyone move to one particular province, who happened to be a more wealthy province then to attempt to collect a richer compensation package? Or even if you happened to live in a province which may have more money, would you in fact collect from the province in which you contracted hepatitis C? Therefore, there may be 10, 12 tiers of compensation package that individuals would have to look at collecting.
So the importance of the national scheme which has been put forward does in fact deal with one of the issues raised frequently by the NDP, the opposition in Manitoba, which says that a national program then provide some certainty to a compensation package. Our Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has obviously worked with others to come to some agreement about how that package would work. I see from the information which has been provided to us that we see a basis of a compensation package, a compensation package which has an amount of money set aside, but it is clear there is still a lot of work to do in terms of this compensation package to actually operationalize the compensation package as well.
So we have the shell of a compensation package, the idea of a compensation package to be a national package, to provide some kind of certainty with a dollar amount, but the details of that still seem to be not quite firm and still need to be worked out. They will require work from the provinces and from the federal government. I am sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) would look for co-operation from the federal Minister of Health in terms of developing the details of this plan, and how it will be operationalized so it can be operationalized across the country in similar ways.
* (1550)
I would just like to comment now on the amount of money that governments have set aside in the current package, $1.1 billion. Of that amount of money, the federal government will provide up to $800 million and the provinces and territories up to $300 million for the compensation package.
Just so that it is clear in terms of our province's support to people with hepatitis C, in addition to the financial assistance program, the provinces and the territories will also provide the medical, the hospital, the home care, the drug, the social assistance and other services that will cost the governments an additional $1.6 billion over the next 30 years; a significant commitment in dollars, a significant commitment in terms of the support required for those individuals.
I will be very interested to see how the federal government may in fact in any way provide any further assistance in that area. But it is in fact a package which is a significant amount of money. I understand that in addition to the money set aside by governments, this has not been confirmed but, from information which I have received, there could be a further contribution by the Red Cross which is discussing its participation.
The number of people who I understand potentially fall into this particular proposal is approximately 20,000 to 22,000 individuals who could be eligible for assistance under this current proposal. This takes into account, as I have said, some of the best estimates of how the disease works and also how the courts have successfully resolved other health-related issues. As I said, some people who are affected by the disease are basically asymptomatic now, so in fact they are not experiencing symptoms. Some people, to my knowledge, may not in fact be fully aware that they have this particular disease. Now I stand to be corrected on that but, as I said, I have watched it carefully from a personal point of view from people involved in the dental profession in specific, because of course that would be a health risk attached to that profession and the profession itself would want to monitor.
I understand that the assistance to this number of people--and again, not a small number of people determined in this proposal--will be through a negotiated settlement. As I look at the number of people in this settlement alone, I have to say that I can understand now why the process in fact was a very time-consuming one, because of those 20,000 to 22,000 people, they would in fact reflect people of all kinds of circumstances, who would have a wide range of needs. So, it would in fact be important to look at where they were in the disease pattern at the time, what their circumstances might be, and of course as has been done, to look at the courts and to say: what are the court settlements in this area, what is reasonable. A compensation package does provide the dollar amount to go directly to the individual to avoid a lengthy court process and to assist the person perhaps in the time that they actually need the support.
I understand also that estates of deceased people will be eligible under this current program providing that the primary cause of death is hepatitis C related, and it can be traced to the specific time frame '86 to '90, and that the details of this will be determined as part of the negotiating process. I think that is a point not widely known. It was not widely known or generally known by me during the process of the discussion, though I am interested to know that now, and I think Manitobans and Canadian people in general would be interested to know that. So there are quite a large number of people eligible to have assistance in the current package.
I am not really wanting to provide a defence for the current package. I want to make that clear. I just want to make sure that I have in my discussion today focused on the fact that the national package and the compensation program that has been proposed does have some points which in fact may not be generally known and speak in favour of the national program, again so that there is some certainty regardless of where people live and that we do not have 12 different programs or more than 12 different programs, 13 if we add the federal government.
If individuals do not want to be part of this compensation package, as the member may be indicating through this resolution--I am not entirely sure if she is speaking for people who are not pleased with the package--but clearly it would be up to an individual to decide whether they wished to be part of the settlement or not, and individuals do have the opportunity or the liberty to opt out of current class actions and pursue individual actions through the court. It will also be up to individuals to decide if they want to be part of the settlement.
I think that it is important for individuals to be able to weigh the risks and also the costs of a court case. There is not certainty in a court case, and you obviously go forward with the strongest arguments that you believe you have available to you, but the result may be in fact something negotiated through the courts that is less than what you had hoped, or in fact it may be that you simply receive nothing.
So I think that for many this compensation package as proposed may be something that they wish to look at, but I do think that it is important--and I would make note of it to the minister--that individuals have the opportunity to decide if they wish to be part of the settlement or if they in fact wish to carry on through a class action suit or pursue an individual suit through the courts.
I understand that, as I said earlier, the details of the program and how it will be operationalized are yet to be worked out. I would say to the minister and to anyone who is participating in developing these that I would be hopeful that the time frame would be reasonable, since this has caused a lot of people to be thinking about it. I think that there is likely an anxiety level, and I would be hopeful that things can be worked out in a reasonable amount of time. But I would also say that I would want them to be worked out with reasonable reference points and with fairness, so that again, in the application of any kind of program, the application is in fact fair and equally applied or applied in the same way across the country.
Mr. Chair, my colleague who spoke before me as well spoke about the importance of sustainability in programs, and this is obviously an important part of any discussion that we would have on this issue. I want to stress that in looking at sustainability and speaking about sustainability, I speak about it with the same concern, that it is sustainable and able to continue to support those people it was set up to support and that there is not such a drain that in fact no one seems to receive the benefit or the prolonged benefit that they would require for the period of time that they would. I have a sense, though again I think further information as you carry on developing this program would give us more information about sustainability, but it seems as if that was perhaps one of the elements that was put forward or that you considered when you were developing this program as ministers. The federal minister, as he put forward, as I listened to him, that seems to be one issue which he speaks about as well. That would be I think important to all individuals. I would look for that to be one of the requirements for the time period that I understand this program is going to be available for victims.
* (1600)
I understand too, then in looking at the program that people cannot yet sign up for the program but, in fact, they would have to wait until the details are negotiated. I will be very interested to look at how, in fact, the program is administered and how there may be some co-operation, particularly perhaps by health groups in terms of administering the program.
Mr. Chair, on the issue of no-fault, which Justice Krever had raised and had recommended, on this area it may be fairly difficult to introduce no-fault specifically for the blood-related injuries and not allow application for other health care related misadventures or injuries or difficulties. But on this particular issue, I would also feel that it is important to have further information. It is an area that members before me have spoken about similar kinds of programs which may be available through Workers Compensation. I feel that it would be very helpful to have further information about what Justice Krever was in fact thinking about in detail in terms of this particular part of the compensation package or further compensation package.
I understand that the next steps then in working through this program, should it in fact be accepted--and we do not yet know what the results of that will be, but I understand that, should this in fact proceed based on the federal government's decision, that there will be a negotiating team being appointed that will involve the provinces, the territories and the federal government, and that there would be the beginnings of a negotiation process with victims, and that, should it go ahead, as I said, for me, I would be interested in the settlement to occur as quickly as possible. But today we are sitting here and we are not yet sure in fact what the results will be, what the end of the debate will be in the federal parliament.
So on that, we will be very interested to see how the federal Minister of Health is able to manage this issue and if he is able to provide some leadership, and if he is able to deal with people who have concerns which are being raised across the country today. Yet some of those people are people who would in fact be covered by this package. I think it is important to start somewhere.
But, Mr. Chair, with that I would just then summarize my comments by saying that, again, in all of the thinking that I have done on the matter, I start from a position of sympathy for those who have the disease, sympathy for those who fear that they may have the disease, and also in recognition that this has been a difficult issue for those people who have been involved.
It has been a time-consuming issue to develop a mechanism of compensation and reference points for compensation, but I would stress that it is important from my point of view that whatever program is finally arrived at, that it be a national program, that it not be a program of 12 or 13 different types of compensation so that a person wherever they live in Canada may in fact be getting some different kind of compensation. So I would stress that the national nature is important. I would look for the leadership of the federal Minister of Health in dealing with this matter and bringing forward issues to assist in providing a fair compensation to people in Canada, and I would also look for the sustainability of the program.
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Those five points are in fact my main thinking on this issue. I will be watching very carefully for the next part of the development, again, as I said, because I have a personal interest, as I see a certain profession that I am aware of, dentistry, is one that is potentially at risk. So I always watch for how these things are managed in relation to that.
I would just finally say, Mr. Chair, that I believe our government's record of support to those who need is a significant record of support, whether it be our government's participation in the hepatitis C compensation program, our money being put on the table, our support to people who require assistance through hospitalization, through Pharmacare, through home care. Our government's record of support is I think very good, and I look across a number of health issues. I do not want to stray from the topic, but I do note the interest that was expressed as recently as today in the fetal alcohol syndrome issues which the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) announced our government's position on today.
So with our record of support, which I think is a reasoned and sustainable one, I will look forward to some further information from the federal Minister of Health on this particular issue, and I would be very happy if the five issues that I have raised today would also be of assistance to you in your further considerations. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, if it might be the will of the committee, may I suggest just a very quick five-minute recess before my presentation?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute break? [agreed] The committee will recess and meet back here at 4:15.
The committee recessed at 4:07 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:21 p.m.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. We will resume consideration of the Estimates of Health. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I believe, was about to speak.
Mr. Lamoureux: Hepatitis C is an issue that has garnered a tremendous amount of attention over the last period of time. I know I have had opportunity to have discussions with a couple of my constituents on this very important issue, and what I was wanting to do was more so make somewhat of a statement, but I am interested in hearing from the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) at the conclusion of this statement what it is that he would in essence be recommending, or his thoughts specific, as opposed to constituents having to read pages and pages of Hansard--just kind of like a five-minute rebuttal to my comments.
In looking at the motion, there is a concern that I do have with it, and I will address that specific, Mr. Chairperson, once I get some other comments on the record. In looking at this particular issue, I did a Hansard search a while back, and I think that if you compare Hansard of the last two weeks to Hansard of the previous nine years, you will find that this particular issue came up more in the past two weeks than it did in the previous nine years. In fact, I like to think that, generally speaking, I am not short when it comes to speaking on different issues. I try to comment on as many as I can, depending on the research that is done for me and what research I am able to do.
One of the things that I found out was that there was very, very little discussion on this issue, so that when I was in fact contacted by constituents, it is one of those issues which I had indicated that I needed to get a little bit more information on in order to comment more intelligently or to provide a more strong personal opinion. When you do have some limited resources, you are not necessarily afforded the opportunity like the larger caucuses and other members to be given briefings on issues.
So this is one that has come up over the last little while in which I am not as comfortable as I would have liked to have been in terms of dealing with the issue, but there is a motion that is before us, before the committee, on which MLAs are expected to vote, and I did want to get on the record with respect to it, and it is an issue which has been raised by constituents to me.
In doing some Hansard searches, what I did find out is actually the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) is probably one of the more ably minded individuals with respect to this issue. I was really interested in a resolution that in fact she had proposed back on November 5, 1996, where the title was Resolution 21, Provincial AIDS Strategy. In reading through that particular resolution, you quickly become aware of some of the problems that are out there. There was one of the WHEREASes that really--actually a couple of them, but one in particular that really made me think, and that was: "WHEREAS Health and Welfare Canada estimated that one in 1,000 people are HIV positive, and it further estimates that by the year 2000, one in four people living in the North will be infected."
I think that we do not necessarily have a full understanding of the degree to which hepatitis C is in fact out there, and it is a very emotional issue. I would not deny that. I like to think that one of the differences between us and the United States is that we are more of a compassionate society and recognize the need to be good to each other, and one of the reasons why we have the universal health care that we have today. When I look at the hepatitis C issue, in a nutshell it is explained that many, many thousands of people have been infected, but because of when they were infected are going to be disqualified for any sort of compensation package. That does create a great deal of concern for me.
I recognize that it is very easy as an opposition MLA to say that everyone should be given some sort of an entitlement. One of the things that I did is I had asked an individual what type of support this particular compensation package was receiving in other jurisdictions in Canada, and it seems to me that provincial governments of all political stripes are having a difficult time with this particular issue. It also seems to me that governments and particularly the provincial governments are going out of their way in terms of trying to pass a good part of the responsibility on to Ottawa. I think that is unfortunate. I think that there needs to be a strong sense of co-operation between both the provincial and national governments in trying to do what is right with respect to this infection. Most people will acknowledge that those who have received hepatitis C should be compensated. The degree of the compensation I think is somewhat questionable and debatable, but virtually most people that I am aware of would indicate that people should be compensated.
I wanted to read into the record a couple of very short letters that were sent to me which I really have not responded to as of yet, and generally speaking, I like to respond quickly when a constituent writes to me. That is because I am a little bit unsure of exactly what it is that I could be saying to this, because it is such an infection that has such a dramatic and profound impact on constituents.
* (1630)
The first one--and she has written me two letters--was dated February 27 of this year, and it is obviously written to me. It states that: the reason I am writing you this letter is to plead with you for some compassion and understanding. I do not know if you are involved in the negotiations for compensation for hepatitis C victims, but I would like you to be aware of our plight.
Two years ago, my husband was informed by the Red Cross that he had tested positive for hepatitis C after receiving a blood transfusion. We have since watched him go from a hard-working, strong, athletic person to one who is sick, depressed and basically has enough energy to make it through the day. He was always very involved in coaching our children's hockey, ringette and baseball teams but since had to give it up due to his ill health. Needless to say, our kids feel the loss. I have had to take on all of the tasks of raising our two children, as he is generally so exhausted after his day at work that he has to recuperate. We hope he will be well enough to continue working as I can only find temporary part-time work, not enough to support one person, never mind four.
My husband was accepted as a patient to test out the newest research drug for hepatitis C, and so far it has kept the virus from doing further liver damage. Because it is such a new virus, no one can give us any long-term predictions. He feels that the death sentence is hanging over him. The study drug he was on was administered by self-injection done three times a week for six months. The side effects were horrendous. He was severely ill for the first couple of months with nausea, fever, severe muscle pain, no appetite and barely the energy to get out of bed. He lost 30 pounds and has still not managed to put on any weight. Luckily he had some holiday time he was able to use as he was not capable of going to work. My kids said it was the worst summer any family could ever have. He now has to be tested every six weeks for the virus, and this will go on indefinitely. Every so often a liver biopsy is needed, which is extremely painful.
We heard on the news that a cure for hepatitis B and hepatitis C has been found. This is not so, as further research is needed. If it takes seven years for FDA approval, how many of the 60,000 Canadians infected will be left? We were once optimistic about our children's future, but now we are terrified. If my husband cannot work till retirement, we will be forced onto welfare. This is all so unfair. How could the Red Cross administer blood they did not know for sure was safe? When will someone take responsibility for these actions?
I beg you to consider my family if you are involved in any issue regarding hepatitis C. Money will not bring back my husband's health or our peace of mind but will ease the burden of worry over our kids' future. Please, please keep this in mind and think of the impact that this would have on you and your family if you were one of the unlucky ones needing a transfusion at the time. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I pray your decision will be favourable.
The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has indicated that this is one of the letters that in fact she herself has received and has also read. Well, there was a follow-up letter that was sent, and I do not know if she received that particular letter. She indicates that she has not. I will just share that with the committee. It is dated April 22, and again it is addressed to me:
"I am writing to urge you for your help and support regarding the issue of compensation for hepatitis C victims.
"My husband is one such victim. He required a blood transfusion and the result is he is now hepatitis C positive. We have watched him go from a strong, athletic, hard-working man to one who is constantly ill. He has lost 29 pounds due to this virus's symptoms which are: flu-like including nausea, fever and/or . . . while his liver is being damaged in 20 percent to 30 percent of people infected end up with liver cancer. He is depressed and lethargic; he feels he has been handed a death sentence. Needless to say our children feel the loss. All his adult life my husband was a 2 to 3 x's a year blood donor. This virus did not appear till immediately after the blood transfusion. There is no question as to how he got the disease. The virus destroyed my husband's health and in turn our family life. If this happened to your children, your spouse or yourself would you not feel extremely angry and feel the government guilty because they did not test the blood they knew was tainted.
"We are a compassionate people, and to not compensate all victims of hepatitis C is unjust and unfair. To use the time frame of 1986 to 1990 is not treating all victims equally. We are supposed to all be equal Canadians. All HIV victims were compensated, why not hepatitis C victims? Your blood system poisoned these innocent people, compensation for all is the least we fellow Canadians can do.
"Money will not bring back the most important thing (my husband's previous good health) but will ease the burden of worry over our children's future. We were once secure and happy, now our sad hope is by sheer will power my husband will be able to work till retirement and not be too deathly ill to enjoy what few remaining years are left.
"Over a two day period I have collected over 500 signatures and addresses stating their objections to the proposed compensation package. I was met with NOT ONE negative response, all felt that ALL victims should be compensated, regardless of time of infection. These have been forwarded to the House of Commons.
"I beg each of you MLA's to put pressure on our Health Minister to change this compensation package to include all. I pray together we will do the right thing. Thank You in Advance."
Well, Mr. Chairperson, I read both letters on to the record because this was in fact an emotional plea, as members of the committee can tell, from a constituent who is trying to ensure that her voice is being heard. I am very sympathetic to what it is that she is saying, but I also want to do what I feel is the right thing on this particular issue. In it, there are a couple of points that I wanted to focus some time on.
The first one is regarding the whole issue of us as a compassionate society. Here is an infection that is causing a great deal of problems and putting so many people through emotional torture of sorts that really wears on all families. The package that was agreed to between 1986 and 1990 might alleviate, at least in part, because, as my constituent so well stated it, you are not going to restore the individual, the infected individual's health, but at least in part those individuals who are being compensated will have some feeling of financial security in a limited way. I do not know the details of the compensation package, so I cannot say to what degree that they are financially compensated, but at least it appears that there is going to be some compensation for those individuals. Well, the individuals who fall outside of those years, I think there is a responsibility for government to, at the very least, address these people.
I do not necessarily understand the exact arguments that were used for the time frame, and I would be interested in hearing from the minister his government's reason for that time frame. So, when I am done, I would be interested in hearing specifically that from the Minister of Health.
* (1640)
But suffice to say for now, individuals who were infected outside of that time frame, at the very least, I believe the government has a responsibility to provide some reason to have hope that the government is not going to forget about these individuals. If the government is not prepared to incorporate them into the package that is there today, what are these people to think with respect to their future? As my constituent has clearly demonstrated, the future is very bleak not only in terms of healthwise but financially where in one letter she makes reference to the possibility of having to go onto social assistance.
Mr. Chairperson, I believe that there are grounds for us to be more compassionate with those individuals that have been infected with hepatitis C outside that time frame of 1986 and 1990. I am interested in knowing what specifically the government's plans are with reference to that because I do not believe it would be appropriate at all--and this is with what very little research I have been able to do to date--I do not believe for a moment that government should just wash its hands clean of this particular issue, that they have to take on some responsibility, and I am not hearing that from the government. I think that is most unfortunate. I do not want to hear, well, this is what Ottawa is doing, and we are just following Ottawa's lead.
If Ottawa comes up with an agreement, and it deals with a specific number of individuals within a certain time frame, that is fine maybe from their perspective, and if the government, the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is content with that, then he can say so. My concern is not necessarily what is happening in Ottawa or other provincial jurisdictions, my concern is primarily what is this government prepared to do even if it means complementing the package that is currently being proposed? Is the government giving any consideration to individuals that were infected by hepatitis C outside of that time frame?
If in fact the government is giving consideration to other things, I would be interested in knowing that. That is the second point that I would make to the Minister of Health. What other types of responsibilities does the Minister of Health believe that the government of Manitoba has with respect to the hepatitis C victims that fall outside of that 1986 and 1990 compensation package?
That is why when I look at the motion, and I made reference to Ottawa and their package, in reading the motion, one of the concerns that I had with respect to the motion was that the committee was going to recommend that the Legislature and the House of Commons hold a free vote. When we make reference to the House of Commons, we do not know when this motion is actually going to come to a vote. I think that it confuses the issue more than anything else. What I am interested in is what is going to happen in the province of Manitoba. I do not want the Province of Manitoba to be using Ottawa as a scapegoat, per se, on this issue, and that is why I am more interested in trying to narrow the focus onto the responsibility of this government, the responsibility in particular that the current Minister of Health feels that he has towards the hepatitis C victims that fall outside of that time frame.
In discussing it with the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), we thought that maybe we could in fact move an amendment to the motion, Mr. Chairperson, so we have decided to go ahead and do just that. That is because, as I say, we do want it to be a positive discussion or debate from within this committee that will ultimately lead to an independent vote in the Manitoba Legislature. What they ultimately decide to do in Ottawa is something in which they are going to have to decide. In fact, it might all be done in Ottawa by the time we actually vote on this particular amendment or this particular motion.
So I wanted to move, and seconded by the member for The Maples,
THAT the words "and the House of Commons" be deleted from the motion.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. An amendment has been moved by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and it goes as such: THAT the words "and the House of Commons" be deleted from the motion.
Is there debate of the amendment?
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Yes, I would like to put a few words in regard to this matter. I guess the main principle here is--well, let us talk to the broader issue first. I see some analogy between this and the flood issue when there were comments made during the flood that people choose to live in a flood plain. Technically, that is true, but technically is not always the right way to go, and we should deal with compassion. I think there was some compassion shown. We did not go to the letter of the rule of what we were liable to, what we could have been sued to. There were people in need, and as Manitobans we came together and addressed that concern.
Here we have a situation where people contracted a disease, not just by per chance that someone would get cancer or someone would get some other very serious disease through no control of anybody, but, no, this was through the blood supply. Someone gave them blood that caused them to get a disease. Are they civilly liable? Is there a legislative responsibility? No more than there was to help the flood victims of Manitoba, so I would like to see this Manitoba Legislature show the same amount of compassion for these people that it showed the flood victims.
You might argue that you would set a precedent for other people who contracted other diseases. But, no, there was a reason, that they were given blood that was bad blood that caused a disease. So for that reason I would like to see this Legislature debate it and take a vote, a free vote. Why have we put forward the motion about the federal government? Well, as my colleague from Inkster said, we do not even know. Has that vote already been taken in Ottawa? What time is it being taken? In one hour, two hours, three hours. We do not know. I think it belittles the actual concern we have and it makes us open to trying to use this issue to score public relation points as opposed to showing real compassion, to really dealing with the issue for what we are able to do, what we are responsible to as the legislators from Manitoba.
* (1650)
I have always made it a principle, and it was Michael O'Shaughnessy, the city councillor from my area, who told me early in my political career, when I was a school trustee, you do not tell me what to do with City Council and I will not tell you what to do on the school board. When I got elected as an MLA--we do try to keep our noses in the area. It is easy for me to tell City Council to spend more money there, or do that. I am not the one that has to raise taxes. I am not the one that has to do things. So if I want to go to Ottawa, I will run for election for M.P., and I will--[interjection] No, I am not making any announcement at this point. The point I was trying to make is that right now, if this motion wants to appear, I am sure it was meant to be a legitimate motion that had a legitimate concern for hepatitis C victims that could have an effect on what we could do. We should restrict it to what we as legislators from Manitoba can do. We could have a free vote here, and we could agree to be compassionate, as we were to the Red River flood victims, and that is why we are putting forward this amendment. That is why I would support the motion if amended, so that we could show compassion to those people who have contracted hepatitis C from the blood supply.
Mr. Praznik: I want to address some of the issues raised by the members for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and for The Maples constituency. I appreciate the comments of both--and their amendment--about us being here in Manitoba dealing with Manitoba issues and providing our advice as Manitobans as to how this issue is to be handled. I think it is very important, and I know members of this committee have to be in other sections of the committee which are also meeting, so it is difficult to have everyone here at the same time, so there is a lot of this ground that may be repeated, but I think it is worth noting and answering the particular queries of these two members.
Let us put into context for a moment again, what in fact we are dealing with with the blood system. The blood system up until now--and we are aiming for this fall to have the new Canadian blood system in place which will be really a body created by the provinces--but up until this time, the blood system in Canada was operated by the Canadian Red Cross Society. Provincial governments, of which we have a responsibility as provincial legislators, were in essence the purchasers. We had a bit of an advisory committee. We shared with other provinces that spoke to the Red Cross on some issues that came up, but it was a very informal process. The responsibility for providing blood, for collecting it, processing it, testing it, treating it, distributing it and ultimately being responsible, having the responsibility for the product itself, rested with the Canadian Red Cross Society, not the provincial governments. The federal government, with its constitutional powers, had the responsibility as it does with pharmaceuticals, with food products, with fertilizers, other chemicals, to regulate this particular area, the provision of blood. So here we have the national government of Canada as regulator; the Canadian Red Cross Society as provider, manufacturer, distributor and the provinces in essence, as the payors or purchasers of the product.
Now somewhere along the line the Canadian blood system went astray, and we as taxpayers, national taxpayers have spent a great deal of money with Mr. Justice Krever in examining this issue, and a number of things become clear, but fundamentally the Canadian Red Cross Society was or became incapable of managing that blood system, that people within the Canadian Red Cross Society--and that is not to take away from literally the thousands of volunteers across our province, indeed across the country who donate blood, who work for the Red Cross, who raise money for them or volunteer in many of their functions, disaster relief, et cetera, that is to take nothing away from them--but in the blood system, the management of the Red Cross, according to Mr. Justice Krever, was so fundamentally out of line in managing its system that it did not manage it safely.
As a consequence, Canadians who used that blood, blood that in the case of Manitobans we purchased for them, were injured as a result of the way in which they operated the system, were injured and may not have been had the Red Cross Society managed it well and if the regulator had regulated them such that they would have prevented them from in essence performing a malfeasance in the operation of their blood. I am not trying to throw in that term of legalese, but in essence we were saying that there were things that the Red Cross could have done, should have done that any reasonable person could be expected to do in delivering blood and blood products that they failed to do, and that the regulator, the Government of Canada failed to monitor that, set the standard and enforce it. So we know as a result many Canadians and many Manitobans received blood that infected them with HIV and blood that infected them with hepatitis C.
Now, how do those people for which there was a negligence be compensated, and I am going to deal with that first. Well, they look to the system. As all litigants--and I say that not to make this a legal argument, but the fact is there are lawsuits filed today in a number of provinces. I believe there are three class action suits filed today in certain provinces that name that provincial government or health system, the Government of Canada, and the Canadian Red Cross Society as defendants. We have had a number of cases that have been talked about being filed. I am not sure if they have been filed in Manitoba. We do not have a class action system here in Manitoba, so we have not had a class action suit, but they have taken the course that the law provides for, to sue for damages where they believe there has been a negligence, and Mr. Justice Krever makes it somewhat clear that for a period of time it would appear there was negligence in the system.
So we have those cases. We have a situation--when examining the system, I think it looks fairly clear that there was a period in which the Red Cross made decisions with respect to blood supply, particularly with respect to hepatitis C, where if they had taken a more reasonable course of action, it is arguable they would have prevented injury or illness. If people have been injured, they sue. So the governments across Canada assess, because they are named in these suits and provinces are named in other provinces where there is a class action--and we may be named in Manitoba--have to look at filing a defence of where we are going to be, and so we meet as ministers early this year to discuss this.
The federal government takes the lead role, and I share this not to be combative. It is a fact. They have taken the lead role. Mr. Justice Krever indicated that they had the lion's share of responsibility because they were the regulators and supervisors in essence of the system just as they are for pharmaceuticals, just as they are for the food supply, et cetera. They take that system, and they say to us that they believe that should these cases proceed to court, liability will be found, and that it is in everyone's best interest--and I am somewhat paraphrasing the message we received from the federal government because, again remember, provincial governments are sitting there saying why is this even our issue. We are the purchasers. We did not make the blood. We did not collect it. We did not test it. We did not distribute it. Red Cross did. The federal government regulates it, as they do pharmaceuticals and food products.
So why are we in this? Well, we are in it because we have been named in the cases. So we come to the table with the federal government to discuss our strategy, because we have been named as defendants. What becomes clear in that discussion is that the Government of Canada assessed its case, believed that they would be found negligent and the Red Cross would be found negligent should those suits proceed to court for a period of time, the 1986-1990 period, and that we should propose a settlement.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. When this committee sits again, the Minister of Health will have 22 minutes remaining in his debate to the amendment to the main motion.
The time being five o'clock, time for private members' hour. Committee rise.