When the committee last sat, it had been considering a motion moved by the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). The text of the motion reads as follows: that this committee recommend that the Legislature support the content of the motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly and further that the Legislature urge the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to contact the federal government and press for the existing compensation package for victims of tainted blood to be reopened and reviewed with a view to extending compensation.
The honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) had been speaking to the motion, and he has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): I will continue to make some comments based on the member's resolution in regard to the Quebec proposal, and, again, I guess I would have to go back to Friday's discussion in the sense that--I guess, after today's discussion in the House and reviewing some of the comments made on Friday, my question, again, would be is it the position of the opposition to support the Quebec proposal or the Ontario proposal or any particular proposal that would suit them on this particular day?
I make note today, Mr. Chairman, that the wind is blowing rather strongly, and perhaps opinions and minds can be changed as quickly as the wind does blow, but I would like to put on the record some of the comments that were made in regard to the resolution that we are looking at. It is from statements made by the members opposite stating that they recognize that clearly the lion's share of the burden should fall on the federal government; they concur with the minister that the federal government has the lion's share of responsibility when it comes to providing compensation packages. I guess it is confusing, as I have stated several times, when you sit and listen for one week to a proposal that has been put on the table that would suggest that the province take the responsibility and move forward with its own proposal, that I guess basically having changed directions, then we moved on to the suggestion of the free vote in the House.
When I think about the resolution of the free vote, I question whether--were we really discussing a free vote on what? I think it certainly, probably, at that particular time there was no particular proposal put out by anybody at that time other than what had been discussed at the federal level and agreed upon at that particular time by the federal government and all participating provinces.
Certainly people's positions have questionably changed over the period of time, but it is interesting for me that we are entertaining the motions brought forward by the members of the opposition when--what are we really voting on and what is the proposal really saying? The Quebec proposal, as I read it, suggests that we reopen negotiations with the federal government but that we suggest that we only reopen them if they accept--[interjection]
Again, that I think is where a lot of the confusion lies. A lot of the misunderstanding is that even members from the federal Liberal government party are suggesting that they are working on alternatives, but I think for us to be consistent across the province, as I had said earlier in my comments, will we be creating an imbalance in the health care system by one particular province moving out in front of this ahead of another? I think the idea, when we talk about health care and how it should be equal and fair and representative to all people, that my greatest concern would be that we would be setting up a two-tier system which I know the opposition certainly do not want that to happen. They have made their position very clear on those particular subjects.
I think to discuss that in the context of the Quebec proposal where we are willing to open up negotiations which have been agreed upon, as I said earlier, by all provinces and all the members of the federal government, are we creating a system where one province may offer more in settlement fees or support help that may be required? I guess it is hard to say, but when all 10 provinces sat down and negotiated this deal, it seemed like everybody was in agreement that there was some fairness there and that it was perhaps equitable to all.
I know there is a bigger question out there as far as what more can we do, and I think when I read the comments and some of the things, the health care that is going to continue to be provided and the supports that are going to be in place, it becomes a real question. I think that it is something that no matter how we feel about it personally and how each province feels in their position, it is a fact that it has to be done in unity with all the provinces. It has to be done with the idea that all provinces understand what the deal is, what has been negotiated, what the federal government's responsibilities are and what each individual province's responsibilities are. In essence, I was under the impression that the first agreement that was struck was something that there had been agreement upon by all Health ministers and obviously by the Health minister of the federal government and that this would be reflected in the settlements that were made out there.
* (1450)
The one concern I have--and I have the opportunity, I guess, when you have a break in between sittings or committee meetings, then you can read what was said and what was expressed before. I do have some concern on the matter of the motion that is being brought forward. I know that as government, when we discuss things, we discuss it in the context or in the form of representing the province or representing the government of Manitoba and are often chastised by the opposition for bringing those positions forward and questioned, is that a position of the government or tried to appear that way?
When I made the suggestion that the resolution that was being brought forward by the members opposite was brought forward by their party, by the opposition representing that group of people in Manitoba, it was certainly brought to my attention quite clearly through a point of order from one of the members that indeed it was not a motion that was brought forward on behalf of the NDP party of Manitoba. It was brought forward by the two members listed as moving and seconding the resolution. So I would have a concern in that are we being asked to vote on a question, on a matter of a resolution brought forward that perhaps members of the opposition do not have full agreement on, or are we being asked to discuss a resolution that is the true position of the NDP party of Manitoba?
We certainly see in other jurisdictions across the country where there are NDP governments, in Saskatchewan particularly, where Mr. Serby, the Minister of Health there, has made particular statements in regard to the agreement that was reached by all members of the group of ministers and the federal minister. I think he is taking a very reasonable and concerned approach in the fact that whatever resolution, if there is any change to the one that has already been agreed upon, that it should be done as a collective group of people, that we cannot continue to bring forward individual ideas that may suit that particular person or that small group of people but actually represents all the governments in Canada and in agreement with the federal government because, again, as I read through these notes, I do not get from the opposition that there is a disagreement that the federal government should pay the majority share of this.
According to the first agreement, they have done that. We are continuing to supply additional costs that we have. Our participation in it has been agreed upon, as is all of the other provinces. I know the member opposite likes to comment that it is discussion of time, and I certainly have read her comments on the record in regard to time. She has alluded to 1982, I believe and then also back into the early war years, and I do not question the fact that that may or may not be true, Mr. Chairman. What I would suggest, though, is that if there is a motion to come forward by any member of the opposition as an independent resolution, certainly not one, at least in this member's eyes, where there is unanimous agreement from that particular group, that it should have the specifics built around it and it should indicate what they are actually asking for.
Is it if we expand it, let us discuss the terms of the resolution as to what is being put forward and not just general terms as in the discussion today, the discussion in the House in Question Period where the question was brought from the members opposite, did we support the Ontario position, did we support the Quebec position. I think it becomes painfully clear that what we are interested in doing is creating an agreement amongst all the provinces and the federal government that is workable and doable. I think really all I have seen come across is the fact of their willingness to support any proposal that is out there and really just force governments and everybody into a corner where there may not be equitable treatment created by making individual, independent decisions that affect everybody in Canada.
I think we should look very carefully when we are discussing those types of resolutions, because I think quite often when you are doing something independent of everyone else that affects everyone else and everyone else is obligated to some degree to participate in, that we should certainly be very careful how we proceed and perhaps should not proceed until we have all sat down, and, as I say, as previously agreed upon, if the recommendations and the deal is to change, then again that has to be out there for discussion, but it has to be something that is put on the table as broad-based, so that every government in Canada, every province and the federal government would have to agree to support or not to support this to a certain level, so that there is fairness in the system.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will leave my comments as they are. I will certainly listen attentively to the rest of the debate on this resolution, and, again, I really just want to question the motive behind these types of resolutions. I presume there will be more coming forward if the pattern continues, and I continue to hope that the ministers will discuss this and come to an agreement, again, as I have perceived earlier, that there was an agreement that all parties involved can agree upon and we can share equally, not equally but responsibly, based on our responsibilities to the resolution of this very serious issue.
So with that I will continue to pay attention and comment later if needed. Thank you.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I am glad the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) is going to be paying attention to the debate, because I really think that if one looks at some of the debate last week, I think a lot of members opposite missed the point entirely.
I first want to indicate that I was quite distressed with some of the comments that were put on the record, trying to develop analogies with the hepatitis C situation. Members were talking about reactions to drugs. I think one member even referenced labour in terms of childbirth, other issues. I would not want anyone to underestimate the tragedy of hepatitis C contamination for the victims involved.
I mentioned this before and I want to put on the record again, that I have talked to a constituent of mine who is a victim of contaminated blood who has hepatitis C. I can tell you that if you knew this individual, like I do, you would not know it. You would not notice the fact that his lifespan is going to be significantly shortened. This is going to have very real consequences for his family. His quality of life will deteriorate very significantly as time goes along. This is an individual who to all appearances is very fit, has led a very fit lifestyle, very successful, and in an endeavour that involves peak physical fitness. But because of hepatitis C contaminated blood, that is the reality he is faced with.
I do not believe that members in the House need necessarily have to have met someone who is contaminated with hepatitis C because of the contamination of the blood supply. I think all one has to do is put someone in those circumstances. I recognize we can get into fine debating points about precedence, whether this would be a precedent or not. I think some of the previous examples we have are a good indication that governments at all levels have looked on humanitarian basis. We have seen compensation on thalidomide. We have seen it on AIDS, and it was very much in that spirit that the issue of hepatitis C came to the forefront with the Krever inquiry. That inquiry, by the way, stated very clearly that the recommendation was coverage for all victims, and I believe that was the appropriate recommendation. It was made on humanitarian grounds. That was the starting point of this whole issue.
* (1500)
Then some other factors came into this. I think one is the obvious fact that compensation costs money, yes, and compensation in and as of itself is only part of the issue. Indeed, the minister today in Question Period said, well, you know, we have to look at other aspects that are out there in the system that will still be available to victims of hepatitis C. Indeed, that is the case, although I found the minister left out one of the more significant areas of government that is going to be called into play for a significant number of people, and that is the welfare system. This is going to lead to many individuals losing not only their health but their livelihood. It will have a significant cost not just in terms of health care but in terms of income support.
What I want to put on the record, though, is the fact that the government still, after a week of debate on this issue, does not get it. I found it interesting today when the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) got up and criticized the Liberal member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and pointed out that the Liberal member had wanted the House of Commons taken out of a resolution.
Well, what was interesting is that the resolution was calling for a free vote. It did not deal with the compensation issue. The first step was to get it agreed to in this House that there should be a free vote, but what the minister left out was that he then turned around and voted against a free vote in the Legislature. He criticized the member for Inkster for taking out the House of Commons--and I can tell you, we put that in. Our critic put that in because this was prior to the vote in the House of Commons. We hoped to have some influence--
An Honourable Member: You did not vote for his motion in committee.
Mr. Ashton: Well, the minister voted against our motion. He voted against our motion, not the Liberal amendment.
An Honourable Member: With you.
Mr. Ashton: You see, once again the minister plays word games here. He criticized the Liberal member for taking out one component of it, but his position is to take out both components, and he still does not get it. We wanted both in there. I am glad the minister has pointed it out. We felt we could not, in good conscience, say: let us have a free vote in the House of Commons, but, oh, it is different when it comes to the Manitoba Legislature.
You know, I read the comments of the minister in Question Period again, because I remember when he talked about the Whips being on in the House of Commons. We saw immediately, the moment we suggested the Whips come off in the Manitoba Legislature, the Whips were on in this committee. I have never seen so many people in this committee. They were going around not just the one side, but right around the back. We were lucky as opposition members we were not forced out of our chairs. Government members appeared out of the woodwork. The mention of any debate which would have put this to a free vote, the Whips off, got the government members in here; the Whip was on.
So I just put that on the record because I thought that was disingenuous of the Minister of Health. He was against a free vote either in the House of Commons or the Manitoba Legislature, and he knows full well we were in favour of a free vote in the Manitoba Legislature and the House of Commons.
Now, since that time, I think it has been very clear a number of things have happened since this issue came up. By the way, we raised this issue initially in December. Our position is on record in the form of a private member's resolution well before this issue ever received any of the kind of prominence it has received in terms of national attention the last several weeks. We were on record based on the Krever report, we said: compensation for all victims. If the minister does not know that, he should read our private member's resolution, which is on the books clearly supporting that situation.
Now, the ministers of Health, both federal and provincial, sat down, decided '86 to '90. Anybody who was contaminated before 1986 is not covered under the federal-provincial agreement. The agreement factored in $800 million federal support, $300 million provincial support. That is not counting other costs. We are more than aware of that, and that is one of the reasons I think the fact that the lion's share of the coverage is coming from the federal government is reasonable, because the province has to be faced with the reality of other costs, especially hospitalization costs and, yes, income support costs. We end up picking up a significant part of the bill.
Now, after the federal government rammed through their position, and let us remember what they did, there was an Opposition Day motion in the House of Commons moved by the official opposition, supported by all opposition parties including the federal Conservatives. They supported a motion that would grant coverage to all Canadians. Okay? So their federal party was clearly on record in favour of this, because when they try and get into what parties in this and that and the other jurisdictions say, their federal party, the federal NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Reform Party said full compensation.
The federal government, fearing that they could not get their members to support a vote against this resolution, put the Whip on, did so quite effectively. Jean Chretien, I guess, as he was off lecturing Fidel Castro about democracy in Cuba, was very much on the phones back in Canada making sure there was not too much democracy within the federal Liberal caucus. I thought that was somewhat ironic. One thing about Cuba, I think they know about the party Whip. I do not think they need any lectures from Jean Chretien on that one. But, anyway, the fact is the Liberals pushed through a no vote on compensation for all victims.
Now, what happened after that point? In the Quebec Legislature, Daniel Johnson, the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party, he introduced a resolution calling for compensation for all victims. It was amended by the government, the PQ government. I suspect, by the way, that Jean Charest, someone the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is quite knowledgeable of--I believe he was his main supporter in Manitoba in the leadership convention--I am sure Jean Charest has not changed the position of the Quebec Liberal Party. The bottom line, Mr. Chairperson, I think Quebec started to show the fact that many Canadians, including a lot of governments, had difficulty with that decision to exclude pre-'86 victims.
We have seen indications elsewhere. In British Columbia, I think a resolution has been planned for today. It has been reported in the media. But now what we have is Mike Harris. Mike Harris has come out and said a number of things, reopening discussions. We have a copy of the news release. We read from that today. Our Leader pointed out that they are talking about that, but, you know, they are going beyond that. They are talking about putting their own share of the package up front. They are talking about commitment of dollars for a provincial portion of the compensation package.
Mr. Chairperson, this is very significant because I think what is happening is I think across the country a lot of people have been saying, look, this is a humanitarian issue. I know the Premier (Mr. Filmon) wants to play this as a political issue. I found his comments, quite frankly, to be inappropriate to the tone of the debate that we have seen thus far. I believe everyone is motivated by the same thing. I would hope so. I think everybody understands the huge impacts on the individuals who have been affected and the real angst of people who are not covered when others are being covered.
* (1510)
What is happening I think is very clear. Yes, the ministers of Health have had another conference call and say they agree to the original agreement, but I think if you look beyond that, you are starting to see that within governments across the country a lot of people are saying that agreement does not go far enough. Glen Clark, I have had the opportunity to talk to him directly about this and stated this in the public record. I think he was one of the first people to say he did not feel comfortable with the agreement that had been resolved.
I want to suggest to the minister that at times I think he slips into something that I think is not of concern to Canadians and Manitobans, the strict legalities of the issue. I think for most people this is a straightforward issue, it is a humanitarian issue, and to get into the legalities of the issue, are we now going to provide compensation only to those who have a greater prospect for success legally through class action which is allowed in a number of jurisdictions? Are we going to have a compensation package that is only focused on whether you have a good potential ability to have a lawsuit, Mr. Chairperson? I hope not, because for most Canadians the real question is compensation for all or compensation for none.
I really believe that the unfortunate part here is that some people, because of the nature of the pressures that are on them politically--I point to Allan Rock. Allan Rock, according to sources, had argued for full compensation to cover all victims. Mr. Chairperson, he was defeated obviously in the cabinet, and now the cabinet is making that argument. I do not know if anyone on the Conservative side made the argument for coverage of all victims. I do not know that. I would hope that would be the case, and if they have not thus far, I do not think it is too late.
Mike Harris today is saying something obviously quite different from what he said on Friday to the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Filmon). I suspect that some of that may be the exchange between Mike Harris and Jean Chretien. You may remember that; you know, both of them firing shots at each other back and forth.
I think that was a very political display, but, you know, the reality is Ontario, which will face the largest costs in Canada, is now indicating its willingness to involve the province in order to bring justice about for pre-'86 victims. That should be what we should focus in on. I think we have the Krever report saying: provide it to all victims. I think we have a clear statement from many people across the country. I think we have a model by the way, and I will suggest that the minister look at something similar to the Irish model. It is not a perfect model; but, from what I have been able to determine from it, it certainly goes beyond what we have in Canada. I think that, if the minister were to look back on the original decision, even the minister himself would argue perhaps that in hindsight, maybe the cutoff at '86 was harsh, was not acceptable to the pre-'86 victims, not acceptable to a lot of Manitobans and a lot of Canadians.
Well, the real question for us, Mr. Chairperson, was how we dealt with it, and I would note to the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) and others, if you look at the way we dealt with it, I think we dealt with it in a very constructive manner. Our first resolution in this committee was urging that we have a free vote on the issue, both in the House of Commons and in the Manitoba Legislature. If that had been cleared away, if the government had agreed to that, I think then we could have sat down as MLAs in general--not as a government, not as an opposition, but as MLAs--and focused in on a constructive solution. Then we would not have needed to have people accusing each other of politics or such accusations we heard from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today, because then each MLA would be working towards that if we had had a free vote.
When the government rejected that, it was obvious to us from the comments that were made in the House why this was done, Mr. Chairperson. It was done because the government feared that, if this matter were brought before the Legislature, there would be a decision other than support for the federal-provincial Health ministers' agreement. Think about it, Mr. Chairperson. If we had had to vote on it, we would have had the same kind of situation in the Manitoba Legislature occurring that is occurring in British Columbia, which has occurred, to a certain extent, in Quebec, and is, most definitely, occurring in Ontario. There would have been a rethinking of the decision.
Well, what motion did we move last week, the end of last week? We moved a motion based on the most recent expression of dissatisfaction with the partial compensation--a full compensation for hepatitis C, and that was the Quebec resolution. You know, I really thought that the minister and the member for Turtle Mountain got extremely carried away with themselves, debating back and forth and saying, aha, you are saying that the Quebec resolution, the Quebec resolution that points to the federal government.
Let us put it clearly on the record, Mr. Chairperson. We have said the lion's share should be paid by the federal government. We said it outside the House. We said it inside the House. There is no disagreement on that point. We have also said, and I think in this case I would point out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), our Leader, said on Friday publicly last week, not in the Legislature, but through the media, that his position--and it is virtually identical to the Mike Harris position, and the one that we proposed, as the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) points out, in December of 1997--is the lion's share from the federal government, but the province being willing to play a role as well. We already have established that. We already have an agreement that has the province of over $300 million out of a $1.1-billion package.
So that is the position we took, and I stress again on the Quebec resolution, that it started out with calling for federal-provincial action, and was amended by the PQ government to read only the federal government. Now, we could have played a political game and put in a resolution that had called on the province to put up X numbers of dollars. Well, first of all, it might have been ruled out of order, Mr. Chairperson. We did consider that because we do not have the ability to spend money. We do not have ability as a committee--[interjection] Well, the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) says amen, and perhaps he is not in a good position to be able to do that, but as a committee we do not have the ability to spend money. We can subtract from the Estimates. We cannot add additional expenditures. If we move a resolution in the House that does anything other than recommend expenditures, it is out of order because only Executive Council through the Estimates process, through Supply, is able to spend money.
So we tried, and I actually, quite frankly, was very surprised. I thought the government would have, at a minimum, agreed to the resolution we moved last week, instead of debating it ad infinitum, instead of attacking the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), who from day one has been clearly of one mind on this, and that is to get justice for victims, and if members doubt that, they should understand a little bit about the background of the member for Osborne before she entered this Legislature. She has had a long history with the AIDS community, dealing with people who suffered, Mr. Chairperson, from contaminated blood. It is something that is very personal to the member for Osborne. I wish members at times would put aside the kind of situations we saw last week and recognize that.
That is why we moved this resolution. I still believe, by the way, that this resolution can be adopted by all members of the House quite readily, but, you know, I really think what we have to do over the next period of time--and I am hoping that we will have some ability over the next day or so for members on the government side to rethink their position. I am really hoping, Mr. Chairperson, that we will see some recognition of the need to look at what we are suggesting, what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) put forward on Friday, what we stressed again in Question Period, a constructive approach. There are reports that Allan Rock now is talking about having a further meeting. Mike Harris has moved; British Columbia has moved; Quebec has moved.
Every other province, I believe, is starting to have this discussion except Manitoba, and I do not understand, quite frankly, why. Certainly B.C., Quebec, and Ontario which I think collectively represent about three-quarters of the population of the country, in each of those jurisdictions we have seen a significant shift. We have seen debate in the Legislature. We have seen announcements by government that move in a significant direction towards coverage for pre-'86 victims, and that is the bottom line here.
I believe that the political stands are shifting. They have shifted dramatically in a week. I think most Canadians are saying coverage for one, coverage for all victims of hepatitis C, and they are saying that because they never saw this as a legalistic decision; they saw it as a humanitarian decision fundamentally to cover '86 to '89. [interjection] Just like flood victims. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I believe, raised that, and, in fact, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). Both raised this before. We do not cover flood victims because we have to cover flood victims. I mean, I know the Premier (Mr. Filmon) even suggested if you choose to live on a flood plain, then that is your--I mean, an element of fault is attached.
The reality is flood victims were covered and the degree to which they were covered changed over time. The first brochure during the flood that came out had significantly less coverage than what we actually ended up having. We asked the question in the House and within a day those leaflets were changed. The amount was increased to a hundred thousand dollars. I could list probably 25, 30, 35 items that were changed. You know, it was funny because every time we asked a question in the House collectively as an opposition, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would say, oh, you are playing politics, the same thing he is saying on hepatitis C.
* (1520)
You know, it is interesting, and I look to the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). He will remember those comments well. The reality was, Mr. Chairperson, that every time he said that, he would sit down and because we had raised a legitimate argument, a legitimate point, despite the political attack on us as an opposition, they changed it, not because of any ability of people to sue. If you are a flood victim in this province, you cannot sue the province. There is no ability to sue the province at all. The province did not create the flood. It is something that we provide, because as a community we believe it is fair to help citizens in need, and flood victims are certainly a good example of that. We do the same for forest fire victims.
I said at the time you can say the same thing about northern Manitoba, that people choose to live in a forest fire area. I mean, if you exclude floods and forest fires from this province, you have not got much left. I mean, natural disasters go with the territory. If you start getting into this reductionist kind of argument that we see from members opposite--you know, you want to argue precedence? The fact is we have clear precedence for humanitarian-based compensation for victims of natural disasters and for medical disasters.
I can tell you the reality is for someone who has got contaminated blood from hepatitis C, that will have as much impact as any flood or any forest fire will have on their lives and, in fact, will probably have more of an impact because many of them will die prematurely; those that suffer later from liver damage, for example. You know, and it is interesting because a lot of people, if you want an explanation of what hepatitis C does to you, there were two examples that have come out just recently. James Earl Ray, the convicted murderer of Martin Luther King, you know what he died of? Hepatitis, liver disease, from contaminated blood, and that is just to show what happens. Evel Knievel apparently suffering from fatal--[interjection] Yes, he is certainly terminal. Yes, it was reported in the media, and why? From blood transfusion, contaminated blood, hepatitis C. I do not know how many more times you have to stress to people, hepatitis C can be as deadly as AIDS can for the people involved. People can die from hepatitis C; they are dying from hepatitis C. That is why we have always said AIDS and hepatitis C were very much part of the same time period in our history.
I think the Krever inquiry pointed to the need to provide humanitarian assistance, and I think that is the appropriate thing to do. I say to the minister, you know, because sometimes he keeps getting back to these legalities. He mentioned quite extensively last week about how this was a private agency providing the blood, the Red Cross and under federal regulation. Those are facts. No one is disputing that, but the reality is I do not think that washes. I think if the Red Cross did not exist, we would have another system in place and, of course, in response to Krever, another system is being put in place. The bottom line is as a society, I believe if you would ask people on the street, the blood supply is one of the key components of the health care system. Whether it is, in essence, being conducted by an NGO that has existed for many years or by the government directly, it is an important part of the health care system. Whether we are buying the blood through the health care system, whether it is federal regulation and we are buying the blood and we run the hospitals, if you want to get into legalities back and forth, I think that is the wrong analysis.
So I want to suggest the following just to conclude this. I would suggest that if members opposite wish to support this resolution, we could move to it probably immediately. If they wish to amend the resolution to put the Manitoba position on the Order Paper, we would be willing to see that. We would love to see it. I notice today every time we asked a question, we hear about everything except what the position of the government is, and I notice the Premier does not want to even go as far as the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik). The Minister of Health at least, I give him credit, he has been saying the position is the federal-provincial agreement, no coverage for pre-'86. I think that is a fair summation of the government's position according to the Minister of Health, but the Premier managed to attack us but never answered that question.
Here is an opportunity. You can either vote this resolution down and move a subsequent resolution. I have actually suggested you could do it through a different form. You have the ability to bring in a government motion that takes precedence over all business in the House. I suggest do it. Bring in a motion that says clearly on the record what the government position is. So either support this resolution, amend it, vote it down, but let us get onto, I think, a clear position.
I think our position is well known. It is on the record. We support compensation for all victims. We know it will cost additional money. We believe the lion's share should come from the federal government, but we also believe that the right thing to do is also to be part of it provincially. We really believe that. We believe it not on political grounds, but just because I know personally and I know the member for Osborne and our caucus--and by the way, these 15 minutes spent on who moved the resolution back and forth I thought was the most ridiculous part of the debate.
When we move a resolution in this committee, it is on behalf of our caucus. We have not had a party convention. Since this issue became a major issue, we moved a caucus resolution. It is on the record. That is our position as a party. Let us not nitpick back and forth. I think people know where we stand: we want the compensation to be extended. I think we want to know from the government, are they still with their position last week, the First Minister's position? Are we with the Premier's position today who did not answer the questions? I wonder if that means his position is evolving. Are we going to end up in a situation where you get better coverage in Kenora than you do in Manitoba, in Lac du Bonnet, the minister's own constituency, right close to the Manitoba border? I hope not, Mr. Chairperson.
So the ball is back in your court. I say to the government, through you, Mr. Chairperson, tell us what your position is. I would suggest, by the way, that let us have a debate in the Manitoba Legislature itself. You have the ability to do something we do not. We can move an Opposition Day motion. We cannot have it given priority. It will not appear for several days. I would say move a motion and state your position.
Mr. Chairperson, I believe we are in a position to have a vote on this. We have had various different members opposite speak. The minister has put his position on the record; the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). We are prepared for a vote on this and would encourage the government to do so. If they are going to vote it down, let them vote it down; if they are going to support it, let them support it.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity--
An Honourable Member: I wanted to call the question.
Mr. Praznik: The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) wants to call the question, but the history and tradition of this Legislature, although members may call the question, if another member signifies they wish to speak, they are always granted the courtesy of the floor, and that is what I am doing. I understand that there are other members who wish to speak, so I say that as a clarification to the member for Osborne.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, we do have procedures for an official calling of the question, and we are certainly open to debate. I see there are certainly two other members who have not spoken yet. We are certainly willing to accommodate them. All we were suggesting was to canvass the committee to see if there was informal willingness to have the matter put.
The minister, by the way, is wrong, and if he wants to know about traditions in this House, we have seen on MTS how the ability to debate is not always acknowledged by the government side, so let him not play both sides.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Chairperson: I would like to mention to all members of the committee that indeed I am keeping a list. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) is the next speaker, and the next speaker after that is the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Chair, I had understood the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) was the next speaker.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Health is the speaker right now.
Ms. McGifford: Then are we abandoning the tradition of going back and forth between the opposite sides of the House?
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I do not know of that tradition. If the committee so wishes that, then they can bring that up. I have said before this that when a topic comes up that there are many speakers who want to speak on it, the hands are going up, and I will keep a list to try to be as fair as I can. So, at this point, the Minister of Health, for his comments.
Mr. Ashton: I do not know which committees you have been sitting in for the last number of years, Mr. Chairperson, but I have sat in a lot of these committees. It is clearly a tradition. This was raised again the other day. I do not want to get into this again. I think there is a willingness of all members to respect the right of members on all sides to speak. We are certainly--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. [interjection] Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), at this point, does not have a point of order.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, you have not let me finish yet. How would you know if I have a point of order or not?
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Thompson is just rambling on. I said I called him on his order, and he just kept on rambling, plain and simple.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, you do not have the right to even say that of a member in this House.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Ashton: I have chaired many of these committees, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson: You are out of order.
Mr. Ashton: You hear members out; you make a ruling. If members disagree, they can challenge your ruling but to say that a member of the opposition is rambling on, Mr. Chairperson, is inappropriate from anybody who sits in that Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Thompson has my apology for saying that he was rambling on. Plain and simply, he did not have a point of order.
* (1530)
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Thompson, again, on a point of order?
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, if you understand the role of the Chair, when a point of order is made, you listen out the point of order, which you did not do in my case. You then make a ruling. Then you allow for members, if they disagree with it, to challenge the Chair.
You would not even allow me to get recognized to challenge the Chair, because your ruling, Mr. Chairperson, was inappropriate. If you want to proceed this way for the next two and a half hours, we can do that. We have not had to do that.
Mr. Chairperson: You do that. The honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), on the same point of order.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I would suggest in the interests of maintaining a civil working relationship on this committee, that we do recognize--we have talked--[interjection]
You know, Mr. Chair, I am trying to make some reconciliation here to resolve the matter in a fair way. If the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), I say to him, would like that to happen, if he would be so discerning to just let me finish, he may find we resolve--[interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Health has a point of order?
Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Chair, I am speaking to the member for Thompson's (Mr. Ashton) point of order, and I would suggest that we have discussed it at this committee before. We should, in fact, have a rotation back and forth.
I think that the reason we got into this is because members indicated they wanted to vote. I wanted to speak to some members. Other members wanted to, and there were no opposition members who had indicated they wanted to speak, and so the Chair indicated in the speaking order some other government members. If members of the opposition, either New Democrat, Liberal or independent wish to speak, we have no problem with having a rotation.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), on the same point of order.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): As I understood it, Mr. Chair, and I do want to resolve this in an amicable way, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) just spoke for the last 20 or 25 minutes, and the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is presently responding to that. Then I would think it would be appropriate at least for a member of the government's side of the House to respond to that, but I will defer to the Chair's ruling.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I have listened to a number of comments from many of the members. The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) had her hand raised. Did she want to speak on the point of order, too?
Ms. McGifford: Yes, Mr. Chair, and I support the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and my colleague in valuing amicability and a smooth running of this committee.
The point that I--the minister is right. I had called the question. Since his colleagues felt that it was not the appropriate time for the question, I had also raised my hand to indicate that I wished to be on the speakers' list, almost, I think, simultaneously with the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice, his claim took precedence, and I am not quite sure that it should.
The Minister of Justice has said the Minister of Health is going to respond and then a member from the government will respond, but the Minister of Health is a government member. I think after the Minister of Health it should be a member of the opposition.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Perhaps I should have said this in the first place, and that is, simply, any one of the committee members who are bringing up a point of order, please state your point of order, firstly. Back it up with comments if you wish, but please make it clear what your point of order is.
I have heard now from most of the committee members. It seems to be a reasonable thing in asking that we go from opposition to government members, and that we will do. So the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) will speak, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) will speak and then the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and then anybody else who wishes their name on the list.
Now, I would ask--[interjection] Order, please. I would ask one more thing. Those committee members wishing to raise points of order, I would ask that you do this in a manner in which you do not have points of order one after another, two, three or more times. I ask you to take that in the gesture in which it is offered, that we can simply have a good committee run very smoothly if we do this.
Mr. Praznik: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to respond to some of the issues that were raised by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who I believe, as well, is the seconder of the motion now before this particular committee.
With respect to the point he makes for a debate in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, his party has chosen to bring forward this motion the other day in this committee. It is a committee of the Legislature which all members are able to attend and participate in this debate. The nature of the committee room and the opportunity for us all to speak on numerous occasions as this debate develops is a very good one, so I suggest to him that the debate for which he asks is, in fact, taking place here, and we will eventually come to a vote of some sort on this particular motion, perhaps with amendment, perhaps not, but it is a very adequate forum--in fact, I would even suggest to him, is a very interesting one.
I know, again, when you are running three committees, not all members of the House are able to be in this one committee; members have other responsibilities in other committee rooms. But we have had during my involvement in this debate the previous resolution, the general discussion on hepatitis C. We have had, in my opinion, one of the best discussions I have witnessed on the intricacies of a very complex issue. Members on both sides of the committee table have I think endeavoured to really give full discussion to the many issues involved. So I would suggest that it has been a very interesting debate and one that is certainly evolving nationally as we speak.
I want to, first of all, before I deal with some of his comments on this resolution, update members of the committee as to the conference call last Friday and some of the things that have happened across the country, because I must admit to colleagues it is very difficult as a provincial Minister of Health today who has been part of the discussions and negotiations to report with accuracy as to where others are in this debate, and I wanted to share some of that information with colleagues just to give a sense of what is being said in certain places and what provinces are saying.
First of all, with respect to the conference call on Friday, it was very, very interesting because there were three provinces who had made statements that were considerably different than what they had been saying to us as their colleagues, as provincial ministers. That, of course, was Quebec where there was a resolution in the National Assembly, the Province of British Columbia where there was a ministerial statement of some sort and the Province of Ontario.
Now, what was very interesting in our conversation was that each of those ministers of Health backtracked significantly from the public statements they were making in their provinces. They did not backtrack by way of being forced by other ministers. They were doing it right from the moment they got on the telephone. What was very interesting about it is I know the minister from British Columbia was telling us, her colleagues, that British Columbia's position really was not that there be a separate plan for hepatitis C that required provincial dollars, but rather their position was that the federal government should put more money into health care generally, so that we can improve our service level to all people whether they have hepatitis C, cancer or whatever.
When the chair of our meeting read back some of her statements in the House, it was very interesting because the line, that is not what we really meant, came many times out of that conversation, and one was left with the very strong impression that the government of British Columbia was saying one thing in a public statement and another to us as provincial colleagues, but by the end of the telephone conversation, actually from the beginning of the telephone conversation to the end of it, British Columbia was very, very firm on the position and the agreement of which they were a part, and they were indicating to us that they were not prepared in any way to be adding dollars to a separate compensation plan nor were they encouraging anyone else to do so, and that really what they meant was the federal government should put more money into its transfers to provinces, which we all agree on.
* (1540)
Ontario gave us very much the same kind of view and indicated clearly that their letters and comments to the federal government never, at that stage, called for a separate hepatitis C program, and there was quite a bit of discussion around statements they made and what they really meant. But, from the beginning of the conversation to the end, the Ontario Health minister was very firm to indicate that they were not calling upon provinces to be part of any agreement.
The only exception to this troika of position was from Quebec where the minister from Quebec agreed very much with the positions we had taken but indicated that the legislature of which he is a servant had passed a resolution. That, of course, was the policy of Quebec, and he had to respect that. What I find so interesting is a press release that Monsieur Rochon put out from Quebec. It is dated Montreal, May 1, 1998, and it said, and I quote: Quebec is surprised that, contrary to the impression left by the reaction of some of them, Canada's other provinces have decided not to ask the federal government for humanitarian reasons to extend the compensation program to all tainted blood victims, declared Quebec Minister of Health and Social Services and member for Charlesbourg, Jean Rochon, following a telephone conference of ministers of Health.
This particular line is totally opposite what Monsieur Rochon said to us on the telephone. So I am not really sure today what the game is that is being played by some because, when we talk to them privately in conversation, they say one thing; in the public statements that they make, they say another.
We have seen a press release come out from Premier Harris in Ontario that was the subject of, and rightly so, questions in our Legislature today, and I have a copy of that release here somewhere in my material. What I found most interesting--here it is--is that Mr. Harris in this press release is indicating that Ontario is committing to sharing compensation for the pre-'86 victims on the same basis as the existing package for those infected between '86 and '90, and he goes on to say the biggest cost to Ontario is the $1 billion in health care that we provide to all victims, regardless of how they are infected. We are exploring possible legal avenues to recoup from the federal government.
It is not quite clear--and this is why the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was not prepared to answer queries from the Leader of the Opposition, because we are not quite clear if Mr. Harris is asking for--if this is new money he is putting on the table or if he is prepared to--or he is asking that this be charged against the account that we all believe the federal government owes us for what we are spending on the medical side of compensation. So we are not quite clear on that.
In British Columbia, to give you an update--I feel like a radio announcer here today--the motion going before the British Columbia legislature, and it says and I quote: Be it resolved that since British Columbia will spend more that $550 million providing health care services who contracted the hepatitis C virus through the blood system, the members of the Legislative Assembly urge the federal government to develop a plan to address and fund the needs of those British Columbians who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood prior to 1986.
Well, it is interesting. This is saying fund the needs of those British Columbians. They are not saying provide a compensation plan, and they are not offering one penny of British Columbia dollars. So we are not quite sure what they mean, and I must share with colleagues, after listening to the British Columbia minister try to explain her statement, what she said she really meant to us, and seeing the resolution that the government of British Columbia has put to their legislature, I am very confused as to what they actually mean. I am sure Mr. Rock is equally confused by it because there are a lot of different conflicting signals.
So here we have three provinces who are off making their statements. Quebec's resolution said the federal government should pay it all and is not offering a penny to be part of any particular plan. British Columbia is saying that it should not be a compensation plan but should address the needs, and what are those? Is that home care? Is that Pharmacare? It is not really clear, but it should all be federal money. Privately telling us what they really want is more transfer payments for all people. We have them there.
We have Ontario today committing, maybe committing some dollars, maybe new dollars, maybe charged against existing expenditure. So we really, quite frankly, as regards the other provinces, were not sure what any of these provinces are saying. It makes it very difficult to have partners in this Confederation. I should tell members we were assured by the Health minister of Ontario that that was, when they spoke to us on the phone, their position, and then we see the Premier may be saying something different, maybe the Premier of Ontario saying we are prepared to give a credit for what we are doing. We are not sure. That is part of the difficulty with all of this.
Now, to put all of this into a little bit different perspective, Manitoba represents about 4 percent of the total package that has now been paid out, roughly our population. We are not going to be the ones that make or break a compensation package beyond this. If you take Quebec on the face value, which is federal dollars; if you take British Columbia on its face value, their resolution that they are debating today, that says federal dollars; if you listen to Mike Harris, who still we are not sure what he is saying; the bottom line is that any additional package, in whatever form it takes, is going to be made or not made by the Government of Canada. Even the New Democrats here in your resolution ask us to adopt the content of the Quebec resolution which, in essence, says all federal dollars.
Now, we had quite a little debate in this Chamber on Thursday as to what the New Democratic party position was. I want to talk a little bit about that for a moment, but if that is, in fact, we can take the New Democratic resolution on face value that this should be federal dollars, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has said the lion's share should be federal dollars, but that is not what their resolution says. Their resolution says federal government. The bottom line is it is the Government of Canada who has to decide whether or not it is going to come to the table with a host of additional dollars.
Now, that raises a number of other questions that we have debated very extensively in this Chamber. If the Government of Canada, first of all, decides to come with new dollars because, quite frankly, no province is in a position to add an additional in total $1.2 billion or $1.4 billion or whatever it would be to extend a compensation package. So without the federal government, it is just not going to go anywhere, quite frankly. So if the federal government is going to be there, that raises a couple of questions. Number one, how will they fund it? If they are going to fund it, as they have done from time to time, by robbing our transfer payments, by stealing the money out of other pots of transfers to the provinces, then that, as I have said in the Legislature, would be totally unacceptable. What I fear, quite frankly, by the tactics of some of the other governments, by Quebec, by Ontario, by British Columbia, is that they are tempting Mr. Rock and Mr. Chretien to do exactly that today.
I offer this as no criticism to the mover or seconder of the motion of the debate, but I share with them just some observations. That in the way this is playing out, by the way in which these three provinces, whose ministers of Health say one thing to us in a telephone conversation on Friday and whose governments do something considerably different a few days later, they are really tempting Mr. Rock and Mr. Chretien to say, okay, we will put some money on the table, not the lion's share of cash, we will put some money on the table. We will do what you want us to do, and by the way, next year, when we do our budget, you will just find we have pulled more or less the equivalent amount out of your transfers, or we will take it out of some other area where we transfer money or do programs--infrastructure, highways, whatever. We will get you. That has happened before on so many numerous occasions. I really must admit that I am very worried that that is the reaction we will see by the Government of Canada.
Yes, everyone will get up and cheer--the media, I am sure, The Globe and Mail and the CBC, who have been advancing this issue--[interjection] Well, whoever, will get up and cheer a great victory, and, at the end of the day, the provinces again will bear the lion's share of responsibility, not the national government. So that is a worry, but that is the first question.
* (1550)
The second question is probably the greater one. It is one of principle, and it is a very important one. Do we then build a no-fault insurance program for anybody injured in our health care system by whatever means? That is a very fundamental question because, if we do not decide on that question, does that mean that we only compensate or we only provide--I am not dealing with negligence issues here, because negligence we always have to deal with. People can go to court. The reason, in fact, we got into this issue as provinces with the national government is because the group of hepatitis C victims between 1986 and '90 have pursued this matter in court. The reason why those dates are significant is, as we have been advised by the national government, who did the preparatory work, that is the area where their own lawyers have advised them there is a negligence on the part of the system.
So what we are really talking about here is: are we then going to provide special assistance to those outside the realm of negligence but for injury that is incurred in the regular risk taking that is part of the health delivery system? Are we only going to provide that when a group can raise a great deal of public sympathy and not when that group cannot? Because that is what I see happening here across the country.
I see one particular group, yes, a group who have suffered a great deal, saying we need this special case. So when an individual suffers ill through the provision of care in our health care system, when it is an individual who has an allergic reaction to a drug and is made unable to work, when it is an individual who in the course of a risky surgical procedure suffers harm and is unable to work or require additional care, but when they are lone individuals and cannot muster the kind of media attention that a larger group with a more public issue can, will we have the same sympathy? Will they demand the same, will they get the same public attention? Will they get the same level of compensation or support as some members and some governments are proposing we do, or will they just be forgotten and be part of the regular Canadian social safety net system, whether it be adequate or not?
That is really what is evolving here somewhat. I appreciate where members are coming from, but the regrettable part of this debate, when one looks at the blood system, is the early cases of hepatitis C prior to that period when a test was part of the standard of care. If the Canadian blood system had been working as perfect as human beings can run one, if there was not any issue of negligence, it is likely that many, many, many of those people, if not at all, would have contracted hepatitis C through the blood system, not because there was negligence, but because it is the nature of blood and it is the nature of that system and it is the nature of the risk of that system.
The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale)--we had a very interesting discussion on the whole area of illness, disease, and injury coming out of the treatment in our health care system, and it is a growing part of health issues. But they are there and they will be there and, if you take that one step further, one of the issues that we have to deal with as provinces in building the new Canadian blood system, because the No. 1 issue here has had no attention in the media nor at this committee. In fact, I have not had one question in the case of my Estimates about the new Canadian blood system, one question that I recall.
The fundamental issue is how the new--and, no, I am not being critical. The fact is the media have not been asking it. We as provincial ministers have been working very diligently to get this new agency up and running. The board has been appointed, and there are some fundamental issues coming into this system that are matters of public policy that will have to be decided shortly, and yet it demands no attention. Yet that is really a fundamental issue of how the new blood system is being built today, so that we have one that is as safe as possibly can be, but the most safe blood system in the world that we as human beings can devise is still going to be prone from time to time to new blood-borne illness or disease being transferred through blood. We may not find it--we are unlikely to find it until some people have been stricken with that illness.
As one of my provincial colleagues said to me today, we talk about hepatitis C, but what about hepatitis D and E and F and G, all of which are there and are now part of our medical development? Can we safeguard our blood system 100 percent against any of those? No, we cannot.
Will we insure anyone who is injured through that blood system? Well, that is a very good question. If they are injured through our carelessness or negligence, yes, we have an obligation, but if they are injured through the regular risk, can we afford a no-fault system to attach to our blood? One of the real issues we are dealing with today in building the new Canadian blood system is insurance. How are we going to cover the insurance on that? It is difficult enough just dealing with the regular liability for negligence and things we have some control over, never mind adding to it a no-fault scheme beyond that area, but that is a repercussion of this debate, of extending this plan to areas where there have not been negligence.
Many have referred to this as the '86 to '90, non-'86 to '90. In reality, it is extending what is, in essence, a claim where the system could have done better and did not to that area where it is argued very strongly it was operating to standard, and this was a new illness within that standard.
So there are a lot of issues here that I am afraid when this national debate is settled one way or the other--and, quite frankly, today I am not quite sure how it is going to be settled, but there are repercussions after this is settled, after we no longer see it on the news every night, that are very significant for the health care system. If provincial ministers of Health and Mr. Rock as federal minister can be criticized for thinking down the road to these repercussions, so be it. Let us be criticized, but those are issues that are very important and very real and will have to be dealt with. So it is not always quite as simple as some would make it out to be.
So, today, we see a state of flux going on across the country. We have seen no willingness yet by the national government to say, yes, they are coming to the table with X number of dollars. If they do, I would warn members to be very skeptical, because they may be our own dollars coming from one pocket to be paid to another. So over the next few days, I am sure we will see this thing evolve. During the course of those few days, I think we are going to have some very interesting discussion at the committee.
Mr. Chair, one other comment I just make to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) about the resolution and some of the issues from last week is that we on this side and me as minister, when I did query the mover of the motion, I know the member had other responsibilities and left the committee, the member for Thompson, we did get, in our opinion, two different views as to what the New Democratic Party was saying.
That seems to be clarified a little bit here. They are still saying lion's share federal but we should be there even though we could debate whether we are already there in big dollars, and that will be part of the discussion. The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) did indicate that this was not a resolution of the New Democratic Party but of two members of that party. Now, I gather the member for Thompson is clarifying that this is a caucus position of the New Democratic Party. I am looking at Hansard and it is not in Hansard, but the member may have said that and it was not picked up on the record, but at least that issue is somewhat clarified today.
So I look forward to other members contributing to this discussion and debate. It is a good one and one that I have not seen too often, this degree of discussion in this Chamber or this committee.
* (1600)
Ms. McGifford: I wanted to begin this afternoon by making reference to some of the remarks made by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) because it seems to me that the member for Turtle Mountain did wonder about the motivation behind the resolutions. As the proposer of both these motions, I do want to make my motives clear. Unfortunately, Hansard does not pick up tone. It merely records words. I thought that the member for Turtle Mountain's question about motive was asked rather sneeringly and sarcastically and suspiciously.
So I do want to begin and make it very clear that our motive, my motive, in proposing both the resolutions stems from my concern for victims of hepatitis C. I believe very fervently that we should extend compensation to all victims of hepatitis C acquired through contaminated blood. I think it is necessary to extend it in order to alleviate suffering, to make life a possibility in some cases or to make a reasonable standard of life a possibility in some cases.
I do not know how the member for Turtle Mountain could doubt my sincerity or question my motives. I think it has been abundantly clear in the House when I introduced my first motion, introduced through a MUPI last December. I think if the member for Turtle Mountain really thinks I have ulterior motives in proposing these motions, that he has been in politics too long, because he has become extremely cynical, and I think it is time for him to make a decision to leave the life if that is what he thinks about people. So I want to put that on the record.
I have been working on this issue since December 1997. I have met with all kinds of people living with hepatitis C, both people who are covered by the package and who are not covered by the package. I do not know that I have done all the work that I have done with these people perfectly, but I do know that I am absolutely sincere. I know that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) respected that and indicated it on the record, and I appreciated his support.
I think the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has pointed out that I have a lot of experience with people living with a disease acquired through contaminated blood, that I have worked in the HIV-AIDS community, and I do know the suffering of those people, and I do know the suffering of people living with hepatitis C is related; in many cases dissimilar but nonetheless related. So my moving these resolutions is not inspired by ulterior or purely political motives whatsoever. These are sincere motions. They are sincere attempts to do everything I can, we can, to extend the compensation package to include all people who are living with hepatitis C acquired through contaminated blood.
Now, the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) also wondered aloud what we are supporting, that is the New Democratic caucus, and this seems to me absolutely amazing that this member could wonder what we were doing because we have been able to get no clear answers out of his Premier (Mr. Filmon) or no action out of his Premier. Last week, his side of the House voted against holding a free vote, and I think that the member for Turtle Mountain said that he was not sure what that vote was calling for.
I could recommend to him that he read the motion, or I could read it right now: That the 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. I think it really is quite clear. Hold a free vote on whether to extend compensation. No, the details are not spelled out. We do not have details from the original package anyway. We are told by the minister that they are still working on those, so we could not possible supply details here. We do look forward to the details on the original package, which I am beginning to suspect is not as good as it is trumped up to be but, nonetheless, we wait on that.
So here we have members opposite who refuse to support that motion. Members opposite refused today, at least the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did, to support the Ontario position. Now, the Minister for Health (Mr. Praznik) did make comments about the Ontario position, wondering whether when the day was over the Ontario position would be quite what it seemed in the press release, and I respect that. He may very well have a point. I understand that the Ontario government will be tabling a resolution in their House today, and we certainly look forward to reading that resolution.
I do not know whether this side of the House will support the current resolution. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) was not clear in the House today when we asked him if he would support this resolution. My suspicion is that this side of the House probably will not, because they do not want to open up debate that they are onside with Allan Rock, who said that the file is closed, and the file is closed.
But, of course, as we have repeatedly said, the file is not closed for those people living with hepatitis C infected before 1986. In fact, it is not even closed for those people infected living after 1986. I was speaking to some people today who wonder how much legal wrangling will go on with the sum of money, I think it is $300 million, put forward for compensation by the provinces.
So the file certainly is not closed. The Premier (Mr. Filmon), by the way, said in the hall today, I heard him, to the media, that he might consider putting more money on the table, you know, so I do not know what is going on. The member opposite wants to know what our position is. We want to know what your position is. I know the Premier in the House today said, well, why are you asking me so many different questions and, of course, the point is--[interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am having a lot of difficulty hearing the honourable member for Osborne. Thank you.
Ms. McGifford: I was talking about the Premier in the House today being very critical because I asked him questions. I thought that was my duty as a critic, to ask questions, but the reason for many different questions is that we do not get answers. Of course, perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was merely playing politics, as the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) says of other people.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has spoken very frequently about one of the reasons for not wanting to extend the package is that he does not want the extension of the package to become a precedent. I know we have said that there was coverage for HIV-AIDS, those infected with HIV-AIDS, as a result of contaminated blood, and there was no limit, no time frame set to that deal. I believe it was called an Extraordinary Assistance Plan, and it offered, because of that, in the deal across-the-board coverage.
I know people living with HIV-AIDS fought for this package for nine years, and I know they signed away their right to sue, and that is all right, at least it would seem to me it is probably correct because they have been given compensation, and I think it was a rather decent compensation, and because of the way in which it was done, because things were spelled out very carefully, my understanding, too, is that there was no room for legal wrangling, that all the money proposed went to the victims, and they received it as compensation. That is the kind of package that I think we need. I am not quite sure that that is the kind of package that we are going to get.
Now, the minister has also made the point that 1986 has been taken as the cutoff date, because it is at that date that the test became available, and I know that I have argued there were tests available earlier. The issue has been whether or not money should be awarded when there is no evidence of carelessness, or I think the minister's word is malfeasance, but this is a debatable point. The minister sees the cutoff date as 1986, and other people see it very differently. I suppose those people who see it very differently and will not be covered will be forced to go to the courts. We are talking about ill people. In many cases, we are talking about people who will be perhaps dead before this legal dealing can be proceeded with and completed, but I do want to make the point that the minister's 1986 date is certainly not written in stone, that there are lots of people who simply disagree and think that there was fault and carelessness long before 1986.
* (1610)
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) seemed to be very upset when I told him this was not a NDP party resolution. Now, I know the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) explained that we had not had a convention since the time the issue first arose. When I made the point that the resolution came forward from me and the member for Thompson, I was merely saying that procedurally I am the one who moved it. I certainly did not mean to indicate that our party did not endorse it. I am absolutely, as certain as I can be of anything, that our party would endorse this particular resolution and does endorse this particular resolution. That was not my point at all. I think the member for Turtle Mountain was making hay while the sun shines and really just running off without having a clear idea as to what he was doing.
Mr. Chair, the important issue here for us has always been extending the time frame of coverage. We may or may not have quarrels with what has been done to date and with what the package proposes. As the minister has told us, and as I have said earlier, we are not quite sure of the details of the package. The details are still being worked out. The minister may have issues with those details. We may have issues with those, but our quarrel in this committee or the quarrel of my caucus has been with the time frame, so our quarrel is with what has not been done, and that is extending coverage.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon), in the hall today, talked about the importance of caution. I appreciate the fact that he could not read a document in the House and necessarily say, yes, we are onside with Mr. Harris with this; we support this, and this is what we are going to do. The Premier advocated caution and time to recollect these documents in tranquillity, and this is possibly a good rule. I think that this side of the House would agree that public policy is something that needs to be meditated on and thought about, and well and good.
Our fear, Mr. Chair, is that sometimes caution can become paralysis, and sometimes caution can become an excuse for inaction. Perhaps we are beginning to approach that point, because we have been dealing with this situation in the House I believe since it opened in early March. I think that we opened on March 6. It is almost two months. I am not sure that caution has not moved into paralysis and that nothing will be done, that the government, as I said earlier, has, along with Mr. Rock, closed the file on this matter.
The question that remains for this side of the House is the unanswered by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today, and that is what is his government going to do? Is his government going to do anything? Is his government thoroughly satisfied with the package? We are not really getting any answers on these matters, so along with my colleague from Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I want to say that the minimum that we ask is support for the resolution before this committee.
We have asked other things. They have been turned away. I know the Leader of the NDP party, as well, made a commitment last week to honour some compensation if we were in government. This is something this government appears not to be willing to do. We have asked that. It has been rejected.
So the resolution that we have before this committee is a minimalist one. Please, at least support this, we are saying. We are also saying: if you want, as the member for Thompson suggested, amend it, vote it down, but let us do something. Let us get some answers, let us get on with it, and let us not turn our backs on those people living with hepatitis C.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity of briefly joining the discussion and debate on the issue before the committee. I am, you know, acknowledged that in the last number of years the practice of having government members, be they ministers or upperbenchers or anybody participating in any minister's Estimates other than the official opposition and, more particularly, the official that has been designated by the official opposition as the critic, as being the only ones that participate in the departmental Estimates. I view that as a real regressive development with respect to the whole business of the examination of Estimates.
I want to tell you, Mr. Chair, and the committee, that my early experience as minister in the House was always--I dreaded the scrutiny and the examination of my own members of government very often more than those of the opposition inasmuch as having always had the privilege of representing a party and a government that had strong agricultural and rural bases of support. You can imagine that having a number of people, including predecessors of yours, wanting to get at the Minister of Agriculture and to discuss the issues that are important to them in their constituencies was sometimes daunting, to say the least.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
So I just put that on the record in the sense that it is now, regrettably, viewed, if you go into the different committee rooms, it is virtually not done anymore that members other than the specifically designated person who is the official critic of a ministry participate in these Estimates. That brings on the kind of situation where you have a long one-on-one situation, the member asking a question, the minister responding, rather than the kind of fuller debate about asking: is the minister, is the department moving in the right direction? Is the policy of the minister and the department appropriate for these times? How is it impacting on this part of the province or that part of the province?
It seems to me that when you have four or five or six or seven individuals participating and giving a serious, well-thought-out recommendation as to how we want this young minister--and he is a fine young minister--but how we want this young minister to conduct the affairs of this most significant Department of Health. You know, he should be hearing that from four or five or six or seven other sources and contemplate the advice that he gets from all of us before he, with the advice that he gets from his capable advisors, then responds to that kind of advice, rather than the kind of situation that we have allowed to develop.
Anyway, I digress. The purpose for my wanting to add a few words is that I am genuinely concerned that this great Canadian nation of ours that is not the easiest country in the world to govern--it stretches in such massive geographic proportions, and we are delighted to have one of those parts of geography that we do not see too often represented in our House, here, from the northern part of the great country. It should not surprise us that it is hard, it is difficult and it is sometimes next to impossible to achieve consensus on thorny issues, particularly thorny public issues, social issues like the one that we are faced with respect to this: should and what responsibility do the taxpayers of Canada have?
* (1620)
Let me put it that way. We hear a great deal about this government, the federal government or the government of Ontario or, in this case, the government of Manitoba or what the government of British Columbia is supposing to do, but let us always remind ourselves that we are talking about the Canadian taxpayer and as to what he ought to and ought not to be responsible for, or what he ought to, or she ought to, be liable for in this case. That is what we are talking about, as to whether or not we should be expanding, extending, rethinking the position with respect to some compensation for the very regrettable set of circumstances that has brought us to this state of affairs where we have to acknowledge, and we have had a lengthy judicial inquiry under Justice Krever that indicates that we have allowed a very important service in health care, the delivery of blood, to be, quite frankly, mismanaged, and mismanaged tragically, Mr. Chairman.
I could spend another half an hour of the committee's time and tell you why, in my opinion, the mismanagement occurred. It is because people like ourselves, politicians, people in charge in responsible positions, were allowed to be cowed and threatened and bullied by special interest groups from making appropriate decisions back in '82 and '83 and '84 that could have put safeguards into position earlier on such an important item like our national blood supply. But we chose to be politically correct, I suppose, and chose not to act on sound advice that was being developed across the continent and across the world, that indicated actions that, for different reasons, those responsible for the blood supply chose not to act upon.
Now we are in the position where we have done damage, serious damage, and people are dying, Canadians are dying. To what extent should the taxpayer of Manitoba, the taxpayer of Canada, be responsible for compensation beyond that which has originally been put on the table by all of the Health ministers in consultation with the federal government and the federal Ministry of Health who, as our minister keeps on reminding us, I think, very correctly, bears, without question, not just the primary responsibility, the entire responsibility--not 80 percent of responsibility, not 90 percent of responsibility, but 100 percent of responsibility?
The Ministry of Health, the Province of Manitoba never had a word in the regulation of the Canadian blood supply. The ministry of any province has never had a hand in deciding that. First of all, I am prepared to acknowledge it is, I think, with genuine regret that I express, on behalf of myself and most, if not all, Canadians, that a venerable organization like the Canadian Red Cross, which, for so many years, has provided so many humanitarian services to Canadians and has established, in association with the International Red Cross, such an enviable reputation of being a responsible organization who operated the blood supply but totally under the day-to-day regulations--by that I do not mean that somebody from Health Canada was directing them on a day-to-day basis, but the regulations, the rules by which the Canadian Red Cross administered the blood supply of Canada were set by Canada and nobody else. So our minister is absolutely right when he continues to remind us of that fact, and honourable members of the opposition ought not to do anything to confuse that very important issue in the minds of the taxpayers of Manitoba, in the minds of the taxpayers of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, an effort is being made to bring about a solution to this critical situation. An effort is being made, I am convinced, to be fair, just and compassionate. I think the provinces have correctly pointed out their present and their continued and their ongoing liability in the case of all those unfortunate Manitobans, Canadians who have contracted an illness as a result of contaminated blood. That is our billion-dollar-plus responsibility. So there is no question of whether or not--when we say the issue of specific compensation rests solely with the federal government, that is only a portion of the cost.
Now regrettably, rather than letting the issue be decided as best as possible, we have allowed politics to enter into the game. Politics is part of the Canadian game, and there is nothing wrong with that. Let us understand that different governments and different parts of the country find themselves at different points in the political calendar or find themselves in different situations in terms of standing with their electorate. So, if governments in British Columbia or Ontario feel they are under some specific pressure that make them kind of not want to agree to a consensus that, in my opinion, had been put in place, well, they will have to answer for that.
But I regret that in our Chamber here on this one issue--we have a raft of matters that legitimately puts the official opposition in a position to criticize this government, criticize any ministry of this government from time to time on issues. But on this particular issue, this is not an issue that the Filmon government made or is responsible for. This is not an issue that the present Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has any responsibility for or the previous Minister of Health or the Minister of Health before that.
Members of the opposition like to, and from time to time, I suppose with some justification will point out that, well, this government did this or this government failed to do that or the previous minister did not react to this situation, we did not do this, but I have not heard for a moment a suggestion, other than the little game of politics that is now being played, that in this instance the Filmon government, the Minister of Health at the provincial level had any responsibility with respect to the unfortunate situation of having a number of Canadians being provided with contaminated blood.
So really, on this issue, there ought not to be, there need not be any politics played. I would appeal to honourable members of the committee to allow the minister to work out as best he can, in concert with his colleagues across the land, a fair and equitable resolve. I believe those statements and positions put on the record by our Premier (Mr. Filmon) were absolutely important to it. We do not want to get into a multitiered type of a compensation program on this issue where the better off provinces could provide a different level of support and put provinces with less economic power--then you have, my colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey), indicates then we would hear a great deal of screaming and outrage being expressed from the opposition, and you know, they would be right. They would be right if we allowed that to happen, but that is the path that we are being encouraged to take.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of putting those few thoughts on the record, but certainly wanted to indicate that among the many issues that are worthy of debate in the overall issue of health--and health, I recognize is the overriding issue of governments today. This is not an issue that should be taking up time of the Estimates in the manner and way in which they are. The Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is committed to providing an equitable, fair and just program of compensation and participating with his colleagues across this land. We have to, quite frankly, allow the various governments across the country, along with its national government, to work out a program that eventually will be the program that will be provided for those unfortunate Canadians who have been caught in this trap.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairperson: As previously agreed, we would move back and forth, from side to side. Is there an opposition member who would like to speak?
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, we put our positions on the record. We are prepared to vote. We are certainly willing to entertain further comments from the government members for the duration of the rotation.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you.
* (1630)
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. I do feel of the same mind as the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) with regard to this issue, that this is an issue that we should not be playing politics with. I have missed a lot of the things that have gone on in this committee, but certainly from what I have seen go on in the Chamber over Question Period and the questions that have been raised and the manner in which they were, I think that the opposition should have some clear understanding of which direction this government wishes to go on this particular issue. I think it has been made clear. It was made clear by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) today. I really do not understand how an opposition, who are supposedly, and they call themselves prudent and understanding people, could miss that message. It certainly came clear to me.
For me to be able to put my comments on this record here, I think also we have to consider the fact that me, as the member for Sturgeon Creek, I learned this pretty quickly when I came into government as a member, that we are talking about a particular issue that covers the entire country. When I was elected in 1990, Mr. Chairman, I had a view that whatever was maybe good for the constituency of Sturgeon Creek would often, or in most cases, be good for all Manitobans, but I found out very quickly that what fits in Sturgeon Creek may not necessarily fit in other sectors or other constituencies across this province. The opposition members are asking that this government take a position on something that is going to affect the entire country. I do not think that would be prudent of any government to take a position on that.
Even if we took it to the point where we did, if we did follow their direction and suggestion here, that we did say what we were going to do and then did take it, if it was better than say what was offered in B.C. or Alberta or Saskatchewan or something like that, then all these people would be coming, and rightly so. If we had a better plan offered to us in Manitoba, they would be coming to Manitoba, because they would be served better, and I think that that is the wrong thing to do. I think the federal government had to make a decision on this, take a position. Certainly I think this is going to be done through consultation. It is not something where we just make a hasty decision, which the opposition members seem to be wanting us to do.
This has been something that has been--you know, 1986 to 1990, the federal government has made a decision on that. They have allocated support to those people. I think that as far as the federal government is to go beyond that, this is something that has to be done through consultation with all the players, all ministers of Health, all premiers, all people who are going to have the same opportunity, the same plan, that it will be for all Canadians, not just for people in Manitoba because they live in Manitoba that they should get something different or less or better. This is something that I think is very important.
Now, the way it stands right now, Mr. Chairman, for those people who do not have the support beyond, prior to 1986, we have a health care plan and benefits in this province that are second to none in the country, and I think that those are things that certainly have to be also taken into consideration.
Mr. Chairman, we spend $1.9 billion on health care in this province, and this is one of the things that we as a government have taken very seriously. We have demonstrated that with the money that we have put into health care and will continue to do that. That is something that we have done in increasing the health care budget since we came in to government in 1988. I think the opposition should have some recognition of that, but I really sincerely believe that--and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), as I came into this committee, I think he said it extremely well in saying that there seems to be an element of politics being played here. I do not know that that is really what we want to see in this very important issue.
I also do not think this is the forum that we should be dealing with this issue, this debate, in terms of the Estimates. The honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), when she introduced this motion some time back, I think that that would have been better dealt with in some other forum. The Estimates process that we have is one to ask questions of the spending of the government. Certainly that is something that, as far as the honourable minister--he has demonstrated we are in our budget, the budget that had been outlined in the beginning of March. So I think that the opposition has certainly failed as an opposition in terms of dealing with this whole process, in terms of being able to ask questions of what is happening in terms of the Estimates for March '98 and '99. So from that aspect, I think that the honourable members have to certainly do some real serious soul-searching.
I think that what they should be doing is lobbying their members, their federal counterparts in Ottawa to address this very important issue. [interjection] Well, the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) says that they are. If they were very effective, then I think they would probably be told that they have to deal with it. It is not something that we here alone in Manitoba have to deal with.
I think that for us as a government here in Manitoba, I do not believe the official opposition in Manitoba really understand the whole seriousness and the ramifications that we would do as a government by entering into something or making a decision until such time as the federal government took a position on this. I think we could be debating this--well, not only debating it, but there would be nothing but a lot of court actions, court actions against the government, that we are really going to be opening ourselves up to a lot of things that I do not think any Manitoban would want to see their government in. I think the consideration that would be given to the eligibility of those people is a matter of question in terms of the honourable member's motion. I do not know whether it is the honourable member's motion and the official opposition's--I do not know whether that has been clarified.
Certainly, the demonstration that I have witnessed suggests that the official opposition has taken a position on this and are making every effort that they possibly can to score as many points on this as they can. I can understand that maybe they want to do this, Mr. Chairman, because health care has always been their strength as far as pleading to the public. I mean, we went through a by-election in Rossmere a few years ago, and that is what they ran on. For the short term the honourable member for Rossmere in 1993, I think it was, was elected; it certainly was a short-lived experience for that member of the opposition to serve in that capacity.
* (1640)
So I can see that they certainly want to make as many points on this issue as they can, but I think that the public is not going to be fooled. The people of Manitoba certainly are not going to be fooled. I guess, really, they do not really have a clear vision of what they are looking for in terms of what they feel is in the interests of Manitoba. I think their visions change from day to day. I think maybe it is based on what they read in the press, what they hear or read, from what is happening as far as the people in Manitoba--how they are reacting to their different variations of how it should be.
Mr. Chairman, I think that from the point of view that the honourable member, along with her colleagues, in dealing with this issue, what we want to do to is address this on the basis that we look at all aspects of it. I certainly have the confidence in the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and his department. I have the confidence in our Premier (Mr. Filmon), who has demonstrated through this whole thing that he is very concerned about the people of Manitoba and beyond the borders of Manitoba. I think that the Minister of Health has demonstrated in terms of the changes that he has made. This is one issue that has been cast upon us. It has not been one that we have brought on or had any control over.
Certainly, under the direction of the Red Cross, there were mistakes made over those years, and certainly I think if we were to jump in on this at this point at the will of the opposition, we would be making some very, very serious mistakes. The people across the whole country would be in turmoil, not only in Manitoba, but we would see that the people across the country, it would be playing one province against the other. I have real serious concerns about that, and the opposition, I think, would like us to be in that position because then we would be moving right into their hands. Then we would be criticized, Mr. Chairman. I dare say that every Question Period, every headline in the newspaper would be against this government because we did not put our plans and do it with proper thought and consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is one thing that I have been able to really feel comfortable with, is that on all issues this government--and I am proud to be a part of this government with the colleagues and with the leadership of our Premier (Mr. Filmon). This is one thing where we will not jeopardize ourselves at the whim of the opposition, because they want us to make mistakes, they want us to stumble, and we will not take that position.
I think that honourable members across the way should have learned that after 10 years. Some of the members over there have not had the pleasure of being there for that period of time, but, Mr. Chairman, I think those who have been there have been there long enough to know that we are here to serve the people of Manitoba in the best interests of Manitobans, not to be creating a lot of havoc and unrest for the people that they would propose and which is exactly what they would do.
It is interesting, I read this article in the paper today with regard to the matter with emergency care in the hospitals and people waiting in the hallways. It was an editorial. I wish that I had that editorial to read because I think that the person who wrote this letter to the editor would certainly bring this point home strongly and clearly.
Mr. Chairman, you know that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), through this whole process and through Question Period has been severely criticized for positions and changes that he has made with the support of this government, has been severely criticized because of waiting lists and things like that.
This person, I think, put it very well. It was a very moving letter to the editor, where her parents had died during 1986 and 1987, and she gave some account of the way things were with her own personal experience with her mother and father under the government during the time when the NDP, who hold themselves out as the saviours of health care. I think that every member across the way should take the opportunity to read that letter, and they might do some soul-searching. [interjection] It was a letter to the editor, and it was one that bears reading because the NDP, who hold themselves out as the saviours of health care, were severely criticized. There were honourable members who sit across this table that were in government during that time and are speaking very openly and criticizing this government for the position that we are taking in terms of the funding and the decisions we are making in health care.
The amount of money--and I say this for the honourable members opposite, the official opposition, that they should look at the funding that this government has put into health care. It has been an increase every year, year after year, and when this government has seen situations where they have had to backfill because of overspending by certain different institutions, this government, with this Minister of Health (Mr Praznik) and the Minister of Health before that and the Minister of Health before that, they have answered the call.
Mr. Chairman, I get really seriously concerned when opposition members or members of this Legislature--and we are all honourable members, but I sometimes have to question the position that members opposite take when it comes to dealing with people's--not only people's lives but people's livelihoods, because if people do not have their health, they cannot enjoy the opportunity to work and be able to do all the things to earn a living as most honourable members would think that they would--governments should be able to offer. But the honourable members across the way have taken the position that they want to make some political hay on this.
* (1650)
That really seriously concerns me because health care is, I think, the engine in terms of what we as a government have demonstrated, and when it comes to people's health, I think there are other things that we have to look at. There are things that we want to--certainly from my point of view, I would like to see a healthier society as far as our whole aspect with regard to health care. When you look at the amount of money, that is $1.9 billion that is spent on the health care budget in the province of Manitoba for just a little bit over a million people, the sad part that I have and what really concerns me is how much are we actually doing in terms of spending on creating health.
Those are things that I would like to see, and I think the Minister of Health and I have had discussions about this. This is something that I think society is looking for, and I think society is leaning towards that because they too recognize that after 10 years in government and putting more money in each year that we have found that people are not getting any healthier. From that aspect, I think this is the serious part of it. This is the serious aspect. It is much more serious than what the official opposition are doing in terms of playing politics with this. From my aspect, I think that I have seen some things that, you know--and the honourable members across the way, as honourable as they are, I certainly have some respect for some of the members across the way. I am disappointed that they have taken this position, because the people who are most affected by this are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of this, the shortsighted and short-thought-out version in terms of the direction that they want us to go as a government.
I think that we as a government, and I said this earlier in my comments, have to address this and take a holistic approach with this. There is no short-term, snap answer here that we can tag onto. I think that from the aspect of this government and this minister, I am pleased to say that I think we are on the right track, and I would hope that the opposition would see that in the interests of Manitobans and serving the people who are affected by this hepatitis C virus prior to 1986.
We as members over here, I do not think they can say that they--and they have alluded to this, and they want Manitobans to believe this--are more compassionate. I do not see that at all. They want to try and give the impression, because they see an election looming, that they are going to be able to position themselves and say, well, we did this for all the hepatitis C victims in Manitoba, and because of them, they did it for all people infected all across the country.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the NDP in their wisdom in British Columbia took a position. The NDP in Saskatchewan, they took a position, and the NDP here in Manitoba, they are taking another position. They are here one day, they are on one side of it, and then the next day they are on another side of it.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I am having a little trouble hearing the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek. If we wish to carry on a conversation, perhaps we could do it at the back or out in the hall.
Mr. McAlpine: Mr. Chairman, I hope that has not taken away from my time to speak on this issue. I do not get this opportunity to speak on an issue that is as important as this. [interjection] I thank the honourable Minister of I, T and T for his confidence that he has offered to me, but I think that my last message, I guess, to the opposition is that this is something that they should take more serious than looking for the 10-second clip or the political position that they may wish to take on this.
I think that they should look at it from the aspect that this government is going to, along with the Department of Health and the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), along with our Premier (Mr. Filmon), are going to make the right decisions in the interests of Manitobans and it is not going to be a political one. It is going to be a decision that is long and well thought out, taking all things into consideration, because we as government have that responsibility. We owe that to the people of Manitoba and the people who are affected by this prior to 1986.
I have the confidence with the compassionate and caring First Minister whom I have known for a number of years and I have always found him to be that. The Minister of Health and the people that I know in the Department of Health have that same caring and considerate attitude towards their services in their department.
So, Mr. Chairman, with the opportunity to put these few comments on the record, I would thank you for that time and hope that the opposition will see the light and the errors of their decision and support this government in the decisions that we are going to make, and as we do support the people of Manitoba in the interests of all Manitobans and those people who have been affected by this hepatitis C virus. Thank you for those comments.
* (1700)
Mr. Chairperson: Once more, I would ask if there is anybody else on the opposition side that would like to--
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, what I just want to indicate to the member, and I realize he missed part of the earlier debate, but what we are hoping is that the Manitoba Legislature can take a clear position, something we have not had the ability to do. We did move a motion on having a free vote; that was defeated by the government in the committee. I want to stress again to the member that what we want is a Manitoba solution, a made-in-Manitoba solution.
He referenced the position of NDP governments and I could do the same thing with the Conservative Party. Elsie Wayne, the federal leader, they are in favour of extending coverage. Mike Harris, their colleague to the east of them, not usually known as a compassionate individual. [interjection] Well, this comes as some surprise to the Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Downey), but I want to suggest to government members, do they really want to be in a position where Mike Harris is seen as being more compassionate than they are?
I mean, you know, it is like when you have got something that is right-wing of Attila the Hun, do you want to be further right-wing than they are? I suggest not, and I think members have to understand that what has happened in this case is essentially the public has spoken. I would say when the federal government used the power of its majority and the Whip to get that motion voted down, I think what they did is they did so against the will of the people. Four opposition parties spoke for the public as a whole, and I am suggesting that the government here should start that process. I realize the member who just spoke may not have realized that his Premier (Mr. Filmon) is now giving that signal, that maybe, just maybe there needs to be a review of this and maybe, just maybe, in a cautious way, perhaps the province might wish to be part of that.
So I suggest to members opposite, on Thursday, when we moved this motion, typically we were ahead of our time. We were ahead of our time by a very significant weekend. I recall--and this was moved on Thursday--since that time I think there has been a significant evolution of government's reaction to public opinion. I think the public wants this extension.
What I am suggesting to members opposite is to do nothing more than keep up with the times on this issue. If you really think about it, if Mike Harris is talking about it, if your own Premier, if not in Question Period, has now moved from a definite no to a maybe, and I suspect the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) right now is probably on the phone again trying to find out what is happening--I suggest to members opposite, let us get on with it.
That is why we have this motion. We are ready for a vote on this. You can vote for it, you can vote against it. If you have difficulty with the wording, you can amend it but, you know, do not try and filibuster this to avoid having to take a position. At some point in time, as a government, you have to take a stand. I would suggest that if you look at this motion, if anything, this is something that even the Premier would have to agree to, the Premier of Manitoba would have to agree to. If not, he is going to be left out in the political wilderness, I think, with those that do not understand what the public is saying. The bottom line is that the public is saying that compensation should be extended to all victims.
With that, Mr. Chairperson, certainly we are open for further debate, but if the purpose is strictly to filibuster this, I really say to the government members, you know, if they are that embarrassed to take a position on this issue, to have a vote, how do they expect to explain it to the public? Surely the best way to resolve this is, if you do not agree with the motion, vote it down. If you do agree with it, let us have the vote now, and I noticed, by the way, that most of the speeches from government members kind of ducked that issue. You know, by the time the 30-minute clock starts to get close to the end, I keep waiting for it, you know, that they are against the motion.
The funny part is that they attack us for moving it, they attack various other governments, they attack our sincerity, they attack everything else, but they do not say they are going to vote against the motion. I am wondering if they are perhaps undecided. It is unfortunate, because maybe they are becoming like the provincial Liberals. I thought the classic then was not long ago, the three-person Liberal caucus--this is when they were still a caucus--had a vote and one of them voted for and one of them voted against and one of them abstained.
I think if there was a way in which the government could abstain on this so they did not have to take a position, they would do it, but we do not have an ability to abstain. This is not Scotland in a criminal case where you can be found either not guilty or not proven. This is a Legislature. You have to take a stand, and every time they attack us for taking the position we have, it is interesting. Where is the government's position? Is it the Minister of Health's position on Thursday? Was it his more conciliatory position today? A significant shift, I might add. What is the position of the Premier last week, talking about our Premier, or the Premier this week?
I suspect, to members opposite--and I felt sorry for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). I am wondering if he was not being heckled by his own members because somehow perhaps they know better the evolution of the government's position, because I have a sinking feeling that as of tomorrow, you are going to see the Premier sounding a little bit more like Mike Harris and a lot less like the Minister of Health. I think there is an element of flexibility starting to creep into the words, and God forbid, Mr. Chairperson, that Mike Harris should be influencing this government on an issue, but I can tell you, ignore him on pretty well everything else, but this time you might want to listen to him.
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
I think Mike Harris's position, well, it is interesting, because once again, the government members keep asking us questions. They keep debating us. Well, they say it is our resolution. Where is their position? I suspect that the government is starting to get very tired after 10 years of government, because I notice there is a consistent pattern. They keep wanting to ask questions. I tell you, they are going to get to ask a lot of questions after the next election when they are back in opposition where they belong.
But in the meantime, when you are in government, you have to take a stand, and I say to members on the government side, we have taken a stand. We took a stand in December, we have taken a stand in this committee. I look forward to the government voting yes or no and, if they do not agree with our resolution, putting forward their position. I suspect they are afraid to because they realize in their heart of hearts that the position they took last week with some great flurry, there was a great rhetorical flourish in this Chamber from the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) and the member for Lac du Bonnet, the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), but those words that were read to us on Thursday--read the Hansard today--they are already dated.
I say to members opposite, things have been shifting. Governments across this country are listening to the people. It is time to listen to the people. It is time to take a position on this. It is time to extend compensation to all victims of hepatitis C.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I find it extremely interesting that the honourable member opposite is going to suggest that we might even invoke closure on this debate. I mean, that is almost what I heard the honourable member suggest to us. I think we all agree that we need to take adequate time and debate this issue because it is an extremely important issue. People are suffering because of an issue that they are not directly responsible for, specifically hemophiliacs. I think the issue of whether we should compensate or whether the province should get involved in compensation in this matter is very similar to other debates that we have had regarding the federal government.
We all realize that the federal government has, over the years, certainly negated its responsibility in providing adequate funding from a national standpoint to health care. The cuts that we have had in education from the federal government are very similar to this issue, and it would appear to me that, because of the stand that the federal government is taking currently in not compensating adequately all the sufferers because of tainted blood and/or other reasons which we are discussing, it is very similar in many respects to saying: yes, we do have, as a federal government, a responsibility because we are, as a federal government, responsible for ensuring the quality standards of the products that are used by, specifically, hemophiliacs and others. Anybody that has had a blood transfusion over the last number of years or decade would attest to the fact that they might have been put at risk simply because somebody did not adequately ensure that the products were, in fact, safe. That has been clearly demonstrated.
* (1710)
I reflect on this matter of the federal government being responsible for the licensing and ensuring that blood products were properly dealt with and ensuring their safety that it is very similar to the issue of the federal government walking away from its responsibility in the grain transportation initiative. I mean, we all knew that the Crow benefit was put in place in perpetuity, and yet they had no problem walking away from that responsibility. Perpetuity, to me, is a forever commitment, and yet they walked away from it without any problems, inflicting severe economic hardship on not all of Canadians, not all Canadian grain producers, but largely western Canadian grain producers. They sectorized and penalized a group in society that had been given an assurance that this would not happen. We had similarly believed that the federal government had a responsibility to ensure that our blood supply in this country was safe. Obviously, it was not.
So, in my view, it would now be the federal responsibility to ensure that adequate funding be provided to those that have, in fact, had their health put in jeopardy because of this. It would also appear to me that the opposition members, in having made their case in the House as well as in committee here today, are at a loss as to where they really are. I am beginning to believe that it is largely because of the conflicting messages they receive from their colleagues in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan, the party in Ontario and others because we are not quite sure where they are going to be in this debate.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
So I would suspect that they would like to draw us into a position that we might find it difficult after a while. However, I think we should take an adequate period of time to assess the actions that need to be taken. I understand that there will probably be a joint negotiating team established, and that is probably what should happen, and then there could be recommendations made. However, while discussions are going on between the provinces as to what their joint position might be, I think it would be rather irresponsible for those of us that sit in this Legislative body to take a hard position.
I would suspect that our opposition members smile and chuckle a bit internally, saying, you know, maybe we have got the government side of the House in a tough position. I do not think the government is in a tough position at all, because I would suspect that opposition members might want to give adequate consideration to ensure that there is enough time allotted to make proper decisions and to ensure that the responsible parties are, in fact, the parties that are going to take responsibility for this and that we not allow ourselves to have a bunch of costs offloaded on our taxpayers that should not be there.
I think that we should be very clear in our assumptions. We should never assume that if a party is liable for costs that others, because they are not taking actions, should step in and cover those costs. I think that would be irresponsible. If there is a negotiated settlement or agreement over the long term and if it takes a few weeks to negotiate and debate, I accept that. I think that is what legislatures are all about. I think that is why we have leaders in the province, that is why we have premiers, that is why we have Health ministers, and that is why we hire people to advise us on an ongoing basis, to ensure that the responsible parties, in fact, carry out their economic responsibility.
I would think that if we look back a couple of years and we look at the budgetary considerations made by the federal government, we have to respect that they were trying to cut corners and cut costs and balance their budgets, but the changes that they made within the funding process in the education system and in many other sectors that affect us in society and specifically in health care have had a dramatic impact, and the responsibility that we are going to carry now or that we are being asked to carry by the NDP--or are we really being asked to carry this? Because when I heard the honourable member speak this afternoon during Question Period, the questions she asked were almost contradictory to the questions that had been put just before her.
So I really had to wonder what was being meant by taking the position that Quebec had taken. I think that was the NDP's position yesterday, that we should support Quebec and the resolution that came out of Quebec. Today, I heard them say that we should support the position that has come out of Ontario, and I am not quite sure what that position is. As a matter of fact, I am not even quite sure what yesterday's position meant, the position that Quebec put forward. I think it is absolutely essential that we give proper consideration to those two positions, because it demonstrates to me clearly that there needs to be a greater degree of debate go on before the decision is made. It would appear to me that Ontario and Quebec are not agreed on a position.
I am not sure that the NDP in Manitoba are agreed with their counterparts in Saskatchewan, nor am I clear that the NDP in Manitoba are in concurrence with their counterparts in British Columbia. So I would suspect that they might want to take a bit of time and give due consideration and maybe have some consultation with their party. Maybe they would even want to talk to some of their federal members to find out what their position might be. I have heard them say, the federal NDP, that, yes, we agree that there should be compensation for all of the parties affected by tainted blood, and I do not think anybody argues that. I think there is an absolute agreement that there should be, but who should pay for the compensation? Who should pay the bill?
I think we can, as provinces, take hours, we could take days, and we could all agree that we have significant problems to solve within our province. There is not enough money in our province to solve all the problems, whether it be transportation, whether it be roads, whether it be infrastructure, water, sewer, those kinds of things. We need only go back a few years to when the federal government announced an infrastructure agreement. It was adequately funded, and it provided some relief to the province, yet last year during the budget, they walked away from that kind of commitment. They said, no, we will not further support infrastructure development in the province of Manitoba.
Similarly, having taken $750 million out of grain transportation in western Canada, they are now backing away again from meeting their responsibility in helping us repair our roads, our bridges, and the farm community, quite frankly, is paying more than one-third of their total gross receipts out of the grain market system to mediate the increased cost of handling and transportation. Yet nobody is saying anything in this House about whose responsibility that should be or whether the federal government should, in fact, carry forward its responsibility to ensure that there be compensation provided to the provinces because of an in-perpetuity commitment that was made by the federal government in regard to the Crow rate.
* (1720)
Now we have the NDP sort of hinting at us--we are not quite sure what this last resolution means--that we should also take the feds off the hook in regard to funding those who are affected by tainted blood. I ask the opposition members how much more do you think our taxpayers should bear? Mr. Chairman, $200 million in health care and education reduction from the federal government; $750 million in transportation reduction from the federal government. They take out of western Canada almost a billion dollars, I believe, in gasoline taxes and give us nothing in return. Yet they have no hesitation at all to give Ontario and some of the eastern provinces $900 million to help them deal with their transportation problems.
Now the opposition are saying, well, come on, guys, come on, guys--or are you saying this--kick in to get the feds off the hook of their responsibility in the tainted blood issues. Is that what I am hearing? Is that what this resolution is all about? If it is, then I would suspect that our taxpayers are very seriously going to question the NDP's motives. They are going to ask, how sincere are these guys?
It is interesting, some of the editorialization that has gone on over the last while has been talking about the NDP being the party that is the government in waiting. Well, let me just suggest to the opposition members that if you truly are the party that is the government-in-waiting in this province, you might want to seriously consider how earnestly you would want to negotiate with the federal government on the issues that I have mentioned, including tainted blood. I think we need to be very careful, all of us in this House need to be very careful the kind of position we develop and the kind of position that we take before we make a firm decision. I would suspect that Ontario and Quebec both will want to get in on that debate, because the differences that they have put forward in their propositions are significant enough to take time to assess what the true cost per individual would be in this whole affair.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would suspect that we might want to delay this decision long enough, and I think we should ask the opposition members whether they would want to consider a motion of delay that would give us adequate time to consider whether we would want to give adequate time to consider whether we should, in fact, have structured meetings with the federal government and/or whether we should, in fact, ask Ontario whether they might want to come to Manitoba to explain their position adequately or maybe even ask Quebec to come down and give us a complete resume of what the indication might be as to the position that they have taken. And maybe that would help the opposition members take a firm position and not be on one side of the issue one day and the other side of the issue the next day and might firm up their position as well. I would really appreciate that.
To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the honourable members that they set their maypole aside, that they, in fact, stop walking around the mulberry bush and maybe put forward a position that is the same one day to the next, and that might help me make up my mind as to how or what I should do or how I should address this issue in the long term and what the long-term effects of the decision that is going to be made in this province, one way or the other, might, in fact, be.
So, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I thank you for the opportunity to put a few remarks on the record and, unless the honourable members want me to continue debating some other matters, I think it would only be fair to give some of my colleagues an opportunity to put a few words on the record as well.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I had the opportunity to speak on my colleague's first motion, which the government unfortunately voted down, and I would like to put a few remarks on the record in this debate as well.
I have listened to a number of honourable members opposite filling time so that they would not have to take a position on a very clear motion, and I was somewhat amused by the musings of the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) who spoke at great length about the perfidy of the national government running away from its obligations in a number of areas. I was amused because I remember his colleagues casting scorn and derision on those of us who pointed that out from 1983 and '84 and '85, in particular, at the time when the Honourable Jake Epp was the Minister of Health. We were quite accurately pointing out the inevitable consequences of the cuts that began under the Mulroney government.
It is interesting that--[interjection] Yes, that is right, Mr. Praznik was connected with that honourable minister in times gone past, so it is interesting to hear the conversions that have taken place to the facts that were known to those of us who were doing our homework in the mid-'80s that suddenly they are now aware of the federal government's withdrawal in a massive way from health services. I welcome their conversion and their understanding that, indeed, the federal government has not lived up to its responsibilities in a whole number of areas which the honourable member catalogued.
However, the issue here is not which level of government lives up to what responsibilities. The issue here is a number of Canadians, who through no fault of their own, have been deeply and profoundly affected, in many cases disabled and in some cases killed, and in some cases at least significantly impaired in their ability to function in their families and in their working lives.
I think that the minister and members opposite have quite missed the point of this motion, and I am puzzled how the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) could be unclear on a very clear motion. The motion simply says that we recommend that the Legislature support the content of the motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly and urge the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to contact the federal government and press for the existing compensation package for victims of tainted blood to be reopened and reviewed with a view to extending compensation.
This is a relatively straightforward motion which requires reopening and revision. There is no implication in a reopening and revision that new information might or might not cause a change in the decision that has already been made. So it is very puzzling to us that on essentially a process motion the government has held up what should have been a straightforward debate and decision for days.
This government is so afraid of simply taking a process motion, which does not commit it to a single dollar if it wants to be so parsimonious that it will not extend any compensation. There is nothing in here that commits it to further compensation. The request here is to do the honourable thing and recognize that the first conclusion was flawed, that there were not sufficient, careful discussions with those affected one way or the other, and that there was a need to review what was obviously a flawed decision in the first place.
* (1730)
It is quite astounding that a provincial government as long in the tooth as this one, 10 years old, is unable to even come to a conclusion on a process motion. This is not a motion calling for them to put forward many millions of dollars or to take a definitive stance policy one way or the other. It simply says, sit down and review the decision you have already made and take another look at it. This government is so fearful of public pressure and of the justice that is being demanded by those who are suffering, it is afraid to pass a motion on process. This is astounding.
The minister sitting opposite, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Toews), the Chair of this committee, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) representing the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) at this moment, knows full well that an opposition motion which caused the government to spend any money whatsoever would be out of order, would be completely out of order. It would have been ruled out of order by our esteemed Chair in a moment.
This motion was ruled in order, so this motion does not require the government to do anything except sit down and think about the decision again--reflect. I am astounded that a government with as much experience as this one can be so fearful of a process of reconsideration that it will hold up the business of this Legislature and the debate on Estimates for days and days and days while ministers beat their gums in futile attempts to blame the federal government, attempt to put us in a position which we have never taken and simply say: we are fearful of your motion. Why do you not just admit that? You are afraid of the public consequences of this motion and, instead, you want to talk and talk and talk about whether or not you should talk. That is all the motion says. Sit down with your colleagues and talk.
It appears that as of this afternoon, that indeed is what is going to happen. So over the last week or so, wiser views both in governments and in opposition parties and in the public across the country have persuaded fearful governments that they ought to reopen discussions, they ought to rethink their position. Apparently, as of this afternoon, that is what is going to happen, and we are still debating this motion.
Why in the world is this motion not simply adopted and we get on with the business of the House? I can only conclude, Mr. Chairperson, that it is because we have got a group of people across the House in government who have not got a clue where they are going and are afraid of thinking through this decision again, and so they will hold up debate and hold it up and hold it up until somebody tells them what it is they are going to do.
I have never seen such a simple decision be circled and viewed from as many angles, and I have never seen so many opportunities to talk about so many irrelevant issues on such a simple matter. It simply says: go and sit down with your colleagues and think it through again. If, for some reason, you come to the same conclusion, then tell us. We think you will not come to the same conclusion. We hope on behalf of victims you will not come to the same conclusion, but all this motion says is: sit down and talk it through again. Think it through again. Take a little more time and a little more compassion and think it through again. If you come to the same conclusion, tell us and tell all Canadians, and we will be interested in those views, but you know as well as I do, Mr. Chairperson, that the opposition in any Legislative Assembly in this country cannot move a motion requiring a government to spend money, so the government need have no fear that that is the content of this motion or it would have been ruled out of order.
So I think it is time that we came to an end of this debate, that the government took a position in favour of consultation and reopening or opposed to consultation and reopening. It is a pretty simple matter, and I think if we were in a public meeting, I would call for the question. Unfortunately, that is not a procedural motion open to me at this point, I suppose. But I sense that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) wants to talk about injustice again, as he has done before in this setting, so with those few remarks I hope that I have helped to clarify for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) the content of the motion.
It is not complex. It is simply a motion to meet. It is not a motion to take a position for or against compensation, it is a motion to meet and reconsider with compassion the needs of people infected before 1986. If the member for Emerson cannot figure that one out from the wording of this motion, then perhaps it is time that he took a remedial reading course.
Mr. Chairperson: Before I recognize or as I recognize the honourable Minister of Justice, I want the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) to know that calling the question was open to him when he had the floor.
Mr. Toews: I know that the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) does not want debate to continue. In fact, he wants to stifle debate without having given members an opportunity to discuss this. I have not yet had an opportunity to debate this particular motion, and I think this committee is an important place for us, not as ministers, but as members representing our constituents, to express our views, our concerns in order to let our constituents know some of our concerns.
Let us not take a pious attitude here, and say that one person has less compassion than another person. Let us look at this issue. Let us look at the ramifications of this issue and determine what is the best way to proceed.
It is all well and good to say we should think and reflect, but think and reflect on what? Certainly, I have not heard anything of substance coming from the other side that would give me anything to think and reflect upon. So, at the risk of running the same comment from members opposite, I want to put a few thoughts on the record.
I do not think any member here is saying we are fearful of this particular motion. It is ludicrous to suggest that we are holding up debate by wanting to debate. It just shows you the inconsistency and the--
Mr. Ashton: You have not taken a position on the resolution yet. Not one person.
Mr. Toews: Well, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says I have not taken a position.
Mr. Ashton: You as a collective caucus. Not one person has said how they are going to vote on this. Are you for it or against it?
Mr. Toews: Well, Mr. Chair, I want to put some of my thoughts on the record so that--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask all honourable members to allow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) to continue?
Mr. Toews: So, rather than holding up debate, I view that I am contributing to the debate, so indeed it will give all members something to think and reflect on. To be accused of having no compassion is simply not correct. The example I always like to use, the difference, perhaps, between socialist compassion and what I consider progressive compassion is the example of the workers compensation boards in this country.
Now, I think it is important for those members who did not hear this particular example. During the 1980s and early 1990s, when the NDP were in government in Ontario, they always spoke about how compassionate they were and how caring they were, and do you know, Mr. Chair--
An Honourable Member: It was not the 1980s, Vic.
Mr. Toews: Well, when the Ontario NDP were in power in the early 1990s, they basically ran their Workers Compensation Board into the ground. At one time, they were losing $100 million a month--a month. I know the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) thinks $100 million a month is not anything, with all his facetious comments.
The other point I would like to make is that I was silent, I think, while I heard the member for Crescentwood speak, yet he continues to interrupt. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) continues to interrupt. Again, they ask me to contribute to the debate. They say we are holding up debate by talking, and then when I talk, they interrupt. But anyway--[interjection]
* (1740)
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would say to the honourable minister and the other members who wish to speak that today and most days I allow a reasonable amount of--I guess you could call it heckling, but to happen as long as it does not interfere with the words that the honourable members are speaking. So I ask the honourable members on both sides to show good judgment and allow all honourable members to get their words on the record.
Mr. Toews: So here they were, the NDP government, losing $100 million a month at the Workers Compensation Board. This was not general taxpayers' money, it was specific funds levied against employers to fund essentially an insurance plan--but $100 million a month. At the end of their tenure, the board was somewhere and still is $12 billion to $15 billion in debt, a staggering amount, twice our provincial debt here in Manitoba, that the NDP ran up in Ontario in five years--staggering, staggering, staggering.
On the other hand, when the Conservative government came into power here in Manitoba, we were met with a deficit of $250 million by the NDP. Fortunately, they did not have the chance to blow more money. They did not have more chance to blow money. So $250 million, and we said we will ensure that that board is there to ensure that when workers are injured there is a fund to go to. So we reformed the Workers Compensation Board so that workers who were injured on the job did receive compensation.
You know, I ask you, Mr. Chair, who shows compassion, the Tories here in Manitoba who put the board back on its feet so that injured workers now and in the future have a fund to go to when they are injured, or the NDP government in Ontario that bankrupted the Workers Compensation Board there because they did not care where the money was coming from? They drove business out of Ontario and, to that extent, we have to be thankful, because I know some of that business came here. So to that extent we have to thank the NDP government from Ontario.
But what I want to say is compassion can be viewed in many ways, and I think compassion also has an element of fiscal responsibility. I want to make sure to all members here that we are here to find a workable, sustainable solution to this particular issue. This is not an issue about where one member can say about another member, he is not as compassionate and another one is. What I am saying is, look at programs, look at sustainability, look at feasibility. I think it is all very important because, ultimately, we owe that duty for a sustained medical coverage system not to simply one group of people but, in fact, to a large group of citizens who require that help from time to time.
What I sort of see the NDP saying is do not worry right now about the bird you have in your hand. I am referring to the package that has been agreed to by all governments, including NDP governments. Do not worry about that. Let that bird fly and see if you can scour the bush and come up with a nicer, bigger bird.
Well, Mr. Chair, if I could be assured that there was a bigger bird and a better bird that would assist these victims, I would be the first to agree with them. But do we let go of what we have and then return to the taxpayers and victims in Manitoba and say, I am sorry, we let go what we already had, and, you know, on a flier, on an irresponsible flier, we said we thought that there was something in those bushes, but we scoured those bushes and there is not anything there, so I am sorry, there is nothing left.
Now, I could not face the victims in my constituency with that kind of irresponsible attitude, and so I want to say let us find a solution again that is sustainable, that is fair, and in pursuit of that, I want to know what members opposite are actually saying. One of my concerns is that there be a national program, a national program from coast to coast, not a two-tiered system that I know the NDP are advocating, but a national program which involves the federal government and the provincial government working together co-operatively as federalism was intended to work.
This national program cannot have any one province offside, because if there is a province offside, indeed, if Manitoba was offside, let us say we took that irresponsible view, threw away the package offered and said, let us extend without thinking about what the consequences are. People from other provinces could come to Manitoba, indeed all victims could come to Manitoba to take advantage in a positive way of that system that the Manitoba taxpayer funded. And so we know because of the mobility rights in our Charter that we cannot keep people out of Manitoba; they would be entitled to those kinds of programs.
So what we want to say is how do we work together with the federal government in order to ensure that no one province is overwhelmed by the program? Clearly that is the direction, I know, of the prior motion that the NDP wanted us to do, and I am not so sure that it is not their position on this one.
One of the things that I have learned over a number of years in dealing with the federal government as a constitutional lawyer on behalf of the provincial government, I remember the CAP fight and the agreement and the reference. Mr. Chair, in that particular situation we had an agreement with the federal government on funding of health care and other social programs. We did not only have an agreement, we had a statute that protected that funding, and the federal government unilaterally broke that agreement and repealed the legislation, and our government, along with other governments, went to the Supreme Court of Canada and said this is wrong. How can another government that has entered into an agreement with our government and bound that agreement with a statute, how can they do this?
* (1750)
The situation was compared to the Churchill Falls case. Now, some of you may recall the Churchill Falls case where the Newfoundland government and Quebec entered into an agreement for the sale of hydro power, and it was a bad deal for Newfoundland. But Newfoundland, when it tried to break the agreement, the Supreme Court of Canada said to it: because you have contracted with another constitutional jurisdiction in Canada, you cannot unilaterally amend that contract or repeal the agreement by legislation.
Yet the same Supreme Court of Canada, when the provincial government, an equal partner in Confederation with the federal government, came with the same Churchill Falls argument, the Supreme Court of Canada said: oh, well, the federal government can do what it wants.
That is the tragedy of modern day federalism, not only that a federal government was brazen enough to destroy co-operative federalism in our country, but that the Supreme Court of Canada would allow them to get away with it. They did not allow Newfoundland to do it because it was simply a dispute with another province; but, when it came to the arguments between the province and the federal government, who are equal partners in our Confederation, then the Supreme Court of Canada said the federal government could override that and destroy the agreement and destroy the statute, destroy those underpinnings of co-operative federalism. That truly was a shameful decision.
Now, the reason I bring that to the committee's attention is that, when we are dealing with the federal government, we have to be very careful. It is not simply saying: oh, let us reopen this package and see what we can get. Under our system of federalism, it has degenerated to the point where if the federal government wants to take retribution against a province, they have the full backing of the Supreme Court of Canada to do that. So what I want to say is let us be careful. We have an agreement, and there may well be certain issues that we want to continue to discuss, but we need to discuss those issues co-operatively with the federal government because the federal government has the hammer, not only in respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, but in respect to the taxing power.
You know, that leads me to another issue, and it was referred to by one of the other speakers. Mr. Chairman, $200 million a year the federal government takes out of our coffers on account of health care.
An Honourable Member: Vic, 240.
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, 240, the Minister for Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) advises me, every year. A staggering amount of money that our provincial government has had to backfill, and has every year.
In respect of our First Nations communities here, the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government is, in the words of the BNA Act, or the Constitution Act, 1867, in respect of Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Yet, as our First Nations people leave the reserve and come to the city, the constitutional responsibility does not change, but who walks away from their responsibilities and leaves it on the provincial government's shoulders? The federal government, at the tune of $20 million a year. Who pays for that? I will tell you, the provincial government pays for that. [interjection] Do you know, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) says why do you not sue them? Well, we have to think about it long and hard because I know, as in the CAP situation, the federal government can be very, very vindictive. If we win a case, they simply exercise their taxing power and their spending power to punish us. So, in fact, as members may know, government is looking at suing the federal government in the justice area, in the area of the Young Offenders Act, where, in 1984, the Young Offenders Act was passed and 50-50 funding was agreed to.
Now, this is a remarkable situation. The Young Offenders Act is a federal responsibility. We administer it on behalf of the federal government. Yet, for some reason, back in '84, the NDP agreed to pay 50 percent of running a federal program. Wonderful. In their area of responsibility, the province agreed to pay the fed's ticket. So now, when the federal government came to me and said, we have already reduced our contribution to 33 percent, you know what we are going to do next year, Mr. Minister? We are going to reduce it to 30 percent, and we are going to strip all of the funding out of our youth institutions. This is their program that we are running on their behalf, and they are saying you had better make do with what we give you, and not only is it inadequate, but we will tell you how to spend it.
So the issue in respect of hepatitis C is what I want to--[interjection] I mean, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says, how is this relevant? Well, what they are asking us to do is to walk away from this agreement unilaterally and just say forget about the $800 million on the table, try for something more. Simply irresponsibility. The irresponsibility of that kind of a position I cannot accept. I think even the NDP governments in other provinces recognize they cannot do that. So what we need to do, whatever the solution we have here, we have to do it very, very carefully.
I want to leave some time for my colleague to address this issue as well.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Chairman, I do not get an opportunity very often to come to committee and put my views forward, but I did want to come and speak to this issue, because it is one that I have a lot of feelings about. I have only a couple of minutes today, so I hope I can come back tomorrow and finish or enter into this debate again.
The proposition that the opposition has brought forward, I would like to thank him in the first place for bringing it up. I think it is an important issue, and I think this is the way we can have these types of debates, at committees. So thank you for bringing this forward. But I do have to say, and you keep saying that we have not been speaking to it or saying where we stand on it. Well, seeing as I only have a minute left, I will say that I do not agree with your motion. I would not be able to support your motion. I will be very up front about that. The reason that I could not support it is, very clearly, that you are asking us to reopen the negotiations of something that was done across the country.
We have a deal that has already been struck. Whatever deal we strike in the future has to be a deal that is struck across the country. Do I agree that we have to open negotiations on another deal? Yes, I do believe we should. I believe that they should all be compensated, and I believe that we have to work towards that in the future. But I do not believe we should reopen the existing one which you are asking for today. So I would vote against your resolution, because this is asking exactly that. Tomorrow I will finish my--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. When this subject is again before this committee, the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) will have 28 minutes remaining. Committee rise.