Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Health.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 21.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 71 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): No. We have a fairly important matter we will be dealing with. We are not in a position of passing that. My colleague for Osborne--
Mr. Chairperson: I was just going through our little script here. We have been in general discussion all along, and I dare say we will resume that for some time yet.
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Chair, in view of the questions in the House this afternoon on hepatitis C, and also in view of the very important vote that is taking place in Ottawa tomorrow bringing up the hepatitis C issue again, I wanted to ask the minister some questions about hepatitis C, or at least bring hepatitis C to this committee, and the whole topic has--I know we have discussed it before, but we would like to bring it up again.
I would like to read from a letter which I tabled today in the House. I am sure the minister has a copy. The letter is from a woman named Susan Wish, and I would like to read that letter into the record.
Dear Ms. McGifford: I am writing to you to urge you for your help and support regarding the issue of compensation for hepatitis C victims. My husband is one such victim. He suffered a brain aneurism and required a blood transfusion. He made a complete recovery from the stroke but was left with hepatitis C from the poisoned blood he was given. All his adult life he was a blood donor, and this virus was detected immediately after the blood transfusion. There is no question as to where he got this virus from.
We have since watched him go from a strong, hard-working, athletic man to one who is constantly ill. He has lost 29 pounds. He has nausea, fever or chills, severe muscular pain and flu-like symptoms every day of his life. His greatest joy was coaching our children's sport activities. He is no longer well enough to do that. Needless to say, our children feel the loss. My husband feels a death sentence was handed to him. Through sheer willpower, he continues to go to work. Our sad hope is he will be able to work till retirement and not be too deathly ill to enjoy what few remaining years are left after.
Money will not bring back the most important thing, my husband's good health, but will ease the burden of worry about our children's future in case of his failing health and the result being him not bringing in an income. This virus has destroyed our future. We were once secure and happy, looking forward to a long, healthy retirement. It is not so anymore. All Canadians are supposed to be equal; therefore, equal compensation should be given to all victims, regardless of the time of infection. It was so with HIV victims. Canadians are a humane and compassionate people. Compensation is a small gesture after destroying these poor people's health. It is the least we owe them.
I have collected 518 signatures over a two-day period. Not one person I spoke with disagreed or had any objections to equal and fair compensation for all victims, regardless of the time of infection. They strongly disagreed with the Honourable Allan Rock's--I guess I might make some comment here, Mr. Chair, the "Honourable" has several question marks after it; I think the writer of the letter takes opposition to the title "Honourable," anyway--with the Honourable Allan Rock's proposed compensation package. Please show these signatures--I am actually reading from a different copy--to the House of Commons and try to persuade all Health ministers to reject the proposed package. I pray you will be able to do something. Thank you in advance. Yours very sincerely, Judy Wish [phonetic].
The points that Judy Wish [phonetic] makes in her letter are ones that we have tried to make in the House, and I know that the minister has presented many legal arguments. I think the point that I try to make today is it is probably time for the good of Manitobans, for the good of people like Susan Wish's husband and Susan Wish's family, perhaps it is time to put aside legalese and deal cutting and start dealing with the people of Manitoba with some compassion.
I think it is clear that the majority of Manitobans do support an across-the-board compensation for all people living with hepatitis C acquired through tainted blood. If I can just refer to the House of Commons briefly, it seems to me that the reason the Whips are on is simply because people have heard from their constituents. Liberal backbenchers have heard from their constituents, and they know that Canadians, like Manitobans, support compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, again acquired through tainted blood.
This was, I think, something that we did with HIV. I have never quite understood why it cannot be done with people living with hepatitis C. I know the minister has mentioned money time and time again, but the question of money does not begin to deal with the ethical questions. I think that the compensation for hepatitis C, people acquiring the virus through tainted blood, is medically sound. It is legally compelling. It is, of course, necessitated by federal regulatory failure. I do not understand, Mr. Chair, that compensation would be a threat to medicare funding. I do not think it would set a precedent. I think it is socially just, and of course we all know that it was endorsed by Justice Krever.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I move that this committee recommend that the Legislature and the House of Commons hold a free vote on whether to extend compensation to all victims who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood.
* (1500)
Mr. Chairperson: Yes, the motion is in order. The motion reads that this committee recommend that the Legislature and the House of Commons hold a free vote on whether to extend compensation to all victims who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood.
Is there any debate of the motion?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I appreciate where the member is coming from on this particular issue. I appreciate very much her reading into the record the letter of that particular individual. There is no doubt that the hepatitis C issue, like the AIDS issue and Canada's blood system, has been one of--shall we say it has been a great shame I think on our whole Canadian medical service. We have always prided ourselves in providing good quality care as a nation, and yet in a very important part of our medical care system we saw, and Mr. Justice Krever certainly confirmed, an area that had gone astray with resulting injury to thousands of Canadians of which we now deal on this portion of the hepatitis C issue. I appreciate, as well, the comments or the raising of this issue by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) as we await the results of the House of Commons vote tomorrow in Ottawa.
But I think it is important for us in looking at this motion to put this motion and this issue into the context of what, in fact, happened, and I do that from a provincial perspective because that is the area of which I have been a part and have responsibility for to the people of our province. The Canadian blood system, which bears responsibility for blood issues, up until now when we as provincial governments are taking that over through the Canadian Blood Services which is an organization that we are creating as provinces working with the federal government to, in essence, replace the Canadian Red Cross Society--up until now the blood system, its operation and its regulation, has not rested with provincial governments. It has rested with an independent organization, the Canadian Red Cross Society, which has a long history in other fields in our country, a very proud history which has literally thousands of volunteers who raise money for it, who work on blood donor clinics, et cetera. There is a great deal of history and pride in those people who have served the Canadian Red Cross Society.
But during the course of the last number of decades, the way in which that society has managed the blood system in Canada, which has been their responsibility--and we as provinces, I must point out again, have only really been the purchasers of their services. We have purchased by way of grant, but, in essence, have been the purchasers of the products they produce which are blood and blood products. That agency, the Canadian Red Cross Society, that society, independent with its own board, with its own organization and mechanisms and the financial wherewithal, was responsible for the production of blood and blood products for Canadian hospitals and medical services. It was regulated, though, by the national government which has responsibilities like ensuring safe product as they do with pharmaceuticals but also having that responsibility to establish the standards and regulatory regime in which those standards were to be created and enforced and monitored for the Canadian blood system.
So during the course of the last number of decades, those who ran the system and those who regulated it whom we entrusted to ensure safe product, as safe a product or product supply as possible, quite frankly did not perform the job that we expected. The result was tainted blood, blood tainted with hepatitis C, with AIDS, moving into our health care system, and the result has been damage to Canadians, who, of course, want to be compensated, and rightly so, for that.
Well, where has Manitoba been as we have moved through this? Well, our position and the one we have been strong on, despite media comments to the contrary from time to time, is that in providing compensation for injury that resulted from the system, we wanted to ensure that those players who operated the system and regulated it paid their fair share of that compensation. That has always been Manitoba's position, that Manitoba taxpayers and the Manitoba health care system did not have the wherewithal or responsibility to be compensating those who suffered from injury that was the responsibility of others, whether it be the Canadian Red Cross Society or the federal government as regulator.
If think if you look at Mr. Justice Krever's report, he firmly indicates that the lion's share of any responsibility has to rest on the shoulders of the providers of blood and blood products, the people who developed, ran the system, produced the product, and those who regulated it. All of the discussions that we have had and the research we have done as provinces, because we have been working together as provinces to deal with this on a national basis, has indicated that the provinces have virtually no liability here or responsibility because, again, we were and have been in the old system the purchasers of blood and blood products used by our citizens. We have not been the parties that have developed those products, collected those products, processed those products or distributed them, nor have we been the regulators. Our Constitution places that responsibility with the national government.
So when we came to the table to discuss a national approach, what we found was this. The Canadian Red Cross Society, who was responsible for the decision making and operation of the blood system, was virtually, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt; their net resources were zero. The liabilities against what they possessed were far greater than the assets that they in fact had. So here were the providers of blood products by and large unable to meet their responsibility to those that they had harmed, as Mr. Justice Krever identified.
What is interesting, and I just add this as a bit of an aside, is that their lawyer I believe is a former Premier of Ontario, Mr. Bob Rae, and the comments that he makes about the generosity or lack of it by others for compensating victims I find very hypocritical, because he represents--I do not blame him personally, not any politics, but his comments that I have seen in the media are very hypocritical when the agency he is representing (a) ran the system and (b) has been arguing with the provinces and the federal government for well over a year now, as we attempt to buy their assets, that they are not prepared to dedicate all of what they have to compensating those they have harmed.
In fact, in the course of those negotiations with the Red Cross, which have been very, very frustrating, they have been insisting that their contribution would only be sort of what was left after about $30 million that they wanted to keep to continue their operations and meet some other obligation, but they were not prepared to dedicate everything they had to compensating those that they harmed. If anything, in any other world, one would have lost it all, in essence, to pay for the damage.
So we estimate that at the end of the day they will have the very small sum of some $100 million with which to put towards compensation. So that leaves it to the federal and provincial governments. Well, where was the federal government in all of this? When we started this process to come to the table the federal government made a number of points. One is that their assessment of compensation packages was based on dealing with the class action suits that had been filed in a number of provinces. They had believed that there was a potential case against them obviously because they were named in those cases, the Red Cross Society. The provinces had been named even though we believed our of liability, if any, would be very, very small, because again we were the purchasers, we did not operate the system.
* (1510)
The federal government believed very strongly that they would lose in those cases and that because their partner, the Red Cross, was in essence bankrupt that the lion's share would fall on them. Of course, the provinces, if even 1 or 2 percent of some responsibility were found on us, would also have to share and we would have to pick up that cost.
So they wanted to move towards a national compensation plan as well, and the research that they brought to the table and the premises that they brought to the table--and I would think more importantly because this indicates how real their view was--the money that they brought to the table was only sufficient to deal with, ultimately, those individuals for which a negligence may have been committed.
I agree with the member. I do not want to get caught up in legalese, but one still has to deal with that principle. For those that this package that the federal government started with, the premise was that we would be compensating those who had been negligently harmed by the system, in which the system could have done something, reasonably expected to, could have done something that could have prevented it.
So the federal government came to the table with that principle and the provinces joined them. That was not a principle, I must admit, that was debated greatly. It was accepted because provinces, certain sister provinces were dealing with class action suits. Our federal government was part of those and came on that principle: let us deal with the suits that are there and the group of individuals who may in fact have been negligently harmed by the system. And most importantly, the dollar value that they were prepared to put on the table to make this happen was only sufficient to deal with that group of individuals and not to have a wider program.
So, quite frankly, the federal government from the beginning--and this is what I find somewhat an irony in, because I know Mr. Rock in his public statements, walking out of meetings he held with us. A few minutes before he faced the cameras--he was putting the case, the legal work that had been done, the dollars that the federal government had based on dealing with the matter of negligence--he would walk out to the cameras and talk about compassion in dealing with everybody. Well, I think that has come home to haunt him. He has been inconsistent with the media and the public, and that has come home to haunt him big-time.
But, Mr. Chair, if I may go on, so here was the national government with that level of commitment, those principles, and I know the member has asked some interesting questions around the time frame that is involved in this particular plan. As I have told her before, that was developed by federal government lawyers in terms of the period of time in which they believed that a negligence may have been committed by the blood system, and that those who may have received hepatitis C outside of that period, that the standard of care yet in North America, indeed probably the world, had not yet developed to include the hepatitis C test. In fact the test, in the course of development, may not in fact have been sufficient to warrant being included in the standard of care, but as things turned out, did. But the exact timing was determined not by Manitoba lawyers, or by me as Minister of Health, but by federal government lawyers who had worked on this particular proposal. So that is where the federal government was coming from.
Now, what was very interesting in all of this, is that the hepatitis C issue, or tragedy I think is a more apt word, has added to provincial health care costs across this country, which we pay and make no bones about that. That is our responsibility, some $1.6 billion, it is estimated by the provinces in today dollars, to be spent over a number of years.
What we said, coming back to our principle and the one that Manitoba was very strong on, was that whatever package is put together that the federal government would have to bear its fair share of that responsibility, and that would have to be the lion's share. We said to them not that we should put health care into a package--that is not how health care will be provided--but that because those dollars we are expending, particularly for the group between 1986 and 1990, and our numbers are based on that group, not those outside of it, that our $1.6-billion estimate of health care was based on that group for which there may have been a negligence by the Red Cross and the federal government. We said that we should have credit as provinces for that expenditure, because every dollar we spent as provinces was at the margin, that federal transfers to Manitoba or any other province would not increase by that expenditure if there had not been a negligence. Had there not been the hepatitis C cases, we would not have had that $1.6-billion expenditure as provinces.
Now, Mr. Chretien and Mr. Rock and the federal cabinet, we are told by Mr. Rock, said no, that they would not even acknowledge that we had an expenditure level. In fact, they had a hard time even acknowledging that our non-insured costs should receive some credit. So at the end of the day they were not prepared to carry anywhere near their fair share. At some point we as provinces said, well, we have to get at least something here because that is unfair to the people who are suffering. We did reach agreement on a package for the group for which there may be a negligence between 1986 and 1990 that involved some $800 million on the part of the federal government, $300 million shared by the provinces, and about $100 million coming from the Red Cross, that to be concluded.
Now, that is where we got on this particular area. By the way, it is pointed out to me by my deputy that even the $100 million that the Red Cross is contributing is by and large money or equipment and capital goods that they received through the grants in essence that the provinces had provided. So those dollars that are certainly making their way back are by and large dollars that the provinces provided in the first place.
So where are we today? Well, we reached that agreement. It was announced. We have discussed it in Estimates before about extending this beyond that point. Today in the House of Commons this motion is on the floor of the House or on the Order Paper of the House and must be addressed.
Well, there are a few interesting things that I must say. After listening to Mr. Rock blame other provinces in trying to escape his responsibilities, at the end of the day the federal government position is blazingly clear. The federal government was never prepared financially to go beyond compensating those people who are in the area for which there may have been a negligence. That is eminently clear, and for the Prime Minister to put the Whips on his M.P.s that this is now a matter of government policy confirms exactly what I have told this committee and I have told the people of Manitoba, that from the day the federal government came to the table, their intention was only to deal with this group of people, that there was not an argument that any province could make that would get them to budge from that. I think that has been borne out by time. That is a very firm decision, and if Mr. Rock's comments to us as ministers of Health are accurate, that decision in fact is with the Prime Minister.
So we will see tomorrow whether or not this government is defeated, if its backbenchers defeat it and indicate that they would like the federal government to come to the table with more dollars to expand the plan. If they do that, if they put more dollars on on the same kind of basis and are prepared to live up to their responsibility, the provinces certainly, I am sure, would be prepared to meet with them to discuss this further. Certainly I would be.
But let us be very blunt around this table and with Manitobans. This is an issue that has to rest with those who are responsible for it. It has to rest with the Canadian Red Cross Society, who ran the system, and the federal government, who in fact regulated them. But the provinces, in essence, are already having to bear a huge cost of the hepatitis C tragedy, both for those for whom there may be negligence and for those where there may not be a negligence. We are getting no assistance whatsoever from the national government in bearing those costs.
In fact, as I indicated, I would find it very interesting to know if we in fact can take our partners in this blood system--I do not want to even say partners, because I do not think we are partners--but certainly the regulator and the purchaser for our share of those dollars, which would of course allow us to do more things.
If there is going to be an expansion of this plan, it has to come from those who bear the responsibility. Primarily that is the national government, and tomorrow we will see that result. So if the House of Commons gives instruction to its government, then we will see what happens from there.
But I can tell members that a province as small as Manitoba, with only 4 percent of the total package, is not going to influence that decision. It has never in the past and it will not in the future, because our contribution, our share of the total package, is relatively small.
* (1520)
The last point I want to make though is one of principle and not legalese, because the issue on which the federal government has made its decision and one in which all provincial ministers of Health, including provincial ministers from the New Democratic Party in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Yukon Territory, have been part, fully a part--in fact, our chair is a New Democrat, Clay Serby, from Saskatchewan--all of which all of us together in dealing with this issue have shared in common that concern, and it is a legitimate point, I think members must acknowledge, that concern over the principle of for what injury our health care system will compensate.
Because one thing that has been missing in this debate is the fact that each and every day when people use our health care system, there is risk involved with that system. There will be risk again in the blood system, because we know that as viruses evolve and develop, particularly if they are blood borne, that we again may have a blood borne illness in our blood system and not know about it, and may not even have a test developed to find it, and others may be injured.
So do we as a health care system, because the provinces will be now running the blood system later this year when we finalize that arrangement, where people every day of the year enter, where there is risk to their treatment, allergic reactions to drugs, potential other viruses carried in the blood system, higher rates of infections in hospitals by their very nature, do we every time someone is injured or made ill through what are the normal risks of running a health care system provide a compensation top-up above the social safety net we already have?
That is a very fundamental question or principle that has to be addressed here, not just in the context of hepatitis C. It is easy. You can point to victims and say, let us compensate, but there is that greater principle. Do we provide compensation in those cases? Do we provide compensation to people who suffered polio because they had entered a hospital for other treatment and there was a higher possibility of infection and, as a consequence, developed polio and was left injured decades ago?
Do we compensate individuals who may have an allergic reaction to a medication and suffer injury or attend at a hospital where we know certainly that there is a higher rate of infection and perhaps become infected with flesh-eating disease or some other ailment through no fault of the hospitals but just the nature of their operation, and they suffer injury? Do we provide compensation where the system has done what it reasonably can be expected to do and not have been negligent?
If in fact we do that, how are we going to pay for it? Because that happens every day, and we would have to work that into the cost of running our health care system. That was of great concern to health care ministers right across the country, and it was just as much a concern to New Democratic Party health care ministers as it was to health care ministers of other political parties. It is a concern to the national government, and I suspect that is why they in fact have taken the position, part of the reason they have taken the position that they have. So it is a very important issue. It is one that is difficult to deal with. It is one for which we have, I think, great sympathy for those who have suffered or come in contact with hepatitis C through the blood system and are not in the potential negligence period.
I also want to say to members of the committee, a point that must be noted because it is often lost in the public reports, that we as a society do not leave people who are injured or suffer injury through whatever means solely on their own, that we have built in Canada a fairly extensive social safety net, provincially and federally. On the provincial side, we provide health care, supports in home care, supports through Pharmacare. I know there is an issue of deductible that some have raised, but still we, by and large, provide for the lion's share of medical and care costs no matter how anyone is injured.
In the cases of Workers Compensation and Autopac, we at least get it back from those insurance pools, and I would like to be able to say those who have been negligent here in the blood system compensate us for those costs, but that is not where we are today. That is a little off point, but it is still an important issue that at some point may have to be addressed.
The second point on other supports, the federal government. through the Canada Pension Plan, disability pensions also has income support, so whatever we are talking about in compensation is the top-up to that. Even those who are going to be on the current hepatitis C compensation plan, it is expected, as I understand it, that this plan will pay out as a top-up to those other parts of the social safety net that are already there. So that is really what we are talking about is that top-up to it. Is that top-up important? Yes. To anyone who receives it, yes, it is very important. I do not belittle it, but I think it has to be put in the context.
So, Mr. Chair, a difficult issue. I think we all await the vote in the House of Commons tomorrow, but if there is to be an expansion of this plan, one, as I have said before, would have to be prepared to deal with the issue of ensuring any injury in our health care system for which there is no--no matter how it is caused, negligently or not, which is a significant issue because there will be people who come to us, to all members of this Legislature, who say I was made worse by my contact in the health care system, that I had an allergic reaction to a drug, I have had something else happen to me that is part of the normal risk of treatment and want compensation. We will also have, I am sure, in the future, no matter how hard we try to have a safe blood system, a mutated virus going through that system--is going to find its way again into the blood consuming population. There may have been, likely to have been, nothing that anyone could have done necessarily to prevent that. Will we compensate again?
If we are going to do that, where there is not a negligence, where the standards of care have been met to the utmost and that accepting the risk injury has resulted, it raises another fundamental issue for us as provinces. Can we afford then to run the Canadian blood system? Because that risk is part of running the Canadian blood system. If that starts to work into the calculation then, one really has to consider should we as provinces be taking over that system or should we just be buying blood in the market, in essence, with others who assume that risk. That is part of the thinking through which Health ministers went in accepting this position and reaching this agreement.
The last point I make is if there is going to be an expansion of this, the national government has to be there with those national dollars. We will not know that until the vote in the House of Commons tomorrow, and I am looking forward to that vote with great interest.
Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chair, I would like the opportunity to put a few comments on the record with regard to this issue as well. I have listened with interest to the review advanced by my colleague the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and, in fact, I too concur that to date the thinking has been one based on tort liability and that the federal government and the provincial governments have been looking at compensation for these victims based exclusively on tort liability.
As you know, Mr. Chair, tort liability is a reasonably new concept in the common law system. In fact we know that it started with something as prosaic and insignificant as a snail in a bottle of ginger beer in about 1896 in the case of Donoghue and Stevenson, where Mrs. Stevenson drank the ginger beer not noticing the snail, found that when she got to the bottom of the bottle that there was a snail in the bottle and that she suffered severe gastric results and nervous disorder and it impacted significantly on her life.
An Honourable Member: How was the snail?
Mr. Radcliffe: How was the snail? The snail was dead. The snail was perhaps the first victim in the situation.
* (1530)
But up until that case, which I think hit the House of Lords in Great Britain, there had been no compensation and no provision in the law for compensation to victims other than if they had fallen under a specific head of loss which was very confined and strict. This opened up a whole new concept of liability. Liability then, I guess there were tenets or rules that were laid down for liability, which was that one must have a duty of care to the individual victim before there was any compensation that was to be paid to the person who was hurt or offended. After the concept of a duty of care, there must be a foreseeable victim and the test must be an objective test, and in fact the test that was applied is that of the average or reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus, which means the average individual expressing common sense, the average citizen in our community.
Mr. David Faurschou, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
At that point the extent and nature of the loss which was suffered by the victim had to be something that was foreseeable. So in this case I can see that the respective ministers of Health have applied these well-known standards and rules of law--
An Honourable Member: All we are asking for is a free vote.
Mr. Radcliffe: The honourable member for Osborne says, all we are asking for is a free vote, but in fact I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we have to know what we are voting on before we commit ourselves to a course of action, and in fact before we commit ourselves to a course of action one must know where one has come from on the particular issue. I do not think there will be a member in this House who does not feel desperately sorry for the victims who suffer from hepatitis C.
In fact, I had an opportunity this morning, in the morning press to read a description of how many victims feel, how it attacks their health, their emotional outlook, their ability to perform functions, their daily life.
In fact, it is a very debilitating disease that these people suffer. From an emotional point of view, I think there is not a person in this House who would not vote to compensate these people.
In fact, I think the honourable Minister of Health touched upon a number of issues which basically look to principle. I think that we must do more than just vote with our emotions. One must know exactly what it is that we are going to be compensating these victims for. There is no doubt that these people have suffered; they have suffered horrendously. There is no doubt that the cause of the action is the use of the tainted blood, and we have people in our community who are victims of HIV who have been compensated.
In fact, the law has now been so expanded that if a person who knowingly has HIV indulges in sexual relations or in any way communicates or shares any bodily fluid with another person and that person is then put at risk, that this is, in fact, manslaughter or potentially an assault on the potential victim, so that, in fact, the law is moving very quickly on these issues, Mr. Chair, but we must know, we must direct our minds I think, firstly, I guess, to the principle involved here.
So are we going to be looking at the issue of tort liability, and is that what we are going to be compensating these individuals for, or, in fact, is this something of strict liability, and as the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) said, are we going to be absolutely guaranteeing compensation to individuals as a result of an experience that they have suffered at the hands of the health care system?
The issue then becomes, is this a precedent that we are setting, and if we are establishing this precedent, is this something that the community is prepared to live with; is this something that the citizens are prepared to live with, as I said earlier, the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus? So, Mr. Chair, what we have to do is say if there is a precedent, that there will be absolute liability arising out of compensation to victims of the health care system.
An Honourable Member: A more important question, is there a reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus?
Mr. Radcliffe: Or a more reasonable person, I guess, to be more politically correct these days, as the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is inquiring whether there is a reasonable person on the Clapham omnibus. Having ridden the Clapham omnibus, as well, I can attest to the fact that the last time I looked there were reasonable people on the Clapham omnibus, but, more particularly, I think the principle at stake here is something that should be considered further.
Too much, I think, we are developing a nation, we are developing a mentality, we are developing an attitude where when there are tragedies that occur--and life is fraught with tragedy and life is fraught with disaster--many people in our communities then look around to see whether somebody is responsible, and, in fact, we go to great lengths now in much of our judiciary, much of our judicial system, much of our health care system to attribute or to blame, and, Mr. Chair, I wonder whether this is, in fact, a path down which we should be going. I think that before we vote on this issue and before we have a free vote on this issue, this is a principle which we should be addressing.
We can look to the United States, to the litigation system which they have there. They indulge, of course, in a system which involves juries awarding general compensation for pain and suffering to individuals who have suffered some sort of loss, and as the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has indicated, this has caused--the result of this excessive litigation and fault-finding and causal connection to originating facts, the nova causa interveniens, for example, would cause individuals to become liable for actions which might very innocently have been instigated or started but have great monetary penalty attributed to them. So this is something, I think, that we should be mindful of before we willy-nilly dive into this issue with in fact the best of intentions. I think that nobody quarrels for a moment with the good faith or the good will which the honourable members opposite have brought forth or which is underlined in this motion or resolution, but in fact as government one must be responsible and have as wide a view as possible to see what all the permutations and combinations of such an act should be before we commit ourselves to this issue.
In fact, one can only look to what has happened to the Red Cross institution itself. The Red Cross institution was, in fact, a venerable and honoured institution in our communities, proffering blood supply for trauma, for operations. In effect, Mr. Chair, I can advise that I was a member of the pheresis program, which was a process where one would go to the Red Cross, would have a needle inserted in one's arm, the whole blood was pumped out of your arm, it was spun around and the white blood cells were extracted. The red blood was handed back to you, was put back into your system. This was donated then to burn victims, to people who had immediate needs for blood.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
The Red Cross has a bone marrow donation system that--I have had the opportunity to view the advertising or the promotional material on this--enables people who are suffering from leukemia to have a new chance at life. I think that we have all too quickly overlooked all the good that the Red Cross has done in our community in this principle of trying to affix blame and trying to impose penalties, which is the other side of the composition of awarding compensation to victims.
* (1540)
The next point I think that we have to address, Mr. Chair, is: What are we going to compensate people for--not for the cause--but what is the extent of the compensation which is going to be given to victims? In fact, having come from a civil litigation background, I can tell this committee that in fact if you are going to compensate people and put them back in the position in which they were prior to the event happening, one must take into account many heads of loss. You can look at the medical loss that they have suffered. That is probably quite ascertainable. In our system today, having a Pharmacare system, which this government has advanced, and the reasonably, relatively free health care system which we enjoy in Canada, probably many of our health care losses or penalties which are imposed on these victims are covered by the community as a whole at large.
However, there are many other heads of loss which one could look to for compensation, Mr. Chair, and one of them would be a diminution in your ability to earn a living. There would be a loss of enjoyment of life. There would be compensation for pain and suffering. Even spouses or partners of victims would have a head of compensation in that their marital relations might be diminished, their family relations would be diminished. Children of victims could potentially have a head of loss to which compensation could flow.
So, Mr. Chair, one must be very, very careful about what level and what extent of compensation we award to victims of hepatitis C. We can only read the articles which were put in the newspaper this morning to see how invasive and how debilitating hepatitis C could be to a particular individual and then look at the motion which has been put before this committee right now to say that the Legislature and the House of Commons hold a free vote on whether to extend compensation to all victims who have contacted hepatitis C from contaminated blood.
So the issue is do we look at compensation, and if we are going to vote intelligently, if we are going to vote reasonably, if we are going to vote responsibly, we have to know what is the level of compensation that we are committing our public purse to, because as legislators and as administrators, we in fact are holding the public purse as a trust, and we must vote these funds reasonably and carefully, having in mind all the competing issues and claims that are against that fund, and we must bring a balanced view to the community before we spend people's money.
The compensation that we are to award, as well it does not say in this motion, whether the compensation is to be a lump sum settlement to an individual victim, and if there is a lump sum settlement that is involved, then how does one compensate for the fact that our funds that are voted today will be eroded by inflation in the years to come? Should there be a multiplier or a discount factor involved in a compensation feature? Should there be actuarial skills involved and brought to the table to compute what would be an adequate level of compensation? Or, in fact, should there be a monthly stipend donated to these individuals that have suffered from hepatitis C who have not been addressed at the present time? These are, I think, some of the issues, Mr. Chair, that we would have to consider and investigate.
Further, would this compensation that we are proposing to give to these victims of hepatitis C, would it be taxable? If it was in lieu of income, should it be based on a flat rate or should it be based on--
An Honourable Member: What was the term--should it be what? Tensable, kensable--
Mr. Radcliffe: Well, perhaps the record--my honourable colleague opposite has missed one of my points, and--
An Honourable Member: Yes, your words; what was the word, Mike?
Mr. Radcliffe: I think it was compensable.
An Honourable Member: I want simultaneous translation.
Mr. Radcliffe: I would urge colleagues opposite that they should pay close attention to these remarks, because I do say them earnestly, even though I do at times enjoy some--
An Honourable Member: What do you mean by the word here? An old lawyer's habits, always getting a bonus.
Mr. Radcliffe: That is right. I do enjoy wordsmithery and--[interjection] But nonetheless I think that there are some very important issues that are at stake here, and whether we should be looking as I say at whether this compensation level is taxable or nontaxable. If it were nontaxable, then should we, for example, if we were giving money to these individuals for compensation by virtue of the fact that they were unable to work at their full potential that they had prior to suffering as a victim of tainted blood, would it be appropriate then to compensate them at the full level at which they could achieve?
Should we speculate as to what level they could achieve in the way of employment income, whether we ought to give them a discount for taxes which they--[interjection] Whether it would be for full employment rate or whether there should be a diminution of the award on account of taxes and business expenses that they should be facing. So these are also issues, Mr. Chair, which in the civil courts were often addressed when we talked about issues of compensation for victims of motor vehicle accidents, victims that were involved with tort litigation. These are issues that I think before we vote should be addressed, should be thought through carefully, and I am sure that some of these discussions are issues that will be handled in the federal House with regard to many of the members of government.
The other alternative that we could have, of course, is that there could be strict liability and that there would be direct compensation on a fixed rate, and of course this motion does not indicate whether that is the case or not, whether if we are going to introduce strict liability into our health care system as the honourable Minister of Health has indicated, does that mean then that we strike a precedent and that--oops.
An Honourable Member: That is a message.
Mr. Radcliffe: That is a message, that is right, well, the wind is blowing.
And I would indicate that, Mr. Chair, this could cause a very dangerous precedent because other litigators could then be looking at saying, well, if we have awarded compensation to individuals for HIV or, sorry, for hepatitis C on the basis that there was potentially a notional loss or level of negligence that we then should be doing this for issues with regard to pain for people at childbirth, whether there should be--[interjection] Well, exactly. My honourable colleague for Crescentwood is sort of looking somewhat incredulous at this suggestion.
An Honourable Member: Askance, even.
* (1550)
Mr. Radcliffe: Askance, yes. But I would invite his perspicacity in this issue and say that once one introduces an issue or a principle of this nature, then one must accept the full application of it, and these are issues which perhaps we do not know where it would take us. We have in fact a doctorate at law, that of res ipsa loquitur.
An Honourable Member: I think Hansard is going to need some written--
Mr. Radcliffe: Well, for the benefit of the reporter, I would say, res which is the thing, r-e-s; ipsa, i-p-s-a, the thing speaks for itself; loquitur, and that is the verb to speak, and it is a well-known principle of law of strict liability. The example which I would cite--[interjection] Ah, that is right. It is a strict example of law that there is strict liability arising out of an individual's actions. [interjection] Okay, I am sorry, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry if I interrupted, continue, please.
Mr. Radcliffe: No, that is all right. I wanted to make sure that I had the attention of my honourable colleague opposite to these issues because when one starts talking about compensation, compensation is a wide realm of activity and one must know before one commits government and the public purse to compensate victims which victims we are going to compensate, how much, what is the nature and extent of the compensation that is going to be awarded, and what are the principles that are going to be used in the application of compensation, and where is it going to take us in the future. My honourable colleague the Minister of Health said that this has been a top-up to date, but is this in fact the thin end of the wedge and in fact should it be full compensation to individuals who have suffered this devastating loss? Before I think the governments get into this, we have to know, Mr. Chair, whether if in fact we are going to do it for hepatitis C, do we do it for tonsillectomy, do we do it for viral infections, do we do it for nervous loss, emotional loss? Are we going to be a nation of people who automatically, strictly award compensation for any foreseeable or traceable loss to individuals who have suffered, or, in fact, are there limits to the compensation that we will be awarding? Can we afford to live at this level?
I do agree with my colleagues opposite that it is a humane and very laudatory position and principle to try and adopt.
An Honourable Member: Are you in favour of the resolution?
Mr. Radcliffe: Well, I think before we address our minds to it, we should look at the nature and extent of what we are actually being invited to vote upon. I think that all the members of our Legislative Assembly, Mr. Chair, being reasonable people, and I am sure they would fit in very easily on the Clapham omnibus, and, in fact, they would want to know these principles and the nature and extent before they were to raise their hand either in favour or against it, and I am sure that these are issues that our Prime Minister and the party Whip in the federal House will be addressing today.
I have read that there was correspondence being circulated amongst the backbenchers, that there were members of church organizations who were commenting on this, and, in fact, I can tell members opposite that I have had citizens from River Heights, the district that I represent, come to my constituency office and tell me and urge that we should vote in favour of compensating victims and not just have a strict legal, objective standard and a tough cut-off date which is the issue that has been promoted to date.
In fact, one could suggest that our federal Minister of Health probably has not looked at the issue from a totally compassionate point of view. I think that, in fact, what the federal government and the federal Minister of Health, and especially deducing from the remarks from the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), they have only been looking at a tortious liability perspective, and--[interjection] Tortious. [interjection] T-o-r-t-i-u-s.
An Honourable Member: For Hansard's benefit.
Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, that is right. Oh, no, no, absolutely, I would acknowledge to my honourable colleague opposite that his remarks are based on the finest of motives, that he would never descend to heckling speakers when they are speaking on something. But, in fact, you know, apart from the good-natured ribaldry which we exchange from time to time on various issues, I think this is a serious issue, Mr. Chair, something that deserves a reasonable amount, an extensive amount of research, an extensive amount of consideration and an extensive amount of thought before one is to commit oneself or one's government or one's public purse to handing out money willy-nilly.
I think that there is no doubt, not on the slightest hesitation would I say or do I want to denigrate the extent of the suffering that individual victims of hepatitis C have experienced, and, in fact, that it, in fact, permeates every aspect of their lives, but what is the level of compensation, what are the rules by which we would compensate, what is the extent to which we would compensate, not just something, perhaps, that was from an artificial chronological experience, but if we are to compensate, are we to compensate because they have suffered, and if so, are we to compensate individuals, all individuals who have suffered at the hands of our health care system, at the hands of our government, at the hands of our society at large, because, of course, as you know, Mr. Chair, there are many citizens in our community who are victims, institutional victims. By that I mean people who, because of poverty, because of lack of education, because of poor health, are marginalized and do not have the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of our community. I think that the Canadian society, the Canadian nation has been one which has been a caring nation and a softer, gentler place, as to cite the comments of a previous President of the United States.
An Honourable Member: And look what happened to him.
Mr. Radcliffe: That is right, he passed on. But I think all Canadians take great pride in the fact that this is a more thoughtful and compassionate place. With these remarks, I would conclude my address on this issue and say that I think this is a matter that deserves great care before we vote on this issue. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Point of order, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson: I would like to make a point, and then I will recognize the honourable member for Crescentwood. When this discussion started, the notice was from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) that he wished to speak. Then the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) came right up to the Chairman and said he wished to speak. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) then raised his hand and got my attention that he wished to speak, and then I asked the member for Crescentwood if he wished to speak or to get on the list. That is just the point that I wanted to make. I wanted everybody to know that in fact as people request, I put them on a list here.
* (1600)
Obviously government's intention is to speak for some time on this, and that is fine, that is their right to do that, but I do not believe that establishing a speaking order by an informal process of waving of hands and coming up and speaking to the Chair changes the fact that in the normal course of events all Chairpersons that I have experienced, with the exception of this issue, have rotated, alternated back and forth across the floor. So I am puzzled by this departure, and I would ask you to review the procedure that you have set forth. I do not believe it is in conformity with our tradition.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Justice, on the same point of order.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do want to speak on this particular matter. I think it is very important and what seems to me to be an abuse of the system. Government members who are very interested in speaking of this matter and are here today will be prejudiced by any going back and forth. If members--you know, they only put up two speakers, and then they expect to have a right to speak after every government member speaks personally. We are here as individual members, and therefore it would be unfair to go back and forth between party lines.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I might give this one more thing. First of all, I will rule that the honourable member for Crescentwood does not have a point of order, but with some clarification also. As a Chair--and I know that the member for Crescentwood has chaired many meetings also, not just here but in many other areas in the time that he has been in public life. When you are sitting here as the Chair of committees and you see a motion put forward, you watch both sides of the table, if you will, for indication as to what it is that they would like to do.
The indication that I saw on the opposition side of the House was that--and they were nodding to each other--they wished to hear what the government side had to say. That is the feeling that I got. Now I try my best as Chairman to run it as fairly as I possibly can. I will continue to do that.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I wonder if I might be of assistance here. The normal practice is to rotate back and forth, and I point out on the record that we have now had two government members in a row who have spoken. This would then make it three. We would then have been basically, if this continues, run the risk of being blanketed from speaking on our own motion this afternoon. I have chaired these committees. There is a standard process of trying to balance that. The reason we did not put up a speaker initially is, quite frankly, we were hoping it would go to a vote when the minister finished his comments and the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe) spoke.
Obviously, there are errors that we wish to respond to, but I really think we can accommodate this by rotating back and forth. I think we have been fairly co-operative in this committee thus far. That does not always happen, and I am just suggesting that, whether we do it by point of order or by consensus in the committee, I am sure we can have a fair balance.
Mr. Chairperson: I am allowing these points of interest to be brought up. They are not points of order. I will allow one more.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the subject matter of the point of order as I understand it. In my view, the way our parliamentary system works, there is a time and an opportunity for everyone.
On that basis, I think that it is not really a question of how many from one side get to speak before somebody from the other side speaks so much as that everybody who has something to say gets their words spoken. In that regard, I have quickly canvassed the matter with some of my colleagues, including the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), and in the interests of co-operation, shall we say, it might be appropriate to allow the honourable member for Thompson to speak next, to be followed by somebody from the government's side. That is just a suggestion. I entered the discussion late, I acknowledge, but, Mr. Chairman, it might make your job a little easier if we just simply agreed to let the honourable member for Thompson make his contribution, and then perhaps if you see fit to alternate if speakers are lined up on both sides.
Mr. Chairperson: Am I to understand this then: that it is the will of the committee to allow all those people who wish to speak at this committee the time to speak? Is that the will of the committee?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, what you are saying does not reflect anything that the government House leader said. My understanding was he was referencing my speaking next, and I, you know, I appreciate the--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Ashton: Well, can I just finish, Mr. Chairperson?
Mr. Chairperson: You brought up a point of order--[interjection]
The honourable member for Thompson, okay. Now you have the floor to bring up your point of order which I was going to rule was not a point of order, but go ahead. Finish your point of order.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, the government House leader just made a suggestion. I think it was the will of the committee. Your summary of the suggestion had no reference to what he had suggested. I heard him say that he thought it would be the will of the committee that instead of, I think it was, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) to speak next that I speak next. That may help us get along to resolving; then the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) could be recognized in turn. So all I was suggesting is we seem to have consensus on that. Rather than sort of restarting this whole thing again for another half-hour, why do we not stick with what we have consensus on.
I agree with the government House leader (Mr. McCrae), and by the way, that is not all that usual. So I suggest we take that and move on.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Is it the will of the committee that the honourable member for Thompson be allowed to speak now on this motion? [agreed]
Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the co-operative approach in the committee and there may be times when we are not as co-operative, when we have disagreements, and that, I think, is quite legitimate. Certainly, I look forward to the contributions of members opposite on this resolution, as well as the member for Crescentwood.
I want to suggest by the way, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe) that I suspect that, when he came into the committee, he may have been not properly advised as to the resolution that we are dealing with, and I would just like to read to the minister, and to both ministers, that this deals with the question of having a free vote on the hepatitis C issue. It follows, I would explain, by some questions and comments that were made by the minister, our critic for this area, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), and the minister earlier--the minister expressed concern in the House about the fact that there was not going to be a free vote in the House of Commons. I would say that we felt it was important to put on the record that we feel, as a committee in this Legislature dealing with Health, that there should be a free vote, particularly in the House of Commons tomorrow.
Now, given that, I think it would be entirely hypocritical of us not to suggest that a similar free vote be held in our House. I would point out by the way that it is the government in Ottawa, the Liberal government, that has declared the vote on what is essentially an opposition motion to be a matter of confidence. So the motion would not have been a matter of confidence if the government had not declared it to be so. That, I think, is really important because what the government is doing in Ottawa, it is using the Whip to get the vote rammed through because it knows that four opposition parties oppose the government's position, will support the Opposition Day motion, which, as I understand it, is being brought in by the Reform Party; therefore, they are using the government Whip in this case, to ensure the defeat of the motion calling for hepatitis C compensation for all victims.
That, I think, is highly unusual in this particular case. It is rare for a government to declare a matter of confidence on an issue that is not normally anywhere close to being a matter of confidence. Our rules in this Legislature, for example, on Opposition Day motions, clearly state that they are not confidence motions. Obviously, it would be highly embarrassing to a government to lose a motion, but they are not in that category. So what we did when we moved this motion is that we want this committee to be on record as being in favour of a free vote, both in the House of Commons and, by extension, in the Legislature. Our main concern and focus is the vote tomorrow in the House of Commons, obviously to send a clear message.
* (1610)
I would be surprised if members opposite--and I did not hear any comments in their debate back and forth that indicated they are anything but equivalently concerned about the fact that the government in Ottawa is treating this as a vote which the Whip is on, and as a matter of confidence. Understand what that means. It means any Liberal backbencher who votes in favour of this motion in Ottawa is treated as voting against the government by declaration of the Liberal government itself. John Nunziata is a good example of what happens to Liberals who show some degree of independence in speaking their conscience--
Mr. Radcliffe: They only have 11 people.
Mr. Ashton: They have a very small majority. I am absolutely convinced that if it was not a matter of confidence, I think everybody will agree to this, the motion would fail. There are four opposition parties and, I think, a substantial number of Canadians who are saying that the current package that is in place does not go far enough. I would stress, too, that I would recognize on the record that, by and large, the majority of the compensation is federal. I believe the proportions are about 800 to 300 in terms of the--except for the health care cost which I accept, by the way, from the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), which are significant.
I want to put on the record, too, that I have a constituent of mine who is a victim of hepatitis C, acquired hepatitis C infection, and I talked to him quite significantly about the impacts this will have. If you understand what this person is going through right now, he is a former King Miner. People would not even know, given the circumstances, the impact this will have on his health, because it is a slow process of degeneration. It can lead to complications such as liver disease. In fact, it is interesting, James Earl Ray, the person who was convicted for the killing of Martin Luther King, recently died. There is some controversy over that. Of what? Of cirrhosis of the liver that was acquired from hepatitis C infection. I believe he was stabbed by an inmate and acquired hepatitis C, and this led to cirrhosis of the liver and the death of that individual. That is how it happens. It is a slow process initially, but it can lead to a very precipitous decline in health once it leads to any of those side effects. I know the government House leader, who I know is now I guess the acting Health minister, knows of that, will know of that from his sojourn as Minister of Health.
So let us put this in perspective here. Tomorrow there is going to be a vote. The government is going to use its majority. It is going to say to the Liberal members that you vote the other way on this, you vote in favour of compensation for all victims, you will be voting against the government. After what they did to John Nunziata, essentially that is a threat to kicked them out of the government caucus. I have no doubt that they will do that, because they have done that in the past, and this is a government that has done that on issues ranging from the C-68, the gun registration bill. They are doing it now on hepatitis C, and that is really what this is all about.
An Honourable Member: What would happen if there were 12 of them who voted against it?
Mr. Ashton: Well, if there were 12 of them, as the minister says, the government would be defeated. But this does not have to happen. If the government would just say this is not a confidence motion, allow members to vote on this, the government would perhaps be defeated on this issue in the House of Commons but not as a government per se. I remind members, the same rules apply in this House. If there is a resolution in this House, a government resolution that is defeated, or a bill, it does not necessarily lead to the defeat of the government. It depends on the circumstances.
Well, there is long precedent of this too. If one looks back to the late 1960s, I believe in 1967-68, the government at that time was defeated on a matter in the House. The government then went and put a matter of confidence to the House, it was a motion of confidence, and received support on that matter. The only motions that are clearly matters of confidence without any debate are on the budget and on the throne speech, and in fact we have a precedent obviously just over 10 years ago with Manitoba where a defeat on the budget leads to the defeat of the government.
So here you have a government that instead of saying, well, we will just have a vote on this, they did not even say to members of this committee that, yes, this is an important vote to us and we want our members to vote against this opposition motion on hepatitis C. They went one step further. They are using the double threat on their own members, both the Whip being on and also it being a matter of confidence. That is very significant, because that is the ultimate sanction they can take. Daily we see government backbenchers in the House of Commons going on television and saying, well, you know, my conscience says this, but I have to do that because it has been declared such a matter.
So we want to send a clear message to the federal government, have a free vote on this matter. I know there is a lot of concern out there. I recently spoke to Glen Clark, the Premier of British Columbia. I spoke to him just a couple of days after the comments that were in the national media on his own discomfort with what has happened. I think that what he did then at that time was speak for the discomfiture of a lot of people. I think if you were to go back right now and look at what has happened in the last few weeks, there would be a lot of people who would review the initial decision that this was going to be capped off, that only certain victims of hepatitis C were going to receive compensation and others were going to receive nothing.
Now why would we want to get this matter dealt with on its own merits? I would suggest because--and I would like to take issue with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe) because I think he used some examples that were not appropriate examples. I would say he mentioned labour, various other things. I think he was using them as debating points--[interjection] Labour, child bringing and various other aspects. The minister talked about the flesh-eating diseases. I would refer the member to the report of Justice Krever, page 1045, and I would like to read it into the record: Until now our treatment of the blood injured has been unequal. After years of suffering devastating financial losses many persons affected from HIV with blood or blood products or the surviving family members finally did receive financial assistance. Other Canadians who have suffered injuries from blood therapy have not received any compensation, yet the needs of those who have been harmed are the same regardless of their cause and whether or not fault can be proved. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified.
Think the logic of the Krever report through, Mr. Chairperson. Justice Krever said, we have compensated some HIV sufferers. We should compensate others. Hepatitis C can be just as devastating for families that are now suffering the kind of huge dysfunction that results from hepatitis C and can lead to early deaths, significantly premature death--[interjection] Or protracted ill health, which can create more difficulty, indeed, for the families. So I think what Justice Krever has said is that, if you are going to compensate any of those who have suffered from tainted blood products, you should have a process that deals with all of them.
Some members say, what does that mean financially? I would suggest that the model of what has been adopted is the Irish model, because the Irish model takes into account the specific needs of the patients and families involved. The Irish model does compensate all victims, but it is based on need. It is not a flat formula. It is based on the specific needs. [interjection] His comments--well, the needs are the health needs, the specific health needs, to the minister. Some people face far more significant health difficulties because of hepatitis C, medicalwise.
I would suggest to the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe) that that is the kind of model that could be looked at here. I believe we are in a situation now where the degree of compensation has been adopted by the ministers is really hard to justify. I understand why they have done it. I understand all the arguments about cost and precedence, et cetera, but we have done it already. We have done it already with HIV. We have done it in other areas as well. Thalidomide is a good example where you have a compensation package now being brought in, I think, in fairly good faith, perhaps, on one level, but also obviously trying to deal with the potential for class action lawsuits. [interjection] We have breast implants.
We have a number of provinces in this country that allow for class action lawsuits. It is interesting that I think a large part of this is very much being triggered by the fact that, if it is not resolved outside of the courts, it will be resolved inside the courts. As the minister will know, that can be a very lengthy and costly process, so I think the ministers of Health collectively--and I say this to the current Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) of Manitoba--started out, I believe, in good faith, but I believe the decision they have made is a wrong decision in the sense it limits far too greatly the amount of compensation that is available.
* (1620)
What else can we do, Mr Chairperson, but support this motion? If we do not pass this motion, I think what we will be doing is saying on the record that we see no problem with this being dealt with as a government vote, and I point out that all it says is a free vote. I mean, we are arguing from the opposition that it should be more expanded, but the first step is let the members of Parliament and let members of the Legislature decide on this issue based on its own merit, not on the government Whip being on it. What I would suggest we do, if we pass this resolution, is what we will allow is for, first of all, a clear message to the House of Commons. I think that is the first step, and I would hope we speak for all because the Minister of Health, I thought in the House today, indicated some criticism of the Whip being on.
The second thing is yes, it would require a vote of the Manitoba Legislature, and I am quite willing to work with the government minister. I would prefer it to be a government motion. Obviously, we can look at other options, whether it be opposition motions, private member's motion on a similar text to what is before the House of Commons current. That we can do.
I would suggest the way we can precipitate that is to pass this vote. Obviously the House of Commons vote will take place first. We can then obviously determine the results of that vote, look at our options here, but I am willing to work in a co-operative way with the government House leader on behalf of our caucus. I am sure the Liberal members in this House will follow their own conscience, and the independent members, and will not be dictated to by the federal Liberals. I have every confidence of that.
So this is what the motion deals with. We could have said--I want to put on the record--that this committee urges complete hepatitis C compensation. I would support such a motion. I would suggest that it would have been appropriate. Bottom line is though we felt it would be a more constructive approach if we followed through on this, which allows for the process to take place in the forum that we would like to see it in. We would like to see a matter dealt with in the House, not a procedural matter, but a substantive motion.
Coming out of this committee, we felt this was the degree to which we could go without putting the government too much on the spot. I realize it would have been very difficult if there was a motion saying that this committee recommends complete coverage for hepatitis C. That would have put the members in a difficult position. But they can vote for this motion; they can vote for this motion today. They can vote for this motion before the House of Commons vote. It will be a statement of this committee, which is fairly significant, the Health section of Estimates. It would be an all-party vote obviously. We cannot pass it ourselves. We would be in a position I think of sending a very clear message. The reason it mentions a free vote in our House is because I do not believe we can be hypocritical. We cannot say, yes, the federal government should have a free vote but not us. I do not think that would be on, and I think members have to understand the logic of it.
So I would suggest that the minister, I think, probably came here debating the bigger issue that we were not intending to debate the bigger issue per se. That is the backdrop of this. I really think that there is a--[interjection] But I say to the member, he could support this motion and then go and vote against compensation for all hepatitis C victims just as easily as he could support this motion and go on and vote in favour of it. This motion calls for a free vote. We are quite prepared to see where the result will come from, what we will end up with if we have a free vote in the Manitoba Legislature. I know what will happen in the House of Commons; it will not pass. The government's position will not pass. The opposition motion will pass if there is a free vote. I am convinced in this House if there was a motion before the House that stated that there should be compensation for all hepatitis C victims, which is something I would strongly urge, that that would happen too.
But you know, if members opposite are sitting here--and I sense this from the minister's comments--perhaps they are saying you know, we are in a difficult situation here because we do not want to extend hepatitis C compensation to all victims. You know, if we pass this motion, that is going to end up with there having to be a vote on that in the Legislature. But you know, I want to suggest, Mr. Chairperson, if the government stalls or votes against this motion, what they are going to be doing is no different from what the federal Liberals are doing. Think about it.
You know, I note for the record that before we started this motion there was rather a sparse attendance in this committee room. There was one person. I should not mention the name of the person because one should not reference the absence of members, and I do not want to get him in trouble with his colleagues. He was sitting here attentively and I am looking at him right now. He was sitting here attentively, and I think he is a legislative assistant to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), if I am correct, or certainly works closely with the Minister of Health, but as soon as we moved the motion, messages were going out of this committee in a rather rapid manner, members were scurrying into the committee. They were looking at the motion. They were lining up to speak. In the time the Estimates committee has been sitting, Mr. Chairperson, I look to you, has that happened on anything else? No, I strongly suspect--
An Honourable Member: The Whip is on.
Mr. Ashton: Oh, Mr. Chairperson, I think it is obvious the Whip has been put on here. I think the messages went out to the Conservative members the NDP has moved a resolution--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson did--[interjection].
Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson asked the Chair a question, and I believe that I should give him an answer. In the Health Estimates here, I have seen congeniality; I have seen co-operation, understanding, good conversation, good discussion, so I am not sure how you would want to interpret that, but that is what I have seen.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, when I ask a question rhetorically through the Chair, that is because we cannot talk directly to members opposite. Chairs do not answer rhetorical questions or direct questions, and I would suggest that my point is made even more by your comments, whether they are indeed in order or not, because I pointed out that all of a sudden the members scurried in when this resolution was brought in. Is the Whip on or is it not on? That is the question, and I am not asking you for that because you are not even supposed to know that. You are our Chairperson, and you are supposed to be above the--
An Honourable Member: Nonpartisan.
Mr. Ashton: Nonpartisan indeed. But the bottom line is: is the Whip on on the government on this motion on hepatitis C?
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister, on a point of order.
Mr. McCrae: Yes Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the honourable member for Thompson, for whom I fought so hard for the opportunity to speak this afternoon, I think in committee, like anywhere else, there are rules of relevance and the resolution is before us, the motion is before us, and the honourable member is on all kinds of, engaging in all kinds of rhetorical flights of fancy and whatever else. I suggest that there is an issue here of relevance, a very serious matter that is before this committee. There are members who do want to engage in discussion about the important subject matter of the motion before us, and if the honourable member for Thompson wants simply to delve into everybody's motives and all of that, which is not relevant, maybe he should stand aside and let someone who wants to speak to the matter--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister, I am ruling, did not have a point of order, and I would suggest that I have allowed some fairly open discussion on this motion.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Thompson, to continue his remarks.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, indeed my comments are directly relevant because the question here is: are we going to take a stand as a committee of this Legislature and as a Legislature both on hepatitis C and the question of putting the Whip on on the issue of hepatitis C? I am suggesting we send a clear message to the federal government not to put the Whip on, not to have this as a matter of confidence and to allow for a free vote in the House of Commons. I am suggesting also that this happen on this resolution as well in the Manitoba Legislature. I am suggesting, to begin with, it should start with the government not putting on the Whip on this matter or attempting to stall this matter.
We are prepared to have this matter go to a vote, and we are prepared, indeed, to listen to debate on it. We have no difficulty, we can do that, but you know I think to be consistent--you cannot stand up like the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) did and criticize the federal government for having the Whip on and then the same afternoon come in and put the Whip on when the opposition is suggesting on behalf of all Manitobans that we speak out on hepatitis C. You cannot have it both ways. What I am suggesting is what is good for the House of Commons is a free vote; what is good for the Manitoba Legislature is a free vote. If we pass this resolution, we send a clear signal for tomorrow's vote, and I think what we do is then set in motion a process whereby we can have a motion in this House that is, I hope--will be not only a free vote but perhaps an all-party expression of the need to extend hepatitis C coverage.
I say that on behalf of people I know personally, and this constituent in particular. I know other members have people who are affected by this in their constituency, but I have been talking to him for quite some time about this. I know the personal impact it is having on him and his family, through no fault of his own. I know the burden it is going to create for him and his family on medical purposes. The question should not be whether he was infected in 1986, or 1984, or 1990, the question is: are we going to deal with hepatitis C victims? I believe the answer should be yes, the same one we have with HIV. Are we going to deal with them? I believe, in the spirit of Justice Krever, yes, and that spirit indicates that we should bring in a compensation package that applies to all victims based on the need of the victims. That should be the only consideration in this particular case, the need of the victims, not some legal niceties that have been brought in as to who should be covered and who should not.
* (1630)
That is why I am suggesting, Mr. Chairperson, as I conclude my remarks here, let us pass this resolution as an expression of this committee. Let us set in process that motion, and I want to indicate on the record that I am quite prepared to sit down with the government House leader and work out any way, shape or form in which we can have this matter dealt with by the Legislature as a whole either in a private members' resolution, a motion, and I would prefer, by the way, that it be a government motion because a government motion does have, obviously, more standing that an opposition motion.
Either way, though, Mr. Chairperson, we believe strongly enough on this matter, and I apologize to members opposite if they felt my comments were not on the line. I am hoping that they will speak out, too, do the same kind of thing that we are suggesting the federal government do, and that is take a stand on this, and in this case, a stand on whether we have a free vote or not.
I do not think that we should have the Whip extended in all matters. We often have matters which are matters that involve moral judgment on conscience and listening to our constituents. I think this is appropriate. I think this is the kind of resolution we should have that on. I cannot think of anything more appropriate than having a free vote on this particular issue, both in the House of Commons and in the Legislature, and that is why the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) moved it.
I look forward to other comments, but I hope the government is not, as a strategy, putting the Whip on or trying to stall this. Now is the time to pass this. We can pass this resolution today. I would suggest we get this resolution passed before the federal House of Commons deals with the matter, so we can send a clear statement and not be seen by Manitobans as being hypocritical, criticizing the federal government for one thing and then sitting back in the Manitoba Legislature and doing the exact same thing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Well, Mr. Chairman, this is not an easy debate on either side of the table. I would suggest, however, that it is even less of an easy debate for government, whether it is this government or the national government or any government in this country of any stripe, at any time, frankly, when you are talking about the very essence of life for many of the people who are suffering from hep C and who are now looking for some relief to the system.
Of course, there is always the issue that arises at a time like this, are we talking about some kind of attribution of negligence and ultimately punishment of those who have been responsible for that negligence, or are we talking about trying to deal as openhandedly as possible with those who are finding themselves most disadvantaged through no fault of their own?
Yes, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) makes some legitimate points, but I can say after 10 years, 12 years of sitting in a caucus on this side of the table, that it is surprising how many times people say the Whip is on when, in fact, there is a meeting of the minds and a unanimity of position without anybody talking about the Whip being on.
But more importantly than that, very often those responsible for making decisions are judged because they may or may not be seen to be making those decisions in as humane and as openhanded a way as possible, and it always increases the difficulty of making a decision, Mr. Chairman, when no matter how you view it you have a responsibility to separate what is a fair and reasonable way of dealing with a problem and yet knowing that there are always reasons to go further in any kind of a decision, and I suggest that this is one of those situations.
Any input into this debate from anyone in the Legislature or the House of Commons, for that matter, I am sure it is needed for there to be a full airing on behalf of those who are so traumatically influenced by this situation of the unintended infection with hepatitis C. As the Minister of Health has stated on a couple of occasions, and maybe more than that, the original template on which this offering is made is based on being able to get as much money, I think, into the hands of those who need it, as possible, as opposed to wrangling our way through the courts.
I think we all learned a lesson--I know the Red Cross learned a very expensive lesson--during the course of the Krever review and the results of that. The Red Cross is a veritable shell of what it was. Its reputation is in tatters. The ability of it to continue with many of its programs is probably--well, no question--is significantly weakened, and yet I am not one, and I do not think there are very many people in this room or in this Legislature that would be unwilling to say that the Red Cross did an enormous amount of good over the years in its responsibilities, that it always, in fact, was seen as a leader, but it eventually had to take responsibility for decisions that were made internally that Justice Krever felt were not appropriate.
What I worry about with this debate is the solution that is proposed--and, goodness knows, all of us, as believers in the democratic system, have talked about the pros and cons of free votes and what they really mean, and I am not going to poke a stick any sharper than it should be at the opposition. They certainly have a reason to put forward this concern, not only on behalf of those that have come to them for assistance, on behalf of making a statement. We are all concerned about what has happened to these people who are not included in the package that is being offered, as well as the ones who are. But no matter what we do, and I am equally sure that whether it is this government or the federal government, eventually there is some kind of boundary that is struck in terms of how a program will be seen to be distributed, and this leads me to a concern about ad hocking responses such as this.
We have a situation today, it seems to me that the--and I am not here as an apologist for the federal government, that should be pretty obvious--but in debating whether or not this is an appropriate approach and response to whether or not we can increase the pressure on ourselves and on the federal government to deal differently with this issue. There certainly is some indication on the part of the national government house leader that reconsiderations are being given, probably as we speak, to the position that they have put forward.
So if I can push the politics a little bit aside for a moment and talk about the reality of what we are all trying to deal with, no matter what our political stripe, this move, in and of itself, is not going to answer the concerns and, in fact, the pleas for further consideration by infected individuals out there across the country. I am fortunate inasmuch as I do not have--if I have anyone, there are very few people within my constituency who have been directly affected by this blood issue, this one or the HIV one, but I also suspect that is because a lot of the people who, once their health begins to deteriorate, locate themselves closer to larger, more competent health facilities. So in terms of having to face these individuals one by one and the problems that they are dealing with, I have not had very much of that personally in my constituency. Certainly as a government, we have had to deal with this from day one.
* (1640)
I am going to use a little bit of my time to just talk about the fact that the relationship between this and the HIV situation are obvious because of the manner of spread or the lack of ability to predict the possibility of spreading disease when blood products are being used and to identify the problem early enough to protect those who are ongoing and significant users of the system, particularly those affected with hemophilia. But I want to assure anyone who cares to look at the record that there has been a lot of serious soul-searching that has gone on, on the part of various ministers of Health in this government going back to day one, and no matter what you think of our politics or the positions taken by those ministers of Health as their thinking evolved, there has never been a harsh word said about the predicament the people find themselves in when they are dealing with this disease, and of course with HIV.
So I am quite prepared to see this debate carry on, but I am also prepared to be on the record as saying that I do not, as a matter of principle, believe that the solution that is being offered is the only one that will continue to keep the pressure on the federal government. I would acknowledge that the opposition may well feel that this is a good position for them to be in. It is never the opposition that has to worry about whether or not they can answer to the demand of a vote. When it is a free vote, it is the government that eventually must deal with whatever the results of that are. It is easy enough to say, well, it is not a matter of confidence, therefore it does not matter. I will leave others to judge that in the long run, but there are issues at stake here that go far beyond whether or not we are going to have a free vote in order to send a message to anyone.
There is an issue of how far can any government go in Canada as a caring society. So I suppose that is part of what drives this debate and will drive it for the next decade as well, no matter what the outcome of this type of debate might be or what the ultimate, if any, changes might occur in the settlement that is being offered and the manner in which it will be administered.
Canada is a caring society that, by and large, will try to look after those who are severely disadvantaged whether it is through this type of misadventure or whether it is through something more sinister or more careless. That is why we do have already a safety net in place that is intended to pick up some of the problems for people that are severely affected by the condition of their health. It is one thing to no longer have the ability to work. It goes even beyond that when you have no longer the opportunity to enjoy quality of life. I mean that is very simple.
I am not going to degrade the problems of the hep C infected people by making comparisons with other diseases. That is certainly not the intent in making these comments, but we have a system out there that is intended to help all of us if we fall on hard times with our health and are unable to support ourselves or our family. There is an element here of trying to provide some additional quality of life to not only individuals who are affected but those who are supporting them from a family point of view and for those who are dependent on them as a family. There is an element of whether or not they were inadvertently involved in contracting the disease. So I think there was a lot of good will at the table when we talked about--and our Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) referenced the fact that it was important that some kind of quick implementation of this program be accomplished.
I think we saw decades of debate around the HIV issue, more than a decade of where there was a lot of knowledge out there that perhaps was not being acted upon. We do not need to go through a revisit of that part in our history. Nevertheless, while I think there are reasons to be skeptical and be critical of governments over the years on how they have perhaps reacted to the concerns and the lobby of those who find themselves in this severe situation health wise, by and large, society has not been guilty of being unresponsive to the needs of health care. That leads into very much the bigger health care debate.
I mean we have seen what happens to the health care system south of the border, where it does become very litigious in a number of ways, so that is a direct reason why I mentioned the nonlitigious aspect of what is on the table here. That is why I still solicit the urging to use whatever means we have at our disposal to make sure that the program that is put in place is seen to be fair. Those who are not part of the present program believe that there is an unfairness and that further consideration is needed. I know in listening to the discussion and listening to the results of the work that was done by our Health ministers across the country, this was intended to deal directly with what they felt was the most difficult portion of the population who were directly, negatively and severely impacted.
When Herb Gray--and I guess it is okay to use the House leader in Ottawa by name in this case--begins to reference that they are reviewing their position on this, I think that means that the system as we normally see it is functioning, that they are receiving concerns, as some of us are. As I say, I, myself, am not directly a recipient of a lot of concerns from people so impacted because of the location of my constituency. But what we saw when Justice Krever's report came down was that there was a real shakedown that I, for one, had not seen or had not anticipated being quite as deep a shakedown as it turned out to be when Krever had reviewed all of the aspects of the system. So I am pretty confident that everyone who was at the table when we went though this, as governments across Canada, that people were conscious of the fact that we need to deal expeditiously and as openhandedly as possible with the people whose medical situation--somebody referred to it here earlier--was protracted, was deteriorating on an ongoing basis.
Everyone knows there is an enormous cost to the system. I think every day we answer that argument in the House in one form or another. A health care system such as we have--and hep C is only one of the debilitating and very costly concerns that we have to respond to--there is simply always going to be pressure on the system. Characterize it any way you want, there is either going to be pressure on the system or there is going to have to be ongoing growth on the system and that growth probably will never lead the demand, no matter how you break down the demographics of your society.
We are seeing that evidenced here as well, because I fear, and, Mr. Chairman, I want it on the record, I fear that there is a view of some people that this offer that was put out was not put out in good faith, that some are willing to characterize governments of the day as being only half generous. That, I know, and I can assure anyone that any knowledge I have of the argument, that that was never the case. It was meant to take it as far as is reasonable to move this program on behalf of those. The cutoff dates were established based on what was the known system, what was the known exposure when the system was not operating as it should have.
* (1650)
If I were beyond that window, if I were a part of a family that was beyond that window, I would have very much the same reaction that we are seeing out there, but I think we want to make sure that we put the federal government and ourselves, for that matter, in a position where we have a reasoned response always to the issues that are brought forward. If there is something that has not been appropriately dealt with, the reflection of Canadian society, by and large, and this has become more and more reinforced to me, I have been in this Legislature a while, but there are others who have been here longer and there are others who have had more experience before and who will have more experience later, our governments generally act as a direct response to the type of society that they represent, either that or they are not governments for very long.
I believe that the issues such as this that come forward are the ones that give leaders all the way up to the Prime Minister gray hairs about what is a measured and reasonable response to people who are genuinely in a very bad situation.
So on the one hard it is easy for me to argue procedure, and that is what a prevote argument is. It is very heartwrenching for anyone who has to make the decision, notably the ministers of Health, as to how you design a program that is seen as appropriate for those who are unable, in some cases, to adequately speak on their own behalf.
I see a system here in this country that has been designed for people who are not necessarily able to be given a response under special needs or under special responsibility of government, that there is a safety net out there to help, and that safety net, if it is in question, then we should say so. But most people outside of the country who are looking at us as well will acknowledge that we have a pretty decent safety net in this country. When you look at it in the big picture, let alone just setting aside for a brief moment the issue of special compensation under cases such as this, we are acknowledged worldwide as being one of the more caring and one of the more forgiving societies in how we answer the call of situations such as this.
I for one, as I said earlier, was not the first to quickly recognize the weakness of the system when the HIV issue was being debated but, given that, is it not very possible that we have other systems which we are working within today that are going to be held in some significant question down the road. Because you get the same debate both ways in certain treatments, and I know that it may be hard to make this analogy parallel to the blood-carried diseases and the very easy transmission of diseases if you cannot detect them using this method of treatment or assisted treatment, but we may well have to debate in the not-too-distant future other areas in health care where, too late in some cases, we realize that there are things that we did which inadvertently exposed the patients to damages that were not anticipated. It strikes me, being a layperson, that that is the very nature of health care as well. There are times when any of us, given certain debilitating and life-threatening problems, may well want to say to the health care system, I am willing to take some risk.
But part of this debate is about whether or not there was a period of time, and the offer that is on the table acknowledges a period of time, that when that risk could have been better prevented and there were some technologies that should have been applied. But I do appeal to members on all sides of the House, when we debate this issue, to remember that this is not just a political issue, it is not just a health care issue, it is also a societal issue about whether or not people within our society have been treated fairly.
If we are to continue that debate--and not draw lines in the sand about where neither the government nor the opposition can withdraw from--then this debate has to be about fairness and whether or not there is a way in which this proposal could have or should have been expanded, or whether this is fair and whether there are other ways, as Herb Gray acknowledged, there may be other ways that he can, through the leadership of the federal authorities, look at these additional years. I am in no position to know whether that is blowing smoke, or whether that is a real statement, and I am certainly not suggesting that neither he nor I nor any elected member in government across the country has a handle on making that statement in any kind of a concrete fashion. But the analogy of neither side being able to back away from the precipice is important for this debate, and I am looking directly across at the members who raised this debate.
It is a good debate, but if we draw lines or if we set up walls that we cannot break from on either side, or if we divide our House in such a way that we cannot move either direction, then we set up a situation where the very people we are trying to help may not be helped as generously as all of us would like. So, while this is not meant to pull at people's heartstrings so much as it is to reflect on the fact that--well, it is always a good argument; I could probably make an argument for an hour as to why free votes are important, but this is not necessarily the kind of argument that is going to help the people who are out there infected with hep C passing that 1990 or 1992 year that concerns were seen to be then less onerous on, or responsible to, the system--that was the thinking that went into it.
So, Mr. Chairperson, I am sure this debate is going to continue for a period of time, but the issue is not whether or not this House sends a message to Ottawa in and out a free vote or otherwise. The message is whether or not this House in its totality, government and opposition, is prepared to listen to the discussion and provide reasoned advice to the federal system. What I said earlier about governments, whether or not they are able to reflect the reality of their electorate, applies at this time no more so than anywhere but in Ottawa. They are under the spotlight on this question. They know that their members on their side of the House have been lobbied heavily. They know that the Reform opposition, in particular, has raised this concern and has made some strong statements in support of those who are not, in their mind, being fairly treated.
So if I were to want to send a message to Ottawa, if anybody down there is reading Manitoba Hansards, then the message is that everybody has to remain reasonable in this argument and look at it in a reasonable fashion. I have not been unconvinced that the position that is presently offered is unreasonable. I have not been close to that debate, but I know well enough how you influence governments and how you work in support of those who in some way feel they have not been fairly treated, and it is not necessarily to draw hard lines between the two sides of this House or any other House in the province but to make sure that our ministers of Health and our national leaders have continued opportunity to examine all the information because Krever was--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The time is now 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour.
When the committee next meets, the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) will have three minutes remaining in the debate of this motion. Committee rise.