Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. When this section of the Committee of Supply last sat, it had been considering the Estimates of the Department of Health, specifically the amendment moved by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) to the main motion moved by the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).
The amendment moved by the honourable member for Inkster reads that the words "and the House of Commons" be deleted from the motion. When the committee last sat, the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) had been speaking to the amendment and has 22 minutes remaining.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Mr. Chair, now, trying to pick up, if I remember correctly where I left off the last time we met, I believe I was responding to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) on their motion to amend the motion of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). I was attempting to give an overview of how we got to where we are today and what the issues that are intertwined in this so-called hepatitis C issue are.
* (1440)
Just again by way of background, up until the current time the blood system in Canada was effectively operated by the Canadian Red Cross Society, an independent organization who collected, processed, distributed blood and blood products across our country. They did it, in essence, by providing them primarily to hospitals and places where people receive blood or blood products.
The federal government, under its responsibility for products and product safety, just as it is in the case for food, for pharmaceuticals, et cetera, had the regulatory responsibility to ensure that the blood system was safe, or as safe as it possibly could be. That was the way the system operated. The federal government had responsibility to regulate. They were often sometimes slow in getting into regulation, but they had the jurisdiction for it. The Canadian Red Cross Society collected, processed, distributed blood and blood products to our hospitals, which again are independent bodies.
The province's only role, in essence, was to pay for it, and the mechanism of payment was one where, I believe, we made annual grants to the Red Cross, as provinces, for this particular service they offered.
As a bit of an aside, I am a big believer that the correct way to fund is by direct purchase of product and we fund the facilities to purchase the product and then I think it is much better than the grant system. But beside that point, there was a Canadian blood committee, sort of an informal committee in which the provinces were represented as we administered the grants, or worked out the grants with the Red Cross, but we, in essence, were the payers for the system. So the responsibility must rest with the operator and it must rest with the regulator, and that is where the responsibility really has lain.
Now, what has happened since? The Canadian Red Cross Society, some would say, is bankrupt, others would say it is insolvent--probably no difference between them. The reality of it is that their liabilities and potential liabilities far exceed the value of their assets, and they, of course, today control and own most of the Canadian blood system, so they have very little to pay to compensate people who were injured or may have a claim, not even on a humanitarian basis. But people who would have a legitimate and legal claim for compensation from an operator, their resources with which to pay are swamped or in no way adequate against their assets. So they just do not have the cash to be there.
The federal government of course is there, and what we have seen across the country is in the various lawsuits that have been filed to date, provinces have been named as a party, as a defendant because of this Canadian blood, this unofficial kind of blood committee we had that provided the grants to the Red Cross.
So any liability or relationship to liability that we may have in here really rests with that committee, and that is dubious, I would argue, at best, but my point is that there are others who ran and were responsible for the blood system as regulator and operator. So one of those parties is bankrupt, the other is the national government, who wields great power and authority.
In the lawsuits that in essence have been filed in a variety of provinces, all three, federal, provincial, and Red Cross, have been named. So we have an issue here. The federal government invites us to the table in essence and said: We are all being sued here, let us do the legal work and find out what our case is. They did, and they identified that from the period in 1986 to '90--and by the way, I understand most of the class actions suits, and I look to Mr. Wendt at the back of the room for a nod one way or the other, but I believe most of the class action suits have been filed in that parameter. That is why in fact the federal legal department in the questions we put to them indicated that was their area because most of the cases that are coming forward are in that area. I suspect that they are there in fact because that is where their legal advisers view there being a negligence that they can prove.
So the federal government said: Let us see if we can handle this on a national basis with a program, and it makes eminently good sense to have only a national program, because there has been a lot of mobility among Canadians and people may have been infected in one province and live in another, et cetera, and you get into some real issues if you have go-it-alone programs. Even Quebec, with its separatist government, wanted to be at least operationally part of this program just to avoid those kinds of issues of mobility and where people are across the country.
So we started meeting. Mr. Rock avoided some of those meetings. He wanted everything to be worked out by officials. I have commented on that in public and what have you. But we worked out parameters, and it was always based on dealing with negligence issues. That is what the federal work did, that is where they came from, and that is where we had been. More importantly even, the dollars that the federal government talked about and brought to the table, and we negotiated more than they initially brought, but what they brought to the table was solely to deal with the negligence issue.
So their actions, their discussions all through this process and the premise on which ministers met had to deal with negligence issues. Mr. Rock, on a number of occasions in speaking to the media, in my humble opinion, talked about this as being a compassionate plan and gave the impression that it was to compensate all hepatitis C people. That was never what he discussed with us, in my recollection, or what the plan was or where our discussions or where the federal dollars were. So if he made those statements in the media for perhaps some quick political support, I think they have come home to haunt him, and that may be part of the problems that are there, but he is a cabinet minister of federal rank, and he has to take responsibility for those types of things.
So that is where we were. Now, what about a program going beyond the negligence area? Well, the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) asked me today about numbers, and we can share some of those in more detail, but the potential population of people with hepatitis C outside of that area, there is a fairly large variance, because it does take a long time to find out if you do in fact have hepatitis C, as Mr. Wendt discussed in his Estimates committee, that the records of the Red Cross, the hospitals in terms of blood transfusion are not complete enough to get a full sense of how many people you would even want to do a look-back test on. So there is a great range.
A rule of thumb that ministers have talked about is it potentially could be double the group that would be considered in the compensation package. So if that is the case, one would have to look at at least another $1.2 billion.
Now, a problem for the provinces--and this is what dominated all of our meetings--was, and we were just again talking about the group for which there was a negligence. For that group, we did a fair bit of work--British Columbia, Manitoba and, I think, Ontario. We used our numbers, and we looked at what our health care expenditures would be as provinces. We estimated that it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.6 billion in today's dollars for the life of the people who would be in that category, on health care costs, and what is interesting is that, because of the way our health transfers work, that is all money at the margin, and not one penny of it, quite frankly, is coming from the national government.
Now, the hepatitis C community rightly made the argument: Do not hold us in a battle, a federal-provincial battle. I agreed with them, and we all did, and that is why I think we worked on and got an agreement on the plan. But the point that Manitoba made and New Brunswick made and other provinces made over and over again was that the federal government has to recognize that, in this area where there was a negligence by the system, or potentially a negligence by the system, they had some responsibility at least to account to us for those health care costs.
What surprised me was that not only did the federal minister not acknowledge it initially, but he tells us that the Prime Minister just would not acknowledge it at all. So I know a little bit about how people feel in getting the brush-off of Prime Minister Chretien. This money is of no value. You would have to spend it anyways. Well, we spend money on the treatment of people who are injured in automobile accidents, yet we do go back and get money from Autopac for that. We treat people who are injured in the workplace. The Workers Compensation Board pays for that. And British Columbia, encouraged by the federal government, is looking at getting money back from the tobacco industry where it suffered costs due to injuries through tobacco.
* (1450)
So I have said, and I have said it on the record, that one of the things we as provinces have to look at in that area--and it is a bit of an aside to this issue--is this: Do we have a potential case against the national government for a share of the costs that we are expending in health care? We may in fact do it, but that is an aside to this issue. I only flag it by way of discussion.
So we had that agreement. It was in place for the reasons I have outlined to deal with that group. What about extending it? Here is the great issue that we have to grapple with. This is not just about people who received hepatitis C in the blood system when, in fact, there may not have been a negligence. One of the regrettable things about this whole point is that there are a number of things that play in the blood system through this period. There was a period in which the Canadian Red Cross Society in running the blood system, and I think Mr. Justice Krever has commented on this, did a deplorable job. They just were not managing it well.
Because of that, it is argued, and very strongly, that there were people who received tainted blood when they otherwise should not have. Even the decision to distribute blood they knew was tainted at the time speaks to just how badly that organization managed its affairs and made decisions. Quite frankly, that is why we as provincial ministers said we cannot allow the Red Cross to continue to run the Canadian blood system. I am pleased to indicate that we hope by the fall that the new Canadian blood agency will, in fact, be running the system, will be purchasing the assets of the Red Cross, and some $100 million of the proceeds from those assets will be contributed to the compensation package. The Red Cross still insisted on keeping some $30 million to carry on its operations, and were very insistent upon that, so I just make that point--a bit of an aside.
So, if we extend it to an area where there was not negligence, for hep C, it raises the issue: Should the health care system provide a compensation package beyond the Canadian social safety net, because we are not talking about a void here? We as Canadians have already built an extensive social safety net with health care. In the case of Manitoba, we add Pharmacare; we add home care. We have other supports in place, a variety of tax credits, and nationally, through the Canada Pension Plan, we provide a disability pension for those who are unable to work. So we have a social safety net in place. It may not always be adequate, and I am not suggesting it is, but we have built one for Canadians when they are injured, when they become ill through whatever means and are not able to--or need medical attention or need medical care or are not able to work. We have built that. So even the plan we have put in place for those who were injured through a potential negligence, we have said this is on top of the safety net. So that is what we are really talking about, is the top-up to the safety net. Nobody is being left without any help. I want to make that point. We as Canadians do not find that acceptable. That is why we have built a social safety net.
So the question is: do we provide a top-up to that for people who suffer injury during the course of treatment or care in the health care system when there is no negligence, when the system in assuming the risks, the normal risks of delivering health care, sees results that were not what was of course hoped for--allergic reactions to drugs that leave people crippled and unable to work and enjoy life; surgical procedures that do not turn out the way intended in assuming risk and may leave people a cripple? I am thinking of some very delicate spinal or neurological procedures. Even in blood we cannot guarantee that the blood system will be 100 percent pure always. The next blood-borne virus that comes along, we do not even know if we will have a test to it. We probably will not discover it until people start becoming sick with it.
Those are the risks of the system, and those risks are balanced against not using the system which for many people is death. So we balance those risks all the time. The question is: do we provide a top-up above that, above the social safety net for people injured in that system, and if we do, how do we pay for it?
We as provinces do not have the resources to get into that level of insurance, to top that up. We simply do not. We already pay for the negligence insurance part of the system. We cover physicians' insurance through our negotiations with the MMA. We indirectly pay for the insurance of hospitals within the system, so we already provide insurance for negligence. We cannot afford, quite, to be blunt--nor would I think if the member looked at all the demands on money in the system, would argue that is a priority.
So our difficulty in this area is: do we in this particular case go beyond where the system is negligent, and if we do, then why are we not giving it to everybody? Why are we not providing extra compensation to someone who has a bad reaction to a drug that is part of the risk and may not be able to work because of it? Why are we not providing a top-up to someone who goes in for a surgical procedure, the risk is borne and things do not work out quite the way as hoped for and is made worse by it?
We may want to do that as a society, and it is great for us as legislators to talk about it, but if you are going to agree to do that, how do you finance it? With all the demands, growing demands on health care, would that be the priority we would accept? I think the reason, in fairness to all colleagues across the country, why the New Democratic government in Saskatchewan--and I quoted from the press release today--why all provincial governments, why the Liberal government in Ottawa has taken the position that it has, is because they have looked at and we have looked at the implications of a no-fault insurance top-up for injury in the system where there has not been a negligence, that is part of the normal risk, and the cost could be huge.
I just tell the member a real-life dilemma in building the new Canadian blood system that we are involved in is the cost of insurance for that system. We are having enough difficulty finding insurers for the new blood system where we are liable where there is negligence. Add on top of that anybody who may be injured through the normal risk of blood, we could not afford to build a new blood system. We could not insure it. We would have to self-insure it, and quite frankly it would be hard to recommend we even get into owning a blood system at all.
That is the real fear here because if the cost of these things, by adding on where we do not have a responsibility and do not have the resources to be there--could make it unaffordable, and that is really what we get into. This is more than--and regrettably for those people who are in the category, but it is more than just hepatitis C. I think what has made this so hard to take for those people, so very hard, is that their injury may have come at the time when the blood system was doing all that it could reasonably expect it to do. When it could have improved its system, it did not. It has been severely criticized.
The Red Cross has actually had the responsibility taken away from it now for running the blood system because of the way it managed. If it had managed well, we still very likely would have a number of Canadians, a significant number of Canadians, who had hepatitis C through the blood system. The regrettable thing is that that particular group is mixed in obviously with the area where there is a negligence. I appreciate someone who got hepatitis C through the blood system saying, why me; why did this happen; someone has to compensate me for what has happened; and why are you compensating that person and not me because of the time.
Well, the time becomes very significant, very significant in principle, very significant in whether or not it could have been prevented. Based on the work that was done by the federal government, the '86 to '90 window was picked because that is the period where it is believed the blood system could have made a difference and did not, whereas the period before, it is believed that the system could not have made a difference or that it was highly unlikely it could have, given the developing state of technology.
I know the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) looks at me, and there may be a debate around this. I am not the expert, and I did not prepare the preparatory work, but like all tests, they have a period of development. So that is the logic about where we are today. It is a difficult issue. It has lots of implications. The only comment I do make is the reason why Liberals, Conservatives, Parti Quebecois, Independents, New Democrats in governments all across this country have taken this position is because we have been intimately involved in the development of this issue. We know the implications of where this could be. We know the other parts to this, and I appreciate there is a very large human side to this.
The one thing I think we can all say as Canadians, at least unlike in many other countries, particularly the United States, is we do have an extensive social safety net today to ensure that whether you have cancer and cannot work, you have lung cancer and cannot work, you have heart disease and cannot work, you are crippled through an accident that was not compensable and you cannot work, we ensure your medical costs are there, your home care, Pharmacare supports are there, and we have a variety of income assistance. Not arguing all of them are adequate, but they are there as part of our social safety net. So what we are really debating is the top-up to that. At least as Canadians I think we can be proud that we have, unlike many, a very extensive social safety net in place today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I want to just make a few remarks, and I want to begin by reminding people of the motion. 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.
One of the things that I have found very interesting is that most of the members opposite who have made presentation to the committee, and some very interesting presentations have been made, but most of the members opposite have argued that compensation should not be extended. I have not heard one of them argue as to why there should not be a free vote, and indeed I do not even think one of them has mentioned the expression.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): On a point of order, I think the member should be very careful who she attributes comments to. I think I made it very clear in my particular presentation as to what my position was, and I do not want the member misrepresenting my position in any way. So, if she has specific comments to attribute to specific members, please let her do so but do not put various members in groups without identifying them.
* (1500)
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Justice does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. The honourable member for Osborne, to continue.
Ms. McGifford: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) may not have had a point of order, but if indeed he did mention "free vote," I do apologize to him but wish he did not make his comments in so adversarial and unpleasant a way. But, leaving that aside, I wanted to address the member for Inkster's (Mr. Lamoureux) amendment. The member for Inkster thought that we should delete the phrase "House of Commons." In other words, this resolution would merely request that our House have a free vote, the Legislature of Manitoba.
I noticed that when the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was speaking, he spoke with great sympathy for people living with hepatitis C. He mentioned Susan Wish, and I think we have all heard her letter and we are all very sympathetic with the plight of Susan Wish and her family. The member for Inkster also talked about people suffering from AIDS, many of whom also acquired their illness, their virus as a result of contaminated blood. I am sure that the member for Inkster is very concerned about people living with hepatitis C and people living with AIDS, but it seemed to me, none the less, and I heard his arguments, that one of his reasons for wanting to delete House of Commons from our recommendation was to let his colleagues in Ottawa off the hook. Now I could be wrong, but it certainly crossed my mind.
And then we heard from the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). The member for The Maples, I believe, supported the idea of a free vote in the Legislature of Manitoba, but he did not support the idea of a free vote in the House of Commons, or maybe I am not being fair to him. Perhaps he supported a free vote in the House of Commons, but did not think that we should include that in our recommendation, because I think his point was that what goes on in the House of Commons is none of our business and that we should not try to address issues and proceedings in the House of Commons in any way. He wanted to limit the work we do in regard to hepatitis C to what work can reasonably be done in Manitoba. But I do think that part of our work as legislators is to advocate with our fellow politicians in Ottawa, and if we could do something that would help bring about a free vote, I certainly would have been in favour of it.
I know the member for The Maples felt that when he was a school trustee, what he did as a school trustee should have nothing to do apparently with what Mr. O'Shaughnessy did as a city councillor or what the member for The Maples now does as an MLA. I think personally, I conceive of a more holistic kind of model where we support one another and work with one another. So, personally, I reject the arguments put forth by the member for The Maples. I am very pleased to see that he is sympathetic, and he did indicate his sympathies with people living with hepatitis C, but he supported the amendment from the member for Inkster, and I do not support that amendment.
I notice that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), when he made his presentation, was very concerned with the Workers Compensation Board in Ontario, and particularly the relationship between the Workers Compensation and the NDP government. He did discuss hepatitis C issues, but frankly his concerns with hepatitis C seemed peripheral that day to his concerns with the Workers Compensation Board in Ontario. I think he missed the boat in his arguments. I think he had an opportunity to address the issue of hepatitis C and he chose not to.
The Minister of Culture (Mrs. Vodrey) seemed to show more interest in hepatitis C and compensation, but she--and I did read her speech quite carefully--did not mention the question of a free vote--[interjection] I guess it just slipped her mind, as my colleague from Thompson says.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) of course has spoken about the hepatitis issue extensively in this committee and in the House, and I am sure in the work that he has done down east and in various locations where Ministers of Health have met. I think the minister is to be commended on his knowledge. He is absolutely thoroughly knowledgeable in the issue, and I certainly appreciate it.
On the record, the minister has presented some very detailed answers. He has certainly outlined the issue of accountability, so that even I as a layman can follow his arguments, and that is certainly to his credit. He has sprinkled his work with the word "malfeasance" and brought that word into my vocabulary, and I am very grateful.
The minister has spoken about the operator of the blood system, the Red Cross, the regulator of the blood system, the federal government, and the purchasers of the blood system, the provincial government. He attributes responsibility for contaminated blood, and the passing of that blood to what might have otherwise been very healthy individuals. He has seen responsibility as being that of the Red Cross and that of the federal government. We can only concur that the minister is absolutely correct, that the lion's share of responsibility is with those two bodies.
Nonetheless, the minister has been very clear that Manitoba, our province, was the purchaser of these products--and I am not a lawyer, so I cannot speak with expertise--but the purchaser of those products seems to me to have at the very least an ethical and moral responsibility for those products, and presumably also a legal responsibility, though I am not a lawyer.
The minister has not really addressed the issue as to whether we should have a free vote with regard to the extension of the hepatitis compensation package. As I said, most of the members opposite, with the exception of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), have talked about why we should not offer compensation, but they have not addressed the issue of a free vote. So I can only conclude that they support the idea of a free vote and that they will pass this motion and allow a free vote in the House where we can all vote according to our conscience and according to how our consciences dictate us to vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I had indicated to the Minister of Health that I did have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask. In listening to his response, as I indicated yesterday, I can be somewhat sympathetic to the arguments of both levels of government in terms of what it is that they are saying, but there are a couple of things that come to mind. You know, the package covers between 1986 and 1990, and it is hard for me to imagine how on January 1, 1986, someone, it is determined, as being negligent; yet, the day before, it is not negligent. So in the month of December, let us say, in 1985 that there was no one that was infected by this infection, hepatitis C; likewise, towards the end of the negligence, how rigid we are in our definition. I can appreciate why it is that that has occurred, but again I would go back to the arguments of compassion.
In Question Period, the Minister of Health made reference to, well, what if a pharmaceutical company had a drug that came out and it had side effects, would we indeed be obligated. I think there is a substantial difference between the Red Cross, the Canadian Red Cross, what used-to-be type thing, and a pharmaceutical company. I think the circumstances are quite different, and the circumstances surrounding this is what we need to look at.
* (1510)
I have not heard the numbers. The member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) asked a question today in terms of do we have an idea of numbers of individuals. I had talked to a constituent yesterday, and that was one of the questions that was posed. Do we know how many individuals are we really talking about, and I think that is a valid question to ask. The minister speculates in terms of, well, we would anticipate that it could be as much as an additional $1.2 billion, I believe is what he had indicated. Do we have any idea in terms of the province of Manitoba what would be some sort of a compensation package? Are there going to be any exceptions for the minister? Is there ways in which individuals that have been infected might be able to appeal for some form of compensation? I think those are valid questions and some answers need to be known for people.
I think that assists MLAs. As I indicated yesterday, I found that the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) are obviously quite aware of this particular issue, but it really has become a very dominant issue in the last year, in particular since the hepatitis C agreement was finalized between the different levels of government. I say that because of the Hansard search that I had conducted. So there needs to be more awareness amongst all of the elected MLAs, and I think there is some merit to be arguing for some sort of an independent vote inside the Manitoba Legislature.
We moved the motion to delete the House of Commons--you know, the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) might have had some differing reasons than me, but I really felt that what I wanted to do was to focus the attention on that of the provincial responsibility and is the province looking at doing anything outside.
Already, for example, in Ottawa, we hear some Liberal M.P.s are talking about the next step or what possibly might be there. Is this something which the Minister of Health is even considering? Has he ruled this out? Do we know the numbers? Do we have any idea in terms of numbers for the province of Manitoba, not across Canada but for the province of Manitoba?
In Question Period today I drew the parallel of the Manitoba flood of last year. Mr. Chairperson, we did not have a legal obligation to go and compensate. We did it because we felt it was the right thing to do. You have to look at the situations, the circumstances surrounding it and make a good decision. Maybe we might not. If you narrow it down and you say, well, here is the area where there has been demonstrated negligence and it has come down through the courts. Well, maybe there is something that we can do outside of that area. Maybe it does not have to be as healthy as a compensation package. I do not know the details of the compensation package or exactly what individuals between that time frame are actually going to be receiving, but maybe there is something that we can do for individuals who do fall outside that time frame. That is what I am interested in hearing. I think that is what my constituents would want to hear, what other options that the government might be looking at.
It pleased me when I was coming to the office today and I hear on the radio that some members of Parliament are looking at the next step, if in fact there are additional things that can be done. Well, that is really what we are asking of the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), or is that something which he is not prepared to entertain. If that was the case, I think that a good number of Manitobans would be disappointed. If the Minister of Health said well, look, we have 150,000 Manitobans that fall outside of that area, and here is the type of cost it is going to be and so forth, well, then he might have some arguments as to if there is going to be compensation, it is going to have to be strictly the health care benefits that are there today, and will ensure that they are going to be there for the infected individuals. If we are talking a dozen, 20, 30 individuals infected in Manitoba outside of that time frame, well, again, that can portray it quite differently.
But government and the Department of Health, I believe, have to look at this as a situation which is very unique, because it is a unique situation that we are in, and there is a responsibility of the government to indicate what its actual intentions are with respect to it. So, as the one constituent had asked, the question was how many people in Manitoba are infected? Maybe the minister can comment on that. The other issue for me personally is, is the Department of Health looking at any sort of compensation? I say it to the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) in the sense of think of individuals who would have had the operation in December of 1985 or January of 1991. Can we say with absolute certainty that there was no negligence in that area?
Mr. Chairperson, I do think because of the situation that at the very least the government should be exploring--at the very least--what it could be doing in addition to what is given to all Manitobans. We all expect that if we get sick that we can go into the hospital and get our ailments attended to, but as one constituent, whom many of us have made reference to that I happen to represent, states, it puts the family into a very serious situation in which they are looking at a possible future of social assistance.
This is the reality of the situation for many individuals who fall outside that time frame, so I would be interested in just hearing a response to that.
Mr. Praznik: I gather there were four questions that I identified that the member has asked in his comment that I will attempt to address.
The rationale on the time frame, again this was developed by the federal government, by their legal team that had looked at this particular issue, and it was based on the principle of the period in which it was reasonable to expect that the Canadian blood system, in other words the Red Cross, or them as regulators who could have imposed a test, could have, in fact, used a test to test for hepatitis C and did not, that particular period, which means--and I should point out to the member that in the development of medical tests there is usually always a period, and hepatitis C is rather new, I guess, in terms of the work, that this is an evolving virus, but the work on developing a test which took place over a period of time, discovering whether the test was effective enough to warrant its use, it does not happen on one particular day, it happens over a period sometimes of years.
Prior to that 1986, it was viewed by the federal legal team that put this together that the test was not yet widely enough accepted, in fact not really used at all, or rarely, in the blood systems in the world. It was in the process of being perfected, that by some point in early 1986 the test started to be used on a more frequent basis by a number of states in the United States, not by all, but at least it was starting at that point to be adopted and used because its ability to produce a decent result was certainly now being exhibited, and it was being accepted and adopted in neighbouring jurisdictions--started to. So it was felt that 1986 would be the right time in which one could--in fact, I think it would be generous in accepting that area as a period for beginning the window of which there was a negligence.
By the particular date in 1990, that is when the Canadian Red Cross started using the test, so after that point our blood was being tested for hepatitis C. So, in essence, anyone who would have gotten hepatitis C after that period is unlikely to have gotten it from the blood system. They have contracted it through needle or other means. So it is really that period from 1986 to 1990, the argument goes, that that was a period in which a test was now available, was starting to be used in other jurisdictions. It is when it was coming into sort of its being accepted in the North American blood system as a legitimate and useful test, and the Canadian Red Cross did not adopt it until 1990.
* (1520)
So that is why, in fact, there is a view by the federal government and the lawyers who prepared this information for provincial and federal ministers, that that is the period in which the system may, in fact, be negligent. That is mirrored considerably by the lawsuits that have been launched across the country, that the group of people--I believe particularly in British Columbia and Quebec--the group of litigants have been litigants that have fallen in that 1986 to 1990 infection period, that they have not been joined by people prior to that because I imagine, and there was some speculation that their legal counsel also agrees that it would be very hard to make the case that this test was part of the standard of care or an acceptable part of the standard of care within the blood system. That is why in fact those dates were the ones that were developed, again, by the federal government and given to us as provincial ministers. Whatever provinces did do some legal work, I believe they concurred with that particular analysis, so that is why that particular time.
The member talked about the analogy between pharmaceutical reactions--in company--and the Red Cross. Well, whether one is made ill by a reaction to a pharmaceutical product or by blood, you are still made ill, and you are made ill through a substance that you have received in the course of your treatment in the health care system. That is the analogy that we have drawn. In the case of a pharmaceutical, if the pharmaceutical was negligently provided to you, then you have a right to sue the person who provided it; if it was negligently made, you have a right to sue the maker of that product for compensation, and if you were right, you will be compensated. It is just like with blood, if you have received bad blood and there was a negligence on the part of the maker, or provider, or regulator of that system, you have a right to sue. In fact people are doing that in that 1986 to 1990 period. So it is, I think, a very similar analogy.
We do not provide compensation above the social safety net for individuals who may have had a bad reaction to a pharmaceutical product that is not negligent. It is part of the risk of that product. Pharmaceutical products are approved by a regulatory body. There are often allergic reactions or side effects that are suspected. It is part of the risk, sometimes not known at all and cannot reasonably expect to be known. People are injured and made worse by that reaction, and yet we do not provide a top-up there, and that happens regularly in the system.
The member asked again about the number of individuals. As I have explained, Mr. Ulrich Wendt who handles this in our department was at committee some weeks ago, and I know that not all members could be here with three sittings of the committee, three sessions going on in different committee rooms, but he did get into the fact that within our blood system the records of hospitals, the records of who would have been transfused are not complete enough to have a very accurate number. So there is a range that he discussed and some sense as to where those numbers would be, but because it takes many years often for hepatitis C symptoms to develop, and as a result people to have that test done to determine if they have it, it is going to take some time before one really can firm up numbers. All one can do is estimate. Given the lack of records of those who may have been transfused going back to those years, it may be very, very difficult to give an accurate estimate today.
The last issue the member raised was the next steps of Liberal MPs in Ottawa talking about this. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Herb Gray, made comments earlier in the week about adding coverage for pharmaceuticals and home care, et cetera. The reason that even came up is because a number of provinces do not have anywhere near the extensive home care supports or even Pharmacare supports that many of the other provinces do, particularly Manitoba. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have far more significant uninsured support programs, whether it be Pharmacare which is income based or home care or other things, than the Maritime provinces, the Atlantic provinces, for example. I think even Ontario in many ways does not provide the same level of home care and other supports as say Manitoba or Saskatchewan.
So what Mr. Rock initially talked about was having some top-ups or whatever for hepatitis C individuals so that they could access some of those services, et cetera. It did not go too far in discussion because, needless to say, if the federal government was going to pay for that top-up, provinces said, well, we are paying for it already, are you going to provide us with the dollars? Oh, no, we would not do that, said the federal government, and it became somewhat complex and they just walked away from it. So if they are prepared to provide dollars for some additional services, we would be glad to take them and provide those services outside of our system, but that offer would have to come from them.
Again, Manitoba already provides significantly more than many of the other provinces do in terms of those supports, so it may not even be all that applicable in reality to the citizens of our province; it becomes more a question of who pays.
So those are the issues that the member has raised. It is the most difficult issue, there is no doubt. There are many principles involved here that have great significance, but the one I just say to him is if we accept the principle that we must provide a top-up to the social safety net for people who suffer some injury or loss because of the normal risk or expected risk in our health care system which is there every day, that includes the future Canadian blood supply that the cost of, in the case of the blood supply, just trying to ensure that system becomes prohibitive in many ways to Canadian provinces owning it. Those are very real numbers, so that is not trying to be cruel; that is not trying to make this a money issue.
The question is we are providing a package. In fact, we are stepping into the shoes of the Red Cross, to some degree, who have not lived up to their responsibilities. We are stepping in there to ensure that there is a package for those for whom there is a negligence. We are providing all of the health care and additional health care costs for those where there is a negligence and those without as part of our health care system. We have income supports through federal programs like CPP and others.
We have those things in place, but if we are going to take this a step further to those where there is not a negligence and add a top-up compensation program, it raises the question are we only going to do it for this issue, because there is a political debate around it, or are we doing to do it to all who may be in like circumstance? I think any reasonable person has to say, on principle, you would have to do it for all, and that if you do it for all, how are you going to pay for it? This is on top of the social safety net, and it is an area that is part of the normal risk of health services. If you do that, would that be your priority for a new expenditure? I think it would even be hard to justify it on that basis.
Really, what members are asking for here is a gratis payment beyond the social safety net, where unless one is proven wrong in law, to those who have suffered injury in the course of the regular course of operation of the health care system. What makes this different somewhat is because of the huge problems with the Red Cross and in the regulation of the Red Cross and the terrible reputation that has resulted where there was clearly, or appeared to be clearly, negligence in their operation. What has made this different is this group and that have been somewhat co-mingled, and it is difficult for those people to understand why some would get and others would not.
I am not saying it is an easy argument, but when you sort it out and get down to the principle, this is why I believe you are seeing the federal government taking the position that it is. Mr. Rock understands these things very, very well, and the consequences are probably very great to do otherwise. That is why I suspect he and Mr. Chretien have taken the position that they have.
Mr. Lamoureux: Just very quickly, because I am not understanding really the numbers, the minister makes reference to the fact that there could be a lot of people. If I was to say five people, 5,000, 50,000, is there a range of actual numbers of people in the province of Manitoba?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, again, the reason why we do not know exactly what those numbers will be is the ability to check back as to who accessed the blood system. Those with hemophilia are much easier because they are regular users of the system, but those who are the casual users, from time to time, often a one-time user, the records kept by the Red Cross, the hospitals are not adequate enough to go back and get an accurate number. So there are sort of guesses out there, and the rule of thumb that has sort of been worked on by the working group would be about the same number, I believe, about the same number as who would be in the 1986 to '90 group. I think we expect about 20,000 or so who would be in that group across Canada, so it is possible within a range that there is another 20,000 or so who may be in the group outside of that across Canada. We have seen as high as 60,000, I believe. Again, it underlines the point about how badly the Canadian blood system generally was run over the decades by the Red Cross and regulated by the national government.
That is why I think there is so much interest in this because people recognize the system was bad and people were injured, but because the system was bad, that does not necessarily mean that those people still would not have been injured. We know some are likely injured by the system because of how bad it was, and that is why we are there to compensate, but it is still likely that many of those people would not have--their circumstances would not have changed, even if we had the best run blood system in the world. That is the difference between the two groups.
Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
The question before the committee is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) to the motion of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). The amendment reads as follows: that the words "and the House of Commons" be deleted from the motion. Shall the amendment pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the amendment, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed to the amendment, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it, and the amendment is defeated.
The motion before the committee now is: that the committee recommend that the Legislature and 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 more discussion?
* (1530)
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Question, question.
Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee is the motion moved by the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford): that this committee recommend that the Legislature and House of Commons hold a free vote on whether to extend compensation to all victims who have contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood. Shall the motion pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed to the motion, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it, and the motion is defeated.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division, Mr. Chairperson.
Some Honourable Members: On division.
Mr. Chairperson: On division. Pardon me, the motion is defeated on division.
Mr. Ashton: I am quite disappointed that we not only defeated this motion, but did not do what I thought would have been an excellent move to send a signal to the federal government, I think, who have now said on the record that the government in this province does not believe there should have been a free vote in the House of Commons, nor does it believe there should be a free vote in the Manitoba Legislature on this issue, and I think that is unfortunate.
I want to indicate, though, we are not going to let that issue rest at that point. We will continue to fight for what we feel is fair, that is, to extend the coverage to all hepatitis C victims. What I would like to ask the minister as a follow-up to this issue: Is he now in a position of tabling this agreement? The federal-provincial agreement which we are now getting clear signal from this government is clear government policy, period. They do not want a free vote on this, either at the House of Commons or at the Legislature. Is he in a position to table that agreement now, and, if not, when will we be in a position of seeing the detailed agreement, the agreement, the federal-provincial compensation package?
Mr. Praznik: All we have to date is an agreement in principle, I guess, and sort of a memorandum that form the basis of principles at a news conference. Our staff across the country are working away at it. The more important part, of course, is that we have a framework. It has to be negotiated with the various groups working on behalf of the hepatitis C community and ultimately--pardon me, even ministers of Health sometimes take ill--it ultimately has to be approved by the courts. So we are sometime away before getting a formal agreement in place.
Mr. Chair, I am also advised that the lawyers representing those who have filed class action suits have just begun to meet with the federal-provincial team, so we are probably a long way away from having a completed document. But that will have to become public, and in course I have no problem providing that to the member when it does. Like all very detailed agreements for settlement, this is going to probably take some time to negotiate and draft. There are actuarial issues that have to be settled and how a fund will be used, et cetera, so it is somewhat complex, as I know the member appreciates.
Mr. Ashton: I understand the minister would like to take a short break. We are willing to recess for 10 minutes. What I would also suggest, too, is that if the minister wishes to signal to his staff that--I do not think the minister will need staff to be here for the rest of the afternoon. We are going to be continuing on the hepatitis C issue. I might be away. I know people are very busy, but I do not think there is any point in having them stick around until five o'clock, so if that is of any help to the department.
Mr. Chairperson: It is agreed that we take a 10-minute break until a quarter to four. [agreed]
The committee recessed at 3:36 p.m.
The committee resumed at 3:51 p.m.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. When we recessed the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) had the floor, I believe.
Ms. McGifford: Actually, when we recessed, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) had the floor, but I will now take over the floor.
So, thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to say that I was extremely disappointed in the outcome of the last vote, the vote that took place in this committee. We thought it was the chance for us to have a free vote in our Legislature and would have provided all members with the opportunity to vote according to their conscience. I still do not understand--and I think I indicated this earlier--according to the record and according to remarks persons put on the record, members opposite, nobody really made an argument as to why we should not have a vote, a free vote.
People made arguments as to why we should not extend compensation, but the question of a free vote was virtually untouched with the exception of one member who insisted that he had spoken about it. I have no reason to think that he would say he did if he did not, but, basically, the major issue, the free vote, voting according to conscience was untouched.
I know that members will remember that the House of Commons--well, I suppose, particularly the government; I should not say the House of Commons--has been soundly criticized for its refusal to allow its members to vote according to conscience. The Prime Minister, in particular, has been criticized for making what should have been a vote perhaps according to conscience into a confidence motion. I know there has been discussions in the newspaper of his bullying tactics, et cetera, et cetera, and yet this government chose to reject a free vote in our Legislature, and I think this says something. In fact, I think it speaks volumes; simply, why not a vote according to conscience? What would this government have to lose by allowing such a vote?
The minister today in the House tabled a press clipping, and I seem not to have it. I know I did have it. The minister provided me with one just at the same time as I found one, but the press clipping that the minister tabled had to do with a free vote that did take place in NDP-governed Saskatchewan, so I notice that there was a free vote there.
But I do want to point out to the minister that, yes, we do disagree with the vote taken in Saskatchewan. We do disagree with the stance taken in Saskatchewan. I know the minister knows--[interjection] All right, the minister has pointed out to me that there was not a free vote, but the point of this press clipping is that the government in Saskatchewan, an NDP government, took a different stance than the opposition takes in Manitoba, and they were described in this press clipping as being trained seals.
Now, I suppose I could throw that insult out here and say that members of the government here are trained seals because they voted against my motion to have a free vote in the Legislature.
But the real point that I want to make here is yes, the NDP government in Saskatchewan has one take on the issue; the opposition in Manitoba has another take on the issue. The federal NDP party in Ottawa has the same take as the opposition party in Manitoba.
One of the things that the minister has not bothered to mention is that the Tories in Ottawa have a very different position than he does, as does, apparently, the Tory government in Ontario, or maybe the Tory government in Ontario, of all provinces, may have a slightly different position than the minister. After all, we do know that people in Ontario supported the resolution put forth in the Quebec Legislature yesterday.
I want to point out to the minister that the reason we called for a free vote in this Legislature was because we recognized the complexities of this issue, and I know the minister recognizes the complexities of this issue. He has been talking with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) about the complexities of the date.
So with such an issue it would seem to me that it becomes an ethical issue and not a political issue, and what has just taken place in this committee, as far as I can see, was a political vote, a political vote to bar people from voting against their consciences. So I want to repeat that I am extremely disappointed.
Now, I asked in the House today and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) brought up the question today, and the minister made some answer about a set of numbers and about an accurate set of numbers. The minister has pointed out that we do not really and truly have an accurate set of numbers, but, you see, I think it is extremely important that in making a decision of this kind, that is, the decision on hepatitis C, that we do have a very accurate set of numbers.
For example, we know that there may be many people infected with hepatitis C who are asymptomatic and may live their whole lives asymptomatic, who may never show any signs of the virus, who may never require compensation, so that the number becomes extremely important.
One of the things that I have been told by local activists with regard to the pre-1986 numbers, and they could be wrong, but one of the things that I have been told is that there are possibly--now, I have so many pieces of paper. He told me that there are possibly 400 Manitobans infected with hepatitis C, pre-1986, and of those, Mr. Chair, it is possible that only 20 percent will ever show symptoms and require compensation, and 20 percent of 400 is, I believe, 80.
This may not be an accurate figure. I am not saying it is, but I am saying it is a figure that has been put forth. It may be as accurate a figure as any we have. If, indeed, the numbers are that low, then the whole argument of compensating pre-1986 individuals, the whole argument that this kind of compensation could bankrupt our health care system just simply goes by the board. It does not make any sense if we are talking about 80 individuals.
* (1600)
I am putting this number out, as I say, not because I necessarily believe it to be totally accurate. I do not know, but we do not have accurate numbers and we are making extremely important decisions about the lives of Manitobans without having numbers. This seems to me to be bad policy.
It was on Tuesday that former Justice minister, now Health Minister Allan Rock, declared that the file on hepatitis C was closed. Well, I think that all of us who are here today know that the file is not closed. It certainly is not closed for Manitobans who continue to live with hepatitis C and who were infected before 1985. This morning at noon I had the pleasure to meet Lindee David, who is the executive director of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, and she assured me that the file is not closed for them and that it will not be closed for them, that they as a body plan to work until every single individual infected with hepatitis C receives compensation if the individual needs compensation, because I think we need to continually stress that not all of those infected need compensation. The figure that I have is that roughly only 20 percent will ever need compensation.
The file certainly is not closed for the person that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and I have talked about, both in committee and outside of committee, together. I am speaking about Susan Wish whose husband was infected with hepatitis C as the result of surgery before 1986. We will not close this file. She will not close this file. Susan Wish has two children. This family is very, very afraid that the husband will become too sick to work at all and may ultimately die a premature death as a result of the infection. Apparently he is very, very ill already. The family life has been interfered with already. They feel that they are being unfairly treated, and they will not close this file.
So I think that what I would like to do at this point, and maybe the minister can stow this question away temporarily because I want to continue a little bit, is to ask the minister to supply numbers and costs of compensation to those infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood pre-1986. What is the cost to Manitobans, or what would the cost be? I think we need to have that figure if we are going to close files. Until we know more, we certainly cannot close the file.
Earlier today, the member for Inkster was talking about the Krever report and Horace Krever. I think we all remember that there were several ignominious attempts on the parts of various people to sequester all or part of the Krever report, and in this particular case justice won out and Mr. Krever's report was not sequestered. Mr. Krever--Justice Krever, pardon me--of course has an impeccable reputation, and the kinds of recommendations that he makes should not be taken lightly.
I want to point out and read just briefly from his report, and it is very brief. He says, and I quote: The compassion of a society can be judged by the measures it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy on its members.
I think that is something that we can all agree with and that we should all take very seriously and think about. The compassion of a society can be judged by the measures it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy on its members. Well, what are we doing to reduce the impact of tragedy on those individuals and the families of those individuals who were infected with the virus before 1986? I know the minister has spoken about the social safety net, and I will certainly get back to the whole question of the social safety net, but other than that the answer is that we are not doing very much.
Justice Krever also is famous for his no-fault attitude towards compensation, and he goes on to say: Until now, our treatment of the blood blood injured has been unequal. After years of suffering, devastating financial losses, many persons infected with HIV from blood or blood products or their 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. Very interesting statement.
Clearly some of the individuals who Justice Krever is referring to here are those persons infected with hepatitis C who, I believe at the time of this statement, there had been no compensation for any of the victims of hepatitis C. Now there has been a change where there is compensation for some of the victims of hepatitis C, but certainly the decisions that have been made do not honour the letter or the spirit of what Justice Krever recommended.
I remember Justice Krever's visit to Winnipeg in summer of 1994, because it was then that I believe this government was embarrassed by its lack of an HIV-AIDS strategy. One of the things that Justice Krever did by publicly embarrassing the government, I believe the testimony by a government official, Dr. John Guilfoyle, one of the things that was accomplished through that visit was that we finally did begin to develop an AIDS strategy, and we have great hopes for that AIDS strategy. The minister and I have talked about it earlier in Estimates. I had hoped that the minister would take Justice Krever's words about compensation more seriously and, as I say, follow the letter and the spirit of what Justice Krever said and work tirelessly for compensation for all sufferers from hepatitis C, all persons who had acquired that virus as a result of contaminated blood because those persons--I know the minister will agree with me here--have been betrayed twice by the system: first, by the contamination; and, second, by a lack of compensation for their sufferings.
The minister got into a bit of a debate with the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) when they were talking about the reliability of the date, January 1, 1986, and the member for Inkster felt that January 1, 1986, just did not quite ring true with him. He could not understand what was the difference between December 31, 1985, and January 1, 1986, and I certainly concur with him. I cannot understand what the difference is. It seems to me that this date is arbitrary at best. My understanding is January 1, 1986, is the date that the test was first used, or perhaps it is needed to be used in the U.S. so it becomes kind of a marker and a cut-off point. But I understand from other sources that there was a test available in 1982 which could have screened for 40 percent of those who eventually acquired hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood, but it was not used.
I also understand that there was a test that was available as early as the '50s, and I read from a document provided by Dr. Michelle Brille-Edwards, whom I understand to be an expert. He says: we have known blood was transmitting hepatitis since transfusions began in the pre-World War II era. We did not know exactly how, so we called it post-transfusion hepatitis. Much later we were able to identify specific viruses that can cause hepatitis, and we started to use the specific names: hepatitis B, hepatitis A, and now we are up to G. But we knew all along that infectious hepatitis was being transferred through blood.
So again it seems to me, Mr. Chair, that the date that the compensation package uses is arbitrary at best, and I think that the minister knows that.
* (1610)
I want to just touch on the question of a social safety net because I know the minister has talked about us having a safety net and has said that, well, if people acquired hepatitis prior to January 1, 1986, these individuals would not be part of the compensation package, but they would be looked after by the social safety net. The minister has pointed to a health care system. He has pointed to the existence of Pharmacare. He has pointed to the existence of home care. He has talked about CPP disability insurance.
Well, there is truth in what the minister says. We do have a health care system, although it is a health care system which is sadly being frayed, and we all know that we are moving more and more towards a two-tiered health care system. There are huge waits for diagnostic testing and for other kinds of testing, and it certainly does not work in the best interests of anybody, but certainly not people with severe illnesses like hepatitis C--those individuals, again, who are showing the signs of hepatitis C and living with it.
Yes, we indeed have a Pharmacare plan, but many drugs that people require are not on the formulary. I know from working in the AIDS community that people on CPP found it--now, I believe, that is not quite true. People on CPP, I think, were able to obtain their drugs under a special plan, the name of which I cannot remember, but I suppose in the new Pharmacare plan, which is based on income to some degree, means testing, that would not be a problem unless the drug, again, is not on the formulary. If people want to try alternative therapies, they are not usually available on Pharmacare. I do not know if any of them are.
Yes, we have home care, but I get calls day after day to my constituency office--we all do--from individuals who say that home care is not adequate, that they are not getting the kinds of services that they need. This is not to blame home care workers. Home care workers are all extremely dedicated persons, I am sure. The problem is people do not always get enough care.
Lastly, I turn to the question of disability insurance. Disability insurance is not enough money to lead a life of any dignity.
An Honourable Member: Disability pension.
Ms. McGifford: Disability pension? Thank you for correcting my term. People who are living on a disability pension live very, very close to the line and often have to depend on family members or the generosity of others simply to get through to make ends meet. Especially if you are ill and you require special foods and perhaps need to take taxis more than other individuals, this sort of thing, it is absolutely impossible to live with any dignity on this amount of money. Again, I know this from personal experience in the AIDS community.
The minister has presented several legal arguments to this committee during the past few weeks. I think that his arguments may make perfect legal sense, but I think that what we have always insisted on is the importance of the moral imperative and the importance of compassion in this particular instance.
I know that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) today pointed out that we did not have to compensate flood victims. In fact, we did not compensate some of them, but those we did, I think the motivation was a sincere one of compassion. I note that we have in the past compensated thalidomide victims. I notice that we compensated all victims of HIV-AIDS who acquired that virus through contaminated blood, and our health care system has not been destroyed by this kind of compensation. Precedents have not been set. If a precedent had been set, then we would be compensating people living with hepatitis C, so I really do not understand the argument that says we must not set a precedent. We have not set a precedent in the past when we have been motivated by compassion. I do not think we will today.
Consequently, given that on April 27 the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) indicated to this committee that he would be prepared to meet and discuss the issue of compensation further and given that both Quebec and Ontario are now calling on the federal Liberal government to come back to the table to review the compensation package with the Quebec National Assembly unanimously supporting a motion that read:
"THAT the National Assembly, inspired by the motion unanimously adopted on December 2, 1997, support the extension, on compassionate grounds, of the existing compensation programs for all victims of contaminated blood who are not covered by the said program;
"THAT the costs of this extension be funding by the federal government, considering that the Quebec government already provides for all the services and care given to these persons;
"THAT the Quebec government demand that the federal government follow up this resolution and encourage the other provinces to approach the federal government in the same manner."
I now move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that this committee recommend that the Legislature support the content of the motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly and further that the Legislature urge the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to contact the federal government and press for the existing compensation package for victims of tainted blood to be reopened and reviewed with a view to extending compensation.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. It looks to me that the motion is in order.
Motion presented.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): If you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, I would not mind, even a copy of it presented to us would be fine.
Mr. Chairperson: Could we get some copies for everybody, please.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I just received an interesting note from one of my staff. The Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Chretien, does me a great honour and service today in Ottawa. I share with members of the committee that we had a call from a member of Parliament's office in Manitoba from the opposition, and he said apparently that the Prime Minister blamed Manitoba, I guess this Minister of Health, for the whole hep C package. Never did I ever think I would see the day where the son of a Lockport farmer in this Legislature, representing only 4 percent of the Canadian people, could have been so influential at a meeting that I could have moved the large and great Government of Canada and such an experienced politician as the Right Honourable Jean Chretien that his decision in all of this was because of little old me here in Manitoba.
* (1620)
How ludicrous the federal Liberals get amazes me, and it is also a sad day when a politician of Mr. Chretien's calibre has to sink to that particular role, not to accept responsibility for his own decisions, and I would just like to, Mr. Chair, for the record, clarify that the position of Manitoba through all of this was that the federal government in fact pay their fair share of the total cost of hepatitis C, and what amazes me about it, is that this gutless wonder who now serves as our Prime Minister, quite frankly, if these statements are in fact true, sends his Minister of Health to our meeting to convey the message that his cabinet will not put one more penny past $800 million into this, and we will not recognize one penny that the provinces pay in hepatitis C health care costs, and the man does not have the courage of an adult to at least accept responsibility but blames a cabinet minister representing but 4 percent of the population.
My goodness, it is a sad day for the leadership of the Liberal Party, a sad day for Liberals, a sad day for this country when a Prime Minister has to resort to that. If that in fact is what he said in the House of Commons, then my comments now stand on the record. If it is not what he said, I offer my apology now, but somehow I would think that there is probably some truth to it, given the way the federal government causes its problems.
Mr. Chair, this may be somewhat unorthodox for the committee, but I have a couple of questions of clarification for the member for Osborne. Is the member for Osborne by way of this resolution suggesting that it is the position of the New Democratic Party that, should this plan be expanded, the sole financial liability for this plan should rest with the Government of Canada? That is my first question.
Ms. McGifford: I think that the minister is right, that it is unorthodox and I prefer not to answer his questions.
Mr. Praznik: So what the New Democrats are doing here is playing politics rather than dealing with the issue, and I am saying this sincerely to the member for Osborne. She moves a resolution asking for our support to endorse the resolution that was adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. She is proposing a resolution urging me to meet with the federal government to convey this message, and she will not answer a question on what she intends by it.
I mean, get serious, Mr. Chair. Does the member really want to pass this, or was this just designed to create a political issue here in Manitoba? We, as a political party, we caucus regularly; we discuss these issues. The reason why in fact a free vote in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not as important in the House of Commons--because we all have smaller caucuses. We meet; we discuss these things. We make issue, as we all do, but we do not have a caucus of 150 members with wild cards out there doing their own thing. So issues of free votes become much less practical in provincial houses, but she is now recommending that this Legislature, by way of resolution, accept the position of the Quebec government and instruct me as Minister of Health and a servant of this Assembly to contact the federal government and press for that package to be re-opened and reviewed.
I am asking her a very simple, honest, straightforward question. Is it her view that the federal government, as the Quebec resolution calls for, is 100 percent responsible for that package?
Then she says to me, I refuse to answer. Well, that suggests to me that the New Democratic Party is not serious about this issue. I give the member another opportunity. If she is not prepared to clarify what she is asking for in this resolution on the record, how does she expect myself or my colleagues to deal with it seriously? I asked a serious question in the vein of trying to determine whether or not there may be support on this side of the committee and the House for this resolution. If the member is truly asking for our support to do something and not just make this into a political issue of trying to embarrass colleagues by putting up resolutions that she expects they will defeat, then she should be prepared to at least explain what her belief and what her view is. This becomes a very important question.
So I ask again if the member will indulge us. If she could just tell us if the New Democratic Party's position by way of this resolution, which is calling for us to support the content of the motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly and for me to press the government to re-open this issue, I gather on that basis and given the fact that the Quebec resolution calls on the federal government to pay 100 percent of the cost because of the provincial support for health care costs, is she saying to me and her colleagues in this Legislature that the position of the New Democratic Party of Manitoba is that the package, one, should be re-opened, two, should be 100 percent financed by the federal government as the Quebec resolution calls for, and three, that the province should not have a financial responsibility for that package, which is a different position than what she is saying in the House or has been saying in the House. I am just asking her today, if she truly wishes our support for a motion like this, to at least answer that simple question.
Ms. McGifford: I think the minister is being slightly unfair. I think that I certainly said today on the record, and have been quite unequivocal in saying, that clearly the lion's share of the burden should fall on the federal government. The federal government, as the minister has said and as I have agreed and as we have agreed, was the regulatory body and as such has much more responsibility than the provincial government. Nonetheless, the provincial government as a purchaser of service, I would maintain, has at least some moral and/or ethical responsibility, and as I said today, perhaps some legal responsibility too. I do not know because I am not the legal expert that the minister himself is.
One of the things that I asked the minister today about was the numbers of persons in Manitoba infected with hepatitis C pre-1986, and I asked him what his estimates or what the estimates of the costs of providing services to those persons might be. Without that kind of information, I think that the questions that the minister is asking are extremely difficult, but I certainly concur with the minister that the federal government has the lion's share of responsibility when it comes to providing compensation packages for people living with hepatitis C, both before and after 1986.
So that would be my answer to the minister.
Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I am detecting some confusion in the ranks of the New Democrats here because the motion they put on the table says, and I quote: that I move--the member for Osborne, I am quoting--"that this Committee recommend that the Legislature support the content of the motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly."
* (1630)
I would hope she would have read the motion or the resolution of Quebec. That resolution says, and I quote: "THAT the costs of this extension be funded by the Federal Government considering that the Quebec government already provides for all the services and care given to these persons."
Now, Mr. Chair, on reading the motion put to this Assembly or this committee by the member for Osborne, she says we should support the content of the Quebec resolution. The Quebec resolution, the content of it says the federal government should pay.
I ask what I would consider to be a very straightforward question: is it now the position of the New Democratic Party, given the resolution supporting the Quebec resolution, which says this should be a federal government program, is it now the position of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba that the federal government should be responsible for an extension of the hepatitis C program? It is a straight, simple question, and quite frankly if the member for Osborne had said yes, that is our position after studying the issue, after looking at the principles, supporting what has happened in Quebec, we concur with that principle, I would have said, well, we certainly have to go and caucus this, but the member for Osborne did not say that.
The member for Osborne said, well, maybe we do not know what the numbers are, maybe if it is not very much, yes, I suppose; maybe if it is more, no, we are not sure. So all I can take--the member's comments or lack of an answer or her answer--is that the New Democratic Party wants all of us to have to vote on this issue. Then I imagine she and her colleagues suspected we would vote this down, and then she would have another media hit or another push to us.
The New Democrats really are not meaning what they say in their resolution, because their resolution says support the content of the Quebec resolution which says that the extension would be funded by the federal government considering that the Quebec government already provides for all the services and care given to these persons. Well, we provide for the care and services today, provide it for those persons in Manitoba. So my question--I say this very sincerely--was legitimate about whether or not common cause could be found, but the member for Osborne backs off and said, well, no, we do not really mean that, because we do not have the numbers. Well, it is not a matter of numbers. It is a matter of principle. Does the federal government pay for the extension or do they not?
What I suspect is that the member for Osborne wants her cake and she wants to eat it too. She wants to say to the public: we supported the Quebec resolution, why would these nasty Tories not pass the same resolution, but at the same point in time she wanted to reserve the right to criticize this government for not putting money in. First you say you do, then you say you do not. That is what I heard from the member for Osborne.
The real shame of this, the real shame in the answer--and even the fact that the member wanted to even avoid answering the question raises my suspicion and that of my colleagues about what the intent of this is. Quite frankly, when the member moved this motion I thought, well, maybe there is some common cause. Maybe if the New Democratic Party recognized that this is not a provincial responsibility, that we are paying for the health care costs, that the national government has the issue here to deal with and that the Quebec government has recognized that, the Quebec National Assembly has recognized that, maybe she was suggesting that the New Democratic Party in Manitoba would say, yes, we recognize that. We will say that the Filmon government in Manitoba does not have a financial responsibility here. This is really the national government and maybe the voice of this Legislature should be added to that call. But the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) could not answer that, and then when she did, said, well, no, maybe, depends on numbers, well, there is not really a principle. So here we have the New Democrats saying one thing in their motion and another in their explanation for it which are different.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
So how do we on this side of the House or how do our colleagues who support the federal Liberal Party, how do we from time to time, how do we decide whether to support this, given that exact opposite position taken by the member for Osborne on behalf of the New Democratic Party compared to the words that she has provided to this committee in this resolution? How do we even consider that support? How do we do that? Because this resolution from Quebec that she is asking us to support is very straightforward, and having spoken to Minister Rochon through many hours of our planning sessions and work together as ministers, he is very, very clear that this responsibility is with the federal government, and the Quebec National Assembly is very clear on that.
So I say to members of the New Democratic Party, before you ask us to pass judgment on this, would you please tell us what you mean? Would you please go back to your caucus and decide what your position is? Is your position, this is the responsibility of the federal government to pay for if an extension takes place; in which case, quite frankly, the member will not be able to walk both sides of the fence and say, yes, it is the federal responsibility, but I still want the right to be criticizing you for not being into filling in for the federal government when I next rise in Question Period next week, so I can have two positions.
No, the members of the New Democratic party want us to support this resolution. In words, they have said very clearly what they would like us to do. But the member for Osborne in her comments to this committee said something totally opposite. So how do we know what the members of the New Democratic Party want?
Part of being responsible in this very important debate, which is I think a very important debate, is not to play politics with it, to advance a position that common consensus can be found, and what I find so disturbing is that the member moves a resolution and she would not even initially answer my question. She said she would not do it. She did not want to do that. Well, I understand why, because they have two positions. They have one for today and they have one for tomorrow. Well, that says more about the New Democratic Party than hepatitis C. It says more about the New Democratic Party in their different positions than any of the debate we have had here.
So I say to the member for Osborne, I do not know what instruction she has had from her caucus or what her mandate is with this, but members on this side of the House--and I say this sincerely to her--if you would like our support for this resolution--and I belong to a democratic caucus. We must go back and discuss this. This was not an issue that we have had an opportunity to discuss, but we certainly will. I will endeavour to do that.
But before I would even take it back to our caucus for discussion--and my colleagues I think would concur with me--we have to know what the intent of the New Democratic Party is here. What are they really saying? If they believe what they are prepared to write by way of motion that they want approval of the context of the Quebec resolution and they want to propose that this be extended by the federal government and funded by the federal government, then they should have no qualms at all today about saying so on the record of the committee and that means that their position is this is a federal responsibility and must be funded federally, and it is not a provincial responsibility. They should not then--if they mean what they say in this resolution--be coming back here asking us to fill in for federal responsibility if the federal government walks away from it.
I did not write this resolution. I did not put words in here that said we will adopt the content of the Quebec National Assembly resolution. I did not put into the Quebec resolution that the cost of extension be funded by the federal government. I did not set up this proposal. The New Democrats did, but they are asking this committee and consequently the Legislature to give me instruction as Minister of Health in discussions with the federal government, yet they are not prepared to give a clear message because, quite frankly, in my humble opinion, what it does is if they are serious and want to give a clear message and accept the principles in where we are going and who has responsibility, it means that they will lose the opportunity to be critical and get their eight-second clip in Question Period.
So I ask them, and it may not just be the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), but I ask them to go back and caucus and come back to this committee and tell us what is their true position. Is it to support this resolution? Is it to support what happened in the Quebec National Assembly? Is it to stand by that resolution, or is it to waiver, as the member has wavered in her response in this committee? I invite her, if the members of the New Democratic Party are sincere in this, and believe me, there may be a will to pass this resolution, a sincere will to pass it, but we have to know exactly what the New Democrats mean. They have put two different positions here today. I know other members of this committee may want to comment on this matter as well.
* (1640)
Ms. McGifford: I am just astounded at the minister, that he can accuse me and our side of the House of playing politics after the fiasco with the previous motion calling for a free vote in the Legislature. We saw what happened in this committee. Member after member came in for the vote, voted against the motion without ever giving any consideration to the content of that motion--that is calling for a free vote. Personally, I think the minister is behaving--I think what the minister is doing at this point is merely being a bully. The motion is before this committee. I have presented the motion. I think it is time for the minister to stop cross-examining me. It is not a courtroom. I am not a witness in a courtroom. I do not know whether or not he is usurping my rights as a member of the Legislature, but he certainly is being a bully in cross-examining me in a way he has no right to do. I would like to call on this committee to get on with the debate, to debate the motion.
Mr. Lamoureux: I would say it is an interesting motion, there is no doubt about that, Mr. Chairperson. It is a motion which I personally could not support. The reason why I could not support this motion is because I do believe that there is a responsibility for the provincial government to address this particular issue.
I look at the province of Quebec, and it does not surprise me that they would have passed a motion of this nature, but they have a different political agenda and I do not think that agenda is in the best interest of all Canadians, let alone Manitobans. I think what I would recommend for the government is in fact that they would vote against this particular motion, because by voting in favour of it, what we are really doing is offloading 100 percent of our responsibility for individuals infected by hepatitis C onto the federal government. I do not believe that would be fair and that is the reason why I would vote against it. I would trust and hope that the minister would not even have to caucus this. I would be very disappointed if he had to caucus this particular issue. I think it is fairly clearly stated in the words of the motion. It is not a motion which I could support, and this minister would lose a great deal of respect from a good number of people, including myself, if in fact this motion was to pass.
Mr. Tweed: I think I will put a few comments on the record in regard to the motion that has been put forward by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). I have sat here throughout the last week listening to the debate that took place on the question of a free vote put forward by the members opposite, it seemed as a person who thinks he has an understanding, but after spending the time in here that I have and doing some background reading trying to resolve this issue or come to a conclusion that is something that I think we can all live with or feel comfortable with--I am not even sure if those are the correct words because I think it is probably one of the most difficult issues I have come to face since coming into government. But I listen to the member opposite and she talks in regard to the dates of 1986 and the flexibility of what is the difference between December 31 and January 1 and a concluding. She refers back to 1992 where there was perhaps a test out there that was 40 percent effective.
An Honourable Member: Eighty-two. He said '92; '82.
Mr. Tweed: In '82, okay. Sorry. I guess the first question that came to my mind when she brought that forward was, well, is this the date that she would be referring to as the start date for compensation? I mean, it is a date that is out there now as opposed to 1996 or 1990. So I am just saying, is this another date that we would start and move forward from that point for compensation? I think in her comments again today she talked about during the wars that the transfusions, people knew that the disease or the illness was being passed on through blood transfusions. They did not really know what it was or what it was called, but they certainly associated it with that type of transaction. Again, I guess my question would be, do we move back to that date and start forward from there as compensation?
I think throughout the whole debate that I have heard in this past week it was, what more is Manitoba going to do for the people's suffering? Not what the federal government was going to do, because we have seen what they are prepared to do. They have put an agreement on the table that all the provinces agreed with and had signed off on, and they put it forward and it was voted on in the House of Commons. We know the results of that vote.
But I guess, as I sit and listen more and more, I keep thinking, you know, if one province were to offer more than the other, would we not in effect be creating a two-tier health care system? Would we not have a system in some areas of the country that would suggest that Manitoba has a better deal for people suffering from this illness? Perhaps we should all move to Manitoba and take advantage of the compensation that they are offering. Then does it become a competition where other provinces would, in their settlements or in their agreements if they decided or so chose to open this up, would they be prepared to offer more, and would it be to the benefit of the sufferer who is certainly going through a lot not only physically in his health but emotionally? Would they be inclined to seek the highest compensator of provinces above and beyond what the federal compensation package is offering and thus start moving from province to province to collect the benefits? It is a very difficult issue.
The one common thing that showed up throughout this whole week in discussion, particularly from the members opposite, and if I am wrong I stand to be corrected, but what I understand is that the members opposite want to know what the Province of Manitoba is prepared to offer above and beyond the national compensation package offered by the federal government in an agreement with the provincial governments.
If that is true, and if I am assuming what is being said is correct, then I would suggest that the motion put forward by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), is a contradiction in what she has said all week. What she has said all week is that Manitoba should do more, can do more, should do more, please do more to compensate the people that fall outside of the guidelines that were set on this compensation package, but what the motion is saying is that the costs of this extension be funded by the federal government considering.
She is saying that all these expenses now should be at the cost to the federal government, and to me that is a complete contradiction of everything we have heard here at this table this week. I accept and agree with what the minister has said in his comments. She does want to have it both ways. She wants to be able to criticize the provincial government by forcing us to vote one way or another on these issues, but she also wants to have the right to pass all the total costs on to the federal government by this resolution and again be able to criticize the government for not participating at a higher level than the agreement originally decided or agreed upon, again, by the provinces of Canada and the federal government.
I think it is a very dangerous walkway we are going down in the sense that I believe--and I did not believe that until just today. I kept trying to convince myself that this was not a political issue, this was something that the members from the opposition were bringing forward with a true heartfelt concern.
* (1650)
After I read the motion put forward today by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), I have a sense that I may have been incorrect in their sincerity that they have put forward all week. I think what they are trying to do is play politics with this motion that they are bringing forward. I think they will try endlessly to put on the record as many resolutions and amendments as they can possibly come forward with that will put the government in a position of having to vote on certain issues.
I accept that as part of government and I accept that as part of the responsibility of all members as they enter the House, but I do not accept a resolution that has been brought forward that contradicts everything that the members opposite have said all week in this committee, they have said all this week in the House and in their questioning to the minister in regard to what he was prepared to do as the Minister of Health in the province of Manitoba to enhance the compensation to the people that fall outside of the parameters.
I certainly listened, and the member for Osborne has made comments on people that have spoken on the government side, about not debating the motion that was on the floor. I believe that the minister gave her an ample opportunity when he asked her the questions in regard to the motion that she has put forward. I would think that any time a member, be it government, be it opposition, be it the independent members that sit in our House--they should be prepared to give explanation for the reasoning and for the motive behind their resolutions. By the member for Osborne totally ignoring the questions of the minister and basically trying to exclude herself from answering questions by feeling that she is being challenged and she is not sure if her rights as a member are being usurped, I think it becomes very obvious and very clear to the people that have sat here throughout this entire week what the motive is behind her resolution and the motive, I would suggest, of the entire NDP party of Manitoba.
We certainly see in other jurisdictions where Saskatchewan has made their public statement, and I respect them for that. I think it is very important, when you make an agreement between 10 provinces and the federal government, that an agreement has been put in place that all people at the table come to an agreement on on the terms and the references, and they put it forward. I think it is very unfortunate that the Minister of Health for the province of Manitoba has to endure this type of conflict just for the political points.
I understand now that it is Thursday and, since the House is not sitting tomorrow, this is probably their last opportunity to get the news coverage that they want.
The suggestion that the province should make compensation available to these people and then to bring forward a resolution that would suggest that the federal government make full compensation to this group of people, I guess my questions would be very similar to what the minister asked is: Is that what the NDP policy is? Is that what they are publicly stating, that they believe the federal government should be responsible for all expenses incurred to implement this program?
When the member was asked that, she denied the question. She would not answer the question. Obviously, whether she feels comfortable that she has the support of her party or even the member that seconded her resolution, I would question whether she does if she is not prepared to answer questions on her resolution that she has put forward here today.
I think that over the next little while, Mr. Chairman, there is certainly going to be lots of debate and a lot more discussion. I think of the discussion that has passed this week in regard to the first motion that was put forward, and I found it very enlightening and very interesting. Again, I cannot emphasize enough that I really believed that the opposition, the NDP, were sincere in their motives of trying to find the compensation for the people that fall outside this program.
Today, with this resolution, I find that I question that sincerity. In fact, I actually would think that they are not sincere at all about this debate that we have had in this committee in the last week. I think that they have--
Mr. Lamoureux: Just on a point of order. I think the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) is trying to contribute in the best way that he can, but he is definitely imputing motives. I have sat through and listened to the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) and to say that her comments are not sincere and genuine, I do not think, is appropriate and definitely not parliamentary.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Turtle Mountain, on the same point of order.
Mr. Tweed: If I did offend the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) on my comments, I will apologize, but I would like to put on the record that everything that she has said this week in regard to the compensation offered to the people outside of this package is being refuted with the resolution that she has put forward in suggesting that the federal government should pay entirely for those expenses. I think that should be made clear on the record, and I think the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) made that clear in his statement on the record too.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I believe that the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) has offered words that, in fact, end that dispute.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I thought that the member was apologizing and then withdrawing it, but then he did something that is not appropriate practice, where someone does make a comment, and then he continued with similar sorts of questions, continued into debate. What he should have done, I think, is stopped with the apology for making those comments and then could have continued his comments in debate. He can put on the record what he wishes on this particular case and we look forward to continuing the debate as well, but it would have been more appropriate if he had just said he withdrew the comments and left it at that and then continued with the debate.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Tweed: I think I can resolve this. If it is a--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, if you want to make rulings like that, I challenge your ruling.
Mr. Chairperson: Pardon?
Mr. Ashton: I challenge your ruling.
Mr. Chairperson: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Is that where the member for Thompson wants to leave it? I am asking you.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, if the Chair makes a ruling that is considered inappropriate, the appropriate thing to do is for a member to challenge the Chair, period. That is what I did, period.
Mr. Chairperson: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those against, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: I believe that the Yeas have it.
Mr. Tweed: I know we are getting close, but I guess just to put on the record for the member of Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), if he believes that I am what he says or what he suggested, the resolution that has been brought forward by the NDP party of Manitoba clearly states that they support the Quebec resolution that states that the costs of this extension be funded by the federal government, considering the Quebec government already provides for all the services in care given to these persons. Now, if that is not as clear and obvious as I have seen today, then I would suggest that--
Ms. McGifford: On a point of order, this motion has not been brought forth by the NDP party of Manitoba. It has been moved by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) and seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). It has not been brought forth by the NDP party of Manitoba.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne does not have a point of order. It is definitely a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Turtle Mountain, to continue.
Mr. Tweed: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The time being five o'clock, committee rise.