1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 4, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 9

[ Page 7425 ]

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the gallery today is Janice Aull, who is the vice-president of the Canadian Hemophilia Society (B.C. Chapter). I would ask people to make her welcome, please.

S. Hawkins: I have two introductions. The first is Mr. David Smith. Again, he's been very active for the hepatitis C victims here in the capital. We'd like to make him and his group welcome in the House today.

I also notice in the gallery -- she surprised me, actually -- an award-winning TV journalist from Kelowna, with CHBC-TV, Ms. Mohini Singh. Would the House please help me make her welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today in the members' gallery we have a distinguished Canadian visiting from Geneva. Ambassador John Weekes is the permanent representative of Canada to the office of the United Nations in Geneva and to the World Trade Organization. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Coleman: In the gallery today I have two introductions. One is John Cooper, an engineer. John is working on a regional entertainment centre in the riding of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, to create some jobs there. And Brent Kerr, who is also his boss, I believe, or an employer, is bringing a new airline to Langley that's going to commute from Langley to Victoria. The member for Langley and I are, no doubt, very happy about that. It will be Island Valley Airways, and it will be starting service pretty soon. We're looking forward to it.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today 22 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in the Fraser Heights region of my riding, along with their teacher, Mrs. Douglas, and a number of accompanying adults. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: Today, I believe, is national Youth Week. There are two young people in the gallery: Stefano Pontoni is from Windsor, Ontario, and was a Page in the federal House of Commons, and with him is Steven Deng, who was also a Page and is from Vancouver. Would the House please make these young people welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise today to introduce Phil Grewar, the director of the risk management branch of my ministry, the Ministry of Finance. Phil has just been named risk manager of the year by Business Insurance Magazine . It's published in Chicago, and it serves insurance underwriters and brokers throughout North America. Phil has been recognized for his 12 years of work to cut the provincial government's insurance costs. He has developed a series of innovations that have provided better and cheaper insurance coverage for hospitals, schools and provincial government operations.

He has managed savings that exceed $300 million to date. He is the first risk manager from any government in Canada or the United States to be chosen for this award in the magazine's 21-year history -- truly a great honour. He is in the gallery today. Please join in welcoming Phil Grewar.

Hon. L. Boone: Today we have yet another visitor from Ottawa, someone who has come here . . . . He says it's his favourite place in the world, British Columbia. He's probably here to visit one of his favourite people, actually -- his little brother. Would the House please welcome Darren Fryer, the brother of Blair Fryer.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, if I may, on your behalf, I'd like to introduce a group from Margaret Jenkins Elementary School: some 28 young grade 5 people visiting the Legislature today with some teachers and adults, including Mr. Barclay and their teacher Ms. Lever. Please welcome them.

J. Dalton: I would like to introduce someone who I'm sure does not want to be introduced. He's a good friend, a constituent and also the father of our Sergeant-at-Arms. Please welcome Mr. Derrick Humphreys.

The Speaker: From the chair I would like to make an introduction. In the gallery today, accompanied by our own ombudsperson, Dulcie McCallum, is the newly minted ombudsman from the province of Alberta. He began his duties on April 1. His name is Scott Sutton. Would the House please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 19, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. The bill amends three consumer protection statutes: the Consumer Protection Act, the Residential Tenancy Act and the Trade Practice Act.

The Consumer Protection Act is amended in this bill to provide continuous protection for consumers who enter into travel club contracts. A regulation dealing with the same issue was brought into force last year on an interim basis.

As discussed in estimates debate last week, I am introducing amendments today to the Residential Tenancy Act to end retroactive rent reviews for manufactured home parks. The amendments to this act also provide effective tools for resolving landlord-tenant disputes.

Finally, the Trade Practice Act is amended to modernize enforcement and compliance. The director of trade practices will be provided with the authority to more efficiently and effectively investigate and prevent deceptive, misleading and unconscionable trade practices. Furthermore, the Trade Practice Act is being amended to apply to real property transactions. The legislation will also be amended to clarify and

[ Page 7426 ]

expand the application of the act and to provide for a graduated system of fines in order to better eliminate economic incentives to defraud consumers. In

summary, this bill will enhance consumer protection and address some key landlord-tenant concerns.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

COMPENSATION FOR PRE-1986 HEPATITIS C VICTIMS

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Health. As the minister, I'm sure, is aware, the government of Ontario announced today that it would be fully compensating the victims of hepatitis C who contracted it through tainted blood supplies, regardless of the activities of the federal government. Will the minister now commit to providing all those who have contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood supplies the same compensation package and the same support as people who contracted it after 1986?

Will she demand of the federal government, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, that they provide those compensation packages to everyone who has contracted hepatitis C through the tainted blood supply, and will she guarantee it on behalf of the province of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: My understanding is different from that of the Leader of the Official Opposition, in terms of what Ontario has on the table. Ontario have said that they will put in additional money, but only if it is cost-matched in exactly the same way that the $1.1 billion has been. So this is not in spite of what the federal government would do -- just to correct the record on that. We have been lobbying the federal government very hard and will continue to do so, so that the needs -- all the needs -- of people with hepatitis C are met: health care needs, pharmacy needs, home care, social supports that families and friends will need.

I'm a little puzzled this afternoon, I guess, hon. Speaker. This is the first time the opposition has asked a question about hepatitis C. And nowhere at their convention, over three days, was there a motion on hepatitis C; nor was there an emergency motion on hepatitis C. While I'm very pleased to hear this this afternoon, I am a bit puzzled by it.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his first supplementary.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: To start with, I had assumed that the Premier would be discussing this matter with his Minister of Health. He has had real confusion about B.C.'s position as well. We have, in fact, demanded of the Premier that he compensate all victims of hepatitis C, regardless of when they contracted the problem. We did that a long time ago -- at the beginning of April.

The issue here is that this tragedy shouldn't be resolved in the courts. We shouldn't be requiring people who have hepatitis C, who contracted it through tainted blood supplies, to be taking our government to court so that the government will do what's right. Will the minister stand up today, guarantee people that they will all be treated equally, regardless of when they contracted the disease, and ensure that the federal government will come to the table too? Will she guarantee it on behalf of the people of British Columbia?

The Speaker: I think it's a future policy kind of issue, so I think it's . . . .

I recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: We all understand -- well, most of us on this side of the House understand -- that there is only one taxpayer out there. There is no question that there are going to be costs involved with this. What we have asked the minister and what we are asking the government to do is to ensure that all people who have contracted hepatitis C will be treated fairly and equally, and that British Columbia can take a leadership role and be sure that people in British Columbia have the kind of support they deserve, regardless of whether they contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986 or not.

Hon. P. Priddy: Do all people with hepatitis C, regardless of whether it was contracted inside or outside of the window, deserve to have their needs for support met? Yes, of course they do: health care needs, social support needs, home care needs, support for their families. That's what we are lobbying the federal government for. There is a motion on the floor this afternoon, and I hope the Liberal opposition will support that motion.

MEMO FROM DEPUTY MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT

C. Clark: My question is for the Minister of Environment. On April 7 the Leader of the Opposition tabled in this House a confidential document which revealed that her incompetence was going to cost British Columbia 20,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in investment. Will the minister confirm today that instead of going into her ministry and trying to fix the problems, she embarked on a witch-hunt to ferret out the individual responsible for releasing that document?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that I took very seriously all the concerns they raised regarding any backlog in Crown Lands and investigated all of them. In fact, I reached resolution on a number of specific issues that they raised in the House. I also worked with my staff and am continuing to work with my staff.

I certainly hope to have an announcement shortly that will address and put additional resources into the Crown land backlog, so that we can effectively deal with -- as I've said on many occasions in the House -- our commitment to make sure that those individuals, businesses and industries that need access to Crown resources are given the time and support necessary to bring good-paying jobs to British Columbians.

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: This minister gets one more chance to answer the question. When that confidential document was tabled, did she go to her ministry and decide that she was going to fix the problem and say: "Gee, we're going to do something about those 20,000 jobs we've cost British Columbians"? That's what she said she was going to do. She said that economic impacts were going to be number one on the ministry's agenda.

[ Page 7427 ]

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

C. Clark: Instead, her ministry and this minister embarked on a witch-hunt . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

C. Clark: . . . to ferret out the individual responsible, to hide the truth from British Columbians and to cover her own . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, hon. member . . . .

C. Clark: . . . political backside so that she wouldn't be embarrassed in this House.

The Speaker: Order!

C. Clark: Will she tell us if she did embark on the witch-hunt? That's the answer we want today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll call on the Minister of Environment when the House has come to order -- all members of it.

Hon. C. McGregor: As the members opposite raised a number of concerns related to the Crown Lands backlog and the efforts that this ministry needs to make, I made clear to this House, on an interim basis, the policies that we've put in place to address these very serious matters. I've also given an indication to the members opposite that we're continuing to do work around developing a future policy on how we introduce and put in place resources necessary to have this backlog finally dealt with and all of the applications approved.

M. de Jong: Question period would be much easier for this Minister of Environment if she'd only refer to her own documents.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. members. The hon. member has the floor.

M. de Jong: She wouldn't have gotten into the trouble she got into if she had referred to the original memo on the Crown Lands backlog. She wouldn't have gotten into trouble if she had referred to the letter she wrote to the Premier about Six Mile.

And today, if she'd just refer to her own memo from her own deputy minister, Cassie Doyle, she would be able to say that they are embarking on a witch-hunt and that this ministry, which has cost British Columbia 20,000 jobs -- $1.3 billion in lost economic investment -- is more concerned with ferreting out the individual that wanted to tell British Columbians the truth about how incompetent this ministry really is. Why is this minister more interested in conducting an inquisition than in providing British Columbians with the truth they need to have in rating the NDP's incompetence?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui on his first supplementary.

M. de Jong: The memo from the deputy minister threatens dismissal. It makes clear that this minister wants to know who's telling British Columbians the truth, because she doesn't have the courage to do it herself.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: It's the same government that used to talk about whistle-blower protection and that is tabling legislation that purports to impose that whistle-blower protection on the private sector.

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

M. de Jong: Will the Minister of Environment stand up and tell this House why this government is attempting to persecute a whistle-blower who did nothing more than tell British Columbians the truth?

Hon. C. McGregor: The efforts that I make through my office are to ensure that British Columbians are well-served by this ministry, and the efforts and the steps that I have taken have ensured that indeed we put in place the adequate resources necessary to deal with the very serious matter of the backlog in Crown land applications. I would indicate to the members opposite that I'm continuing to take those necessary efforts and steps. I'm working with members of your own caucus on particular matters to ensure that we're addressing, in as timely a way as possible, those issues that are important to British Columbians, particularly from the job creation and economic development perspective.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the Minister of Environment tell me why, when a diligent civil servant in her ministry discovers that this government, through its incompetence, is causing a loss of 20,000 jobs in British Columbia and $1.3 billion in economic activity, her reaction to that is to try and find that individual and punish them? Has the truth become such a rare commodity within this government and the NDP that someone who wants to tell the public the truth is punished and disciplined for doing that?

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on his first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can't answer that question because it's not in her talking points in front of her. If she would just get away from her talking points and answer the question: why is her reaction to a diligent civil servant who comes across a document that says that there are 20,000 people in this province who don't have a job and $1.3 billion in economic activity that has been lost because of the incompetencies in her ministry . . . ? Her reaction is to try and find the individual and fire them. Why won't she let her civil servants tell the truth when her government won't?

Hon. C. McGregor: I have worked for some weeks and months in the past to bring about changes in the way this ministry operates. You know, hon. Speaker, there was a time when this ministry took, in my view, too long to address many of the vital concerns of British Columbians. I have spent the bulk of my time in managing this issue -- in attempting to do what is right, which is to put forward those matters of economic significance and put in place policies and practices through which we can engage in a discussion and an effort to be able to deliver on those important matters that face British

[ Page 7428 ]

Columbians, because of the potential economic activities, because of the job creation potential and because of the necessity for us to act on those matters on behalf of British Columbians.

HABITAT CONSERVATION TRUST FUND

AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

G. Plant: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Environment, who is also the sole trustee of the habitat conservation trust fund. In the memorandum of understanding between the NDP government and Six Mile Ranch, the habitat conservation trust fund is targeted as a source of funds. In fact, the January 30 draft of this memorandum of understanding says that the Ministry of Environment will fund, together with the habitat conservation trust fund, $400,000 toward the Six Mile project.

As the minister is the sole trustee of the habitat conservation trust fund, can she tell us whether she personally approved this expenditure of money from the habitat conservation trust fund in favour of the Six Mile project?

Hon. C. McGregor: The habitat conservation trust fund is served by a board of directors who are appointed at large from around the province. Applications are made broadly from communities around the province. They screen them and make recommendations for what projects go forward. Then, when they come to the my office, as the minister responsible I approve those applications.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston on his first supplementary.

G. Plant: The minister, if I may say, has got the distinction right. She is the sole trustee, and she is the decision-maker with respect to the habitat conservation trust fund. Everyone knows that this is the minister who wrote a memo back in December 1996, saying that the Six Mile Ranch was tremendously important to her re-election prospects. It appears that what she then did later, in her capacity as the trustee for the fund, was personally approve the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of the project. Can the minister tell the House whether, when she . . . ?

Well, can she tell the House when she approved the expenditure and if she sought a conflict-of-interest ruling prior to making that decision?

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm glad to hear that the opposition has an interest in the habitat conservation trust fund. But I stand in amazement that the Environment critic on the other side is never given the opportunity to ask questions about important environmental matters like the habitat conservation trust fund. He seems unwilling or perhaps unknowledgable.

That being said, I would happily offer the opposition critic or any other member of their caucus the opportunity to meet with them to discuss the workings of the habitat conservation trust fund and to look through the hundreds and thousands of applications and the millions of dollars that have gone back into communities to support habitat restoration, wildlife matters and fish.

[2:30]

Petitions

R. Thorpe: I rise to present a petition signed by 87 British Columbians:

"We the petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House revisit the issue of hepatitis C compensation to reflect the concerns of British Columbians, to offer fair, compassionate and human compensation to all those who received infected blood."

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Forest Renewal B.C. 1998-99 business plan.

The Speaker: I will add to that. I have the honour to present the 1997 annual report of the ombudsman.

Ministerial Statement

VANCOUVER ISLAND MARMOT PROTECTION

Hon. C. McGregor: It is well known that British Columbia is Canada's most biologically diverse province. This province enjoys a variety of fish, wildlife and habitat found in few other places in the world. People across B.C. have participated in recovery plans for the marbled murrelet, the spotted owl, the peregrine falcon and other threatened and endangered species.

We have moved forward to preserve critical habitats and unique ecosystems at an unprecedented rate, through the creation of new parks, protected areas and wildlife management areas in every corner of the province. We established the Khutzeymateen Valley as Canada's first sanctuary for grizzly bears -- a species still viable in B.C. but drastically reduced from its historical range in North America -- and we launched the grizzly bear conservation strategy.

Today one of the most urgent and immediate challenges we face centres on a single species: the Vancouver Island marmot, a mammal that is unique in that it is found only in B.C. and nowhere else in the world. In recognition of the need to enlist the public's support for this animal, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has proclaimed the month of May as Vancouver Island Marmot Month in British Columbia. This species is one of the rarest mammals in existence. It's rarer than the giant panda, and its numbers are declining. In fact, the 1997 estimate was 150 animals, confined to fewer than 15 mountains on Vancouver Island.

As the minister responsible for wildlife, I am determined to do what I can to help reverse that trend. This will involve encouraging the widest possible support for the Vancouver Island marmot recovery team. This group -- a partnership of the scientific community, industry, environmental organizations and the government -- has been doing excellent work to ensure the continued survival and recovery of healthy populations for this animal.

The recovery team has also been doing fundraising, because the cost of rebuilding populations, the related research, population monitoring and habitat protection activities is high. Part of this money is being directed to a breeding program with the Calgary and Toronto zoos. If this program is successful, the marmots will be re-established in their native environment, in the hope of stabilizing the population.

Last Friday I visited marmot habitat north of Lake Cowichan, accompanied by members of the media and representatives of the recovery team. I took this opportunity to announce new government funding of $50,000 towards this project, supplementing previous contributions from my ministry, Forest Renewal B.C. and the habitat conservation trust fund.

In the coming weeks I will be announcing further initiatives to increase and broaden the support for the recovery

[ Page 7429 ]

project. As well, a package will be provided to each member of the House, describing how they can participate in the recovery team's adopt-a-marmot program.

I challenge all members of the House to do their

part in making a personal contribution to this effort, both as an example to other British Columbians and as a practical way to help remove this animal from the endangered species list. I'd be happy to report back to the House on the success of this vital initiative.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Before I recognize the response . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands, before I recognize you, I want there to be order in this House. All right.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to stand and support the statement made by the Minister of Environment. So seldom does the government do anything worth supporting these days that it's a pleasure to support this.

The protection of endangered species is important to everyone in this House and, I believe, to everyone in British Columbia. I hope that the government encourages the local community, municipal and regional governments, and industry, and especially that it spends some time educating the youth of this province on the importance of all endangered species.

Hon. Speaker, you will find that this side of the House wants to work with the government on the protection of endangered species like the Vancouver Island marmot and other endangered species also -- like some members of the NDP cabinet.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

M. Coell: We live in a changing world that threatens many species. It takes a long time for this government to act to protect any species, but I can assure you that this side of the House will be supportive when the government acts to protect any species in this province that is endangered.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call Motion 45 on the order paper.

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move Motion 45 standing in my name on the order paper, which states: "That in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the committee be empowered to sit during any sitting of the House."

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality and the Ministry of Education. In this House, I call Motion 46, sitting on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Health.

COMPENSATION FOR PRE-1986

HEPATITIS C VICTIMS

Hon. P. Priddy: Just before I begin my comments I will read the motion:

[Be it resolved that since British Columbia will spend more than $550 million providing health care services to people who contracted the Hepatitis C virus through the blood system, the Legislative Assembly urges the federal government to develop a plan to address and fund the needs of those British Columbians who contracted Hepatitis C through tainted blood prior to 1986.]

I don't think that there is any British Columbian anywhere who has read about this story, heard about this story or heard the individual stories that have been told by British Columbians themselves who has not been touched by the suffering of those who are living with hepatitis C -- and their families. This has been a tremendous challenge, I think, for everybody across the country: to develop both practical and meaningful responses to the daily living needs that people with hepatitis C may have. You know, the hepatitis C tragedy is, I think, a very dark

chapter in the history of Canada's blood supply system that has undermined public confidence in the broader health service system.

Hepatitis C is a debilitating disease of the liver, and we know that. Many people with hepatitis C can live with it for years without experiencing any symptoms or knowing that they have it. But it's also always there for them. They always know that they might have it. After 20 years, about two out of every ten people with hepatitis C will develop cirrhosis of the liver, and some people may receive treatment with antiviral drugs such as interferon. In rare circumstances, with advanced liver damage from hepatitis C, some may require liver transplants, as one of my colleagues on this side of the House knows all too well.

But while the public has discussed some of the details around what it is, how it affects people, when it starts, how people contract it, etc., one of the things that not everybody has talked about over this last nine or ten months, and particularly over the last few weeks . . . . Often there have not been names and faces. There are some people who have been very active. People who have been following the issue have watched them, and they've been very strong voices. But not everybody understands -- or is able to understand, without the experience -- what this disease means to the families and to the people who live with it.

I would not pretend to know that. But having been through an illness that terrified both me and my family, I do know that it is additionally hard, particularly for the families of people with a disease that has at least potentially such catastrophic effects, because you have to be -- and want to be -- supportive of this family member that you love so much and care so much about and worry about. You worry and cry and do all of those things, but at the same time, you have to find another place, because you're trying to support the family member. That takes a huge toll on family members, on children and on friends. So we have to look at what that means to the families.

Even for those people who are symptom-free for a very long period of time . . . . There was a woman who called in to

[ Page 7430 ]

a radio show yesterday and said that she had had hepatitis C for 20 years and that she's training for a marathon and does endurance sports. Well, there are people like that too. But you somehow carry this little piece every day, not knowing if one day -- today, tomorrow, next week, next month, ten years from now -- you will start to develop symptoms. It's never completely out of your mind or out of your presence.

I want to talk just for a moment about the circumstances around how the decision that is currently before us was reached. Before the 1990s, Canada's blood supply was contaminated with diseases such as hepatitis C. It was not until June 1990 that the regulators of Canada's blood supply system instituted a test for hepatitis C in the national blood system. The discussion has become: when could we reasonably have expected the Canadian blood supply system to have put in place a test that they knew was available and should be used? They knew it was available earlier on, and it should have been used.

It is almost unconscionable that it was not. During the time before that test was in place, thousands of Canadians received contaminated blood or blood products. Last year British Columbia took the lead in notifying its residents who may have been exposed to contaminated blood or blood products before the test was in place. We set up a public notification program to alert about 60,000 blood recipients of their risk of contracting hepatitis C through the blood system.

[2:45]

Earlier this year British Columbia joined with other provinces and territories and the federal government to announce an offer of assistance to Canadians infected with hepatitis C during that period that the blood supply system should reasonably have been expected to provide that test as a prevention. An agreement reached at that time totals about $2.7 billion in health, social service and financial assistance for people who contracted hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990.

During the past many months, I think, Canadians have expressed questions. They're wondering; they have needed more information. Some have disagreed with the agreement. They want to make sure that people who were infected before the window have their needs met -- that their needs and their families' and children's needs, as well, are met in a compassionate way. It's impossible for us to ever . . . . We can acknowledge, but I don't know if any of us can ever feel the kind of pain endured by thousands of British Columbians and thousands of Canadians who have contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood.

There have been other provinces that in the last little while have taken a somewhat different position, although I guess it's a bit the same. But what is it that we want support and compensation and compassion to do? What do we want the federal government to do, and why should they do it?

For one thing, the kind of support offered to people has to be flexible enough to meet their individual needs. There is not a sort of one-size-fits-all. Different families will require different levels of support at different times, and it has to be flexible enough to meet those needs.

What has the Liberal federal government done, and what can they do? Well, they have reached an agreement. They have put $800 million into the current package that's on the table. But they've done something else. Over the last three years in this province, they have cut back $700 million in health care and social support dollars. This is the only province in the country that has not passed that on to the people of the province. It not only has absorbed it but has continued every year, including this year, to increase the budget for health care -- in spite of a clawback of $700 million by this same federal government.

So what can we reasonably ask them to do? What we're asking them to do in light of this motion is look at the needs of people before 1986 and look at the things they can choose from, some of which they've already promised. We've heard promises from this federal government of a national Pharmacare plan. Well, a national Pharmacare plan would go a long way toward making a difference for everybody, including pre-1986 people who have hepatitis C. It's a promise not delivered.

What about disability pensions? This will be a critical issue for those people with hepatitis C who find themselves in the position where their fatigue is building, and they're unable to work for wages in the workplace, at the same time as the federal government is taking apart the CPP system. At the same time, even when CPP is granted, it takes an unconscionable amount of time for someone to receive that disability pension. Often, by the time they receive it, it is virtually almost too late.

I've heard the federal Health minister talk about a home care program. That is another support that will be critical for people with hepatitis C, for their own health care, but also for their families, so that they are able to ensure that their family members are supported well at home. The federal government can give dollars to the provinces to provide additional home care. We know that there are people not receiving home care who end up in acute-care beds. I don't want this to happen to anybody, and as we're talking about folks with hepatitis C particularly, I don't want it to happen to them as well.

So the federal government has a responsibility for all people who have contracted hepatitis C. The agreement was reached for the time 1986 to 1990, when there was a reasonable expectation of testing. But that does not mean that the federal government cannot look at compassionate support. Not basing it on when the test was available but looking at it as compassionate support, the federal government is in a position to make a difference for those pre-1986 people.

That's what I'm calling on the federal government to do today: to restore money for health care; to restore money for the kinds of social supports people will need; to look at national Pharmacare; to consider a particular disability pension that will work for people with hepatitis C, and, outside the years, to look at what would be compassionate support -- aside from the health care issues. The federal government has the ability to do that. We're urging them to do so, and I would hope that everybody in the House would support us today in doing that.

G. Campbell: I am really dismayed to hear the minister's comments today with regard to her motion. I have never heard more running around on what the central issue is here. The central issue is caring for people who have contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood supplies. That central issue is all of our responsibilities. This is not about pointing political fingers and saying: "You do this and we'll wait." This is about

[ Page 7431 ]

taking leadership and making sure that we move ahead. This is about giving people a sense of support and a sense of security.

For the last month this government -- the British Columbia government, the NDP government -- has treated hepatitis C victims like political pawns. One day there's an announcement that the Premier doesn't like what is taking place; the next day there's an announcement saying maybe he does. Let's go back to the fundamentals: it was this government that was sitting at the table with the federal government. It was this government that agreed to a compensation package that did not include people who contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986. It was this government that forgot about all of those things that this minister claims to care about today.

I think it's a shame and a disgrace that the principles I thought we all believed in were not taken to the table and were not advocated. When the opposition heard from the Premier on April 1 or 2 that in fact the Premier was very uncomfortable with the arrangements Health ministers across the nation and the federal government had come to, the opposition wrote to the Premier demanding that there be fair compensation for all, that there be no arbitrary legal cutoff, that we provide people with the compensation that they need so that they can have security and hope for the future and can deal with their suffering, pain and illness with some confidence with their family.

The web of suffering spreads far enough with this. Our governments' job -- the federal government and the provincial government -- is to try and mitigate that. It is to reflect the words of Justice Krever. I want to quote directly from what Justice Krever said: "The compassion of society can be judged from the measures it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy on its members. I believe that is something that has been embraced by Canadians. I believe it is something that is embraced by British Columbians." Justice Krever also goes on and points out -- this is from his report:

" . . . 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. The provinces and territories of Canada should devise statutory no-fault schemes that compensate all blood-injured persons promptly and adequately so they do not suffer impoverishment or illness without treatment."

I think that's a pretty good

summary of what this issue is all about. I believe it's a way of clearly outlining that we as a society have a task to do. The task we face as a society is to provide individuals with the comfort, the support and the care that they and their families and their friends need to be able to cope with hepatitis C.

I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that on this side of the House we believe that all people who have contracted hepatitis C as a result of tainted blood supplies should be treated fairly and equally. We do not believe this is a political issue to fight with the federal government. We believe that our first obligation is to the people who live here. Let's remember: the same people elect the federal government that elect the provincial government. The same people elect local governments. They're all the same people.

We can get into jurisdictional fights and political debates, but what we have to do here is care for people, for individuals, for their families. That's how you show compassion; you don't show compassion by saying: "Let's have another political wrangle."

I think that we have to stand up in British Columbia -- and we can stand up in British Columbia -- and say that we will care for these people. I believe we can stand up in British Columbia and find the resources to care for these people. It's a matter of looking at what our spending priorities are. Here's a government that guarantees $329 million for a failing business. Here's a government that spends millions and millions of dollars a month to push its own propaganda. What about the people that are suffering from hepatitis C? What about their families?

I'll guarantee everyone in this House -- every single one of you -- that if you go to someone in your riding and say to them, "Do you think we should be spending your tax dollars on a government advertising campaign or on caring for someone with hepatitis C?" you will get a unanimous voice. They will say: "Care for the people that suffer from hepatitis C."

The critical issue here is not whether those in this House care for the people that are suffering from hepatitis C. The critical issue here is: how do you care for people? The critical issue is: how do we move forward? The critical issue is: how do we give the people that are suffering from hepatitis C the confidence that they will be treated fairly and equally? Instead of doing what governments have done, which is to throw out a challenge to them and say, "We dare you; take us to court so we'll meet our obligations," we shouldn't waste time.

We shouldn't waste their energy; we shouldn't waste the government's resources in having an issue like that fought in court. It is simply not satisfactory to do that.

What we should be doing is making sure that in British Columbia we take a leadership role. In Ontario they have come forward. They have said they will provide people with the care they need. They have said that they will provide people with the support they need. They've said that they will do that. Indeed, if the federal government will not come to the table and provide the resources that they should, then they will take the federal government to court.

Let's be clear: the issue that they are dealing with here is caring for people first. So let's put the sufferers of hepatitis C at the top of our list. Let's be sure that they get the resources they need to make sure that they are cared for. As I said, I don't believe that people in British Columbia are saying that this is an issue that should be fought on the basis of who transfers what to whom. They don't necessarily say that the dollars should come to the province of British Columbia's coffers. They want to make sure that victims of hepatitis C are cared for. We have seen how this government wastes resources time and time again, when they are put into the general coffers of government.

[3:00]

So I stand today to ask this government to treat all victims of all hepatitis C equally. I ask this government to show some leadership and to reflect the values of British Columbians. The values of British Columbians are to treat these people fairly and equitably, regardless of when they contracted this disease. I believe it's critical that we focus the attention and the intent of this resolution -- not as a way for the government to use the victims of hepatitis C to fight a battle with the federal government. This is about fighting a battle for the people who are suffering; this is about taking some leadership.

Hon. Speaker, I am going to move an amendment to the motion. I would like to read it into the record:

[Be it resolved that as British Columbia will spend more than $550 million providing health care services to people who contracted the Hepatitis C virus through the blood system, the Legislative Assembly urges the British Columbia government and the federal government to develop a plan to address and fund compensation of those British Columbians who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood prior to 1986 and that those funds be paid directly to the victims.]

[ Page 7432 ]

I think it is critical that we move ahead on this. I've got a copy of this . . . .

The Speaker: A copy for the Table.

G. Campbell: It's critical that we remember that the taxpayers of our province and of our country are willing to provide support for people who contracted hepatitis C, whether they contracted it before 1986 or not. The intent of this motion is not to provide those people with hepatitis C with support and then claw it back as a result of some welfare regulations. It is to provide people with the full support they need so they can get on with their lives, so their families can have the support they need and so they can deal with the pain and suffering of this disease in the best and most compassionate way possible.

I would urge the government to embrace the amendment and to support the amendment so we know that it will be victims of this who will be cared for and who will be at the top of the list.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have seen just now the amendment as proposed, and I have to rule it out of order because it would require a message from the Lieutenant-Governor in order to expend government . . . . It involves government expenditure.

I recognize, back on the main motion, the hon. Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'd like to speak to the point of order. The motion . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I don't recall a point of order having been brought forward.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I'm raising one. Point of order, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Okay. Proceed on your point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. The amendment, as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, merely amends where the money goes and what it's to be used for. The original motion is the one that demands an expenditure of the Crown, not the motion by the opposition.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it's very clear. Standing order 67 requires the . . . . The motion identifies that, saying directly that not only the federal but the provincial government will fund compensation for those British Columbians -- and that is contrary to standing order 67. I commend that for your bedtime reading this evening.

On further debate on the motion, I recognize . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I recognize the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: With respect to this motion, I think there are a number of issues that need to come forward. It is indeed unfortunate that the amendment could not proceed, because I think the amendment had merit . . . .

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, perhaps I'll take my seat until we've resolved this matter and this problem.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the rules of the House indicate that the person who is recognized by the Speaker has the floor. Interruptions across the floor aren't helpful.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the amendment was not in order, because I think the spirit of the amendment was worth supporting. The minister, in her comments, talked about two issues that are absolutely central to what we are dealing with here today. She talked about public confidence, and she talked about trust. Frankly, I think that most Canadians -- certainly most British Columbians I've spoken with; I haven't had a chance to consult broadly with Canadians outside of British Columbia -- feel that their confidence in government has been further eroded by the events of the last number of months, and their trust in government to actually solve a problem is also eroded.

In the first instance, I think that public confidence is eroded because they are now seeing provincial Health ministers turn around and point fingers at a federal Health minister, saying that what the federal government is offering is insufficient. Yet they are fully aware that it was the provincial Health ministers who sat with the federal Health minister and signed the very agreement they now say is insufficient. That really does speak to public confidence in the process that takes place in first ministers' meetings with the federal government with respect to health care delivery.

The principle of full compensation is no different today than the principle of full compensation was when those ministers put pen to paper and signed away the opportunity for people who have contracted hepatitis C to receive full compensation if they contracted it prior to 1986. The principle is the same, and so one has to argue: what has changed? What is it that has changed in the ensuing period of time?

The minister said that the reason that the Health ministers and the federal minister did not include people who contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986 was because it was only after 1986 that people could "reasonably have been expected" to have been tested for hepatitis. That's patently not true -- no matter how the federal government tries to stick by that, no matter how Mr. Rock tries to put that out as his reason, no matter how the Health minister tries to put out that reason.

We go back into the literature -- anybody who has taken the time to go back and read it -- and we know that as early as 1959, John LaDuc and Associates demonstrated that AST testing would provide an increased opportunity to discover instances of hepatitis. It's been indicated that for Canadians who had the benefit of surrogate markers, that has prevented roughly 12,500 cases in Canada. If we had introduced ALT testing, over 650,000 cases of hepatitis C from 1960 to 1986 would have been prevented. It really makes you wonder where the government puts its priorities.

This is where we come to trust. The fact is that for anybody who wants to spend an hour on the Internet and go back and check it out, the literature is absolutely clear-- in the United States, in particular, but it is also true in Canada. The issue of tainted blood was known since 1959. It was a concern. It was known certainly since 1965 that it was an issue that ought to be looked at. It was known definitely after 1972. It was known again in 1976, '77 and '78, when the medical journals started to report it. It was known.

You know why they didn't test it? Because the governments didn't want to spend the money doing it. That's why they didn't test it: there was a cost associated with putting that

[ Page 7433 ]

blood through those tests, and they didn't want to spend the money. Now that they haven't spent the money and now that people are infected and are dying, they again don't want to spend the money to look after them.

That's atrocious. It is not the Canadian way; it is not what we in this country hold dear to us: a concept of universal health care. It's a complete obfuscation of the responsibility of government, both federal and provincial. When we start to talk about trust, what really makes me angry is that when we see that there's an overwhelming concern because your condominium's leaking . . . . Well, you know what? There could be compensation for that. We have no problem throwing some dollars that way.

To be sure, those people who suffer from a leaky condominium may need some kind of compensation because there are ways in which their plans and the construction ought to have been tested and so on. But people are dying here. This is not an issue of a leaky roof or some mushrooms growing on your floor. People are suffering; they are dying.

I've met and talked with people who are suffering from injury, from internal pain, from illness, who have been refused surgery in British Columbia because they suffer from hepatitis C. They can't get the surgery they need because the doctors won't operate, because they suffer from a disease. How did they get it? They got it because they went into hospital to become well. They were given a blood transfusion, and they went out of hospital sicker than they were when they went in. And we're going to argue about who pays, who doesn't pay, how much and how we should deal with this?

Where have we gone wrong as a country? Where have we gone wrong as people of compassion, people who believe that we should have a health care system that says: "First and foremost, for goodness' sake, let us look after our neighbours who are suffering and in pain and who need our help"?

When the province of Quebec came forward, it was a motion from the opposition leader, the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party, Daniel Johnson -- his last act, actually, as leader of the Liberal Party in the province of Quebec. He put a motion on the floor that was unanimous. We're talking about a province in which we have a PQ Party and a Liberal Party who don't see eye to eye on anything. But they were unanimous when they recognized there was a need for concern. You will see from the province of Quebec . . . .

I've taken the time to phone and to talk to people who are MNAs, people who are involved with the government, people on both sides of the House, as I have done in other provinces, including the province of Ontario . . . . You will see that the province of Quebec will come forward with a renegotiated proposition to put some dollars on the table in much the same way that Premier Harris in Ontario today has said that Ontario is prepared to put some dollars forward.

If it hadn't been for the Quebec National Assembly taking issue on this, I don't believe we'd be having this debate today. The reason I don't believe we'd have this debate is because I raised this issue on April 9, and I put it to the Premier. I have to tell you this. There are a lot of things the Premier does that I disagree with, and there are a lot of times that I will stand up and I'll fight and I'll challenge. But when the Premier said that he was uncomfortable with the agreement, I believed him.

I really believed that the Premier of this province was very, very uncomfortable, not because he saw it as a political problem for himself but because it touched the inner heart of that man when he recognized that what we have done is just cut off a whole bunch of British Columbians from help. I believe him when he says that he wants to do something about it.

So I looked at this motion with great hope. But you know, with all due respect to the government and to the minister, the way that this motion is worded is virtually useless. You know why? Because it doesn't do what the Leader of the Opposition just attempted to do, and that is to enjoin the province in accepting the responsibility for what needs to take place now. It obfuscates this British Columbia provincial government's obligations. It does not say anywhere that they're going to connect it . . . .

I'll tell you another reason why I didn't think we'd be having this debate. On April 30 -- just last week -- I tried to bring a motion forward that I had put on the order paper last Monday. Hon. Speaker, as you well know, I stood, under

section 35, and asked for an emergency debate on this issue, and the Government House Leader stood up and said: "There's no reason for debate on this. We don't need a motion on this. We can just carry right along." It prompted me to try to figure out, on this whole issue, whether or not this Legislative Assembly, this chamber, really had any compassion for the people who are affected by this disease. So I went back through Hansard -- or my staff did. We went back through Hansard since the very first day of this session to see who had raised the matter of hepatitis C and how many times.

Do you know that other than this member, only one member in this chamber has raised it as an issue, and that was the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who raised it in his response to the throne speech? He raised it because he has a family which is personally affected by this.

The Leader of the Opposition said this is not a time for politics, and I agree with him. It is not a time for politics. But on the matter of trust -- which was the second issue -- how on earth can people trust politicians who watch the crowd, and when they see it going one direction, fight their way to the front so it looks like they're leading it? That's what is going on here today.

It hasn't been raised at any time up until this point and wouldn't have been raised if the province of Quebec hadn't initiated the debate, if the Health minister of Ontario hadn't followed suit, if the Premier of Alberta hadn't said: "You know what? We've got to go back and get the Health ministers and the federal Health minister together."

[3:15]

So there's a lot of political backside-saving, if I can use that in a parliamentary way. There's a lot of people trying to cover the deal, saying: "When the dust finally settles, I want to let people know that I was compassionate." You know what, hon. Speaker? It doesn't matter a fig what people think about who was in front, who led first, who said what and who said anything else. As long as we end up finding a solution to this problem, all of us as legislators will hold our heads high and say: "We solved the problem."

I would have been a whole lot more comfortable if I'd heard the Health minister in British Columbia stand up and say: "We made a mistake. We should never have agreed to 1986 as a cutoff. We should not have agreed to a package of compensation that simply pushes a whole pile of people into the dark and tells them that they're on their own. We should never have agreed to the institution of what amounts to two-tiered health care when it comes to hepatitis C."

The Health minister should have stood in this chamber and said: "A mistake was made, and now we are going to correct it." In order to correct it, the Health minister should have said that we British Columbians, much as the amendment to this motion would have allowed -- and I fully support what came forward . . . . The Minister of Health should

[ Page 7434 ]

have stood up and said: "We as the province of British Columbia will now enjoin with the federal government to extend our compensation for people who are infected with hepatitis C."

Let's talk for just one second about what we mean when we use the term "compensation," because the federal Health minister will say: "If we open the door to this compensation package for people with hepatitis C, my goodness, the floodgates will open and everybody who believes that they have somehow suffered from malpractice in Canada will seek to be compensated, and we will be broke."

That concerns me for two reasons. If there is a flood of Canadians out there who have suffered due to malpractice and feel that they're really going to get compensation, then we've got a much bigger problem in health care than I was aware of. That's one reason. The second reason is that it assumes compensation is only financial. It assumes that what we are really dealing with here is straight cash, a cash award. Pay them off. Well, I'm not talking about compensation for that.

When the minister said that there were all kinds of other reasons -- pharmaceutical, home care, all the issues that need to be dealt with -- and said that we need to be flexible in our ability to provide for those people who are suffering, the minister is absolutely correct. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. She's absolutely correct.

But when people are dying of hepatitis C, and many of them also have to suffer because they are living in poverty today and don't even have the ability to meet their basic family needs, we don't want to put in more red tape. We don't want to put in more complex systems. We don't want them to have to go to four different ministries to try and get assistance. When somebody is suffering like that, we want to give them an avenue, a mechanism, to get the help they need as quickly, as urgently and as simply as possible.

When the minister puts forward this motion, I'm in a bit of a catch-22 at this point. I'm thinking that if I vote against this motion, then what? Am I voting against giving compensation? But if I vote for it, do I really believe it will do anything? No. It's been worded in such a way that this government can somehow wash its hands and say: "It's not our problem; it's really a federal problem. Sure, we signed a deal, but what can we say? Everybody was going along with it, so we thought it was a good idea at the time."

I don't know if there's a way to amend this motion; I certainly would have supported the amendment that was there. I don't know if there is a way to amend this motion, given the ruling of the Chair. But I can tell you that the way that this motion is worded right now, it really doesn't mean much. It is absolute window-dressing; it is pure lip service. It is a way for this government to simply obfuscate its responsibility and obligation to belly up to the bar, as they say -- to use Ralph Klein's words. I think he tends to do that more than I, but . . . .

So I don't know what we do with this at this point, because I tell you, I am committed -- and I think there are others in this chamber who are committed -- to coming up with a full compensation package, and I don't think this cuts the mustard. I also don't think we're going to get another opportunity to debate it in this Legislative Assembly, because the government was reluctant to bring the bill forward in the first place. Certainly they wouldn't bring forward mine. They spoke against it when I tried to have an emergency debate last week, so I don't think they're ready to come back again.

If we pass this motion, what do we actually say? We say that we'll spend $550 million providing health care. Well, we're going to do that anyway, so there's nothing new in that statement. It says that the Legislative Assembly urges the federal government to develop a plan. Well, the federal government's response is: "We did.

We developed a plan, and you signed it." Now, if this minister was to say, "In developing a plan other than the one that we signed and therefore," or "I'm somehow going to remove my signature from it," or, "We're going to break ranks, and we're going to do something different," that would be different. But they haven't done that. When they say that this plan has to be for those who contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood prior to 1986, what avenue does that leave us? It doesn't leave us anything.

Am I disappointed? Absolutely. Am I frustrated? Yes, very much so, because I can tell you . . . . I don't have anybody in my immediate family who has hepatitis C, and I feel very thankful for that. I don't even have any close friends who have contracted hepatitis C, and I feel really thankful for that. There's nothing in it for me to be standing up here and saying we ought to do this, because my comments are rarely covered in anything other than the Hansard debate, which I'll send out to those who want to take the time to read it.

What concerns me, hon. Speaker, is that I think there has been a travesty taking place in Canada. For the first time, we have said that universal health care is only going to be as good as the money we're prepared to spend on it. When it comes to a cost, we're going to measure that cost and decide: "What's the political wind on this one? Winds are blowing pretty strong; maybe we should spend the money. Winds aren't too strong; let's not."

That's what I talked about when I talked about the issue of trust. Are these people who have hepatitis C to trust this government? That's what they're asking them to do in this motion. Are we as a Legislative Assembly going to have another avenue to be able to take this forward, where we actually make this government stand up and take its responsibility seriously on this question? I'm not sure. Do we want to go out of here with a split motion, where half of us have voted no and the other half have voted yes, and we look like the south end of a northbound horse to the rest of the country? I don't think we want that either.

So what do we do? We vote for this motion, which doesn't mean much. Do we all then go out, pat ourselves on the back and say: "Hey, see -- we're right there with you guys. Sorry you're suffering, but we've passed the motion that's going to ask the federal government to do what the federal government has repeatedly said it will not, and we're not going to do anything through this legislative chamber to bind government to expenditures"? Is that what we're going to do? Then how do we go back and talk to those people who are dying of this disease? How do we then go back and say: "Well, we did our bit.

We had our motion; we passed our motion"? You know what it does, hon. Speaker? It demonstrates to all of British Columbia that what we do in this chamber, nine out of ten times, is totally, absolutely irrelevant.

If there were a way to amend this motion -- and in truth, I haven't brought one forward because I was supporting the motion that was brought forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition -- so that it would pass this House and bind this government, I would do it. If the rules are such that we can never in this chamber bind the government to spend money -- which I believe they are -- then what good is it?

I don't know if anyone else thought it a bit ironic that on a day that we're dealing with dying British Columbians and people affected, we champion the cause of the marmot. God, maybe they should all be marmots; they might get a better deal.

[ Page 7435 ]

An Hon. Member: They'd get $23,000 each.

G. Wilson: They'd get $23,000 each if they were marmots.

I don't know. Some days my faith in this parliamentary system and in this chamber and in our ability to do something positive for British Columbians is tested to the extreme. I guess maybe today is just one of those days. Maybe what we need to do is just go out, gather those people together and continue to fight.

I have to tell you that I took the time to write a letter on April 27 to every sitting Member of Parliament on the Liberal side. I wrote them each a letter, asking them to break ranks, suggesting to them that what was in front of them was not a confidence motion in their government. It was a confidence motion in the system of the Canadian Parliament and parliamentary democracy -- that we could actually make a difference as elected members.

I don't expect to get a response from any of them. I might from one or two, who are close colleagues and friends. It obviously didn't make much difference, because they all voted along with the government. But I took the time to write the letter to each of them to ask them to vote that way, because I believe that we really have an obligation to these British Columbians.

I guess maybe what we need to do is pass this motion, although I have to tell you that I am seriously reluctant to. It pays lip service and gives some kind of credibility to a totally incredible situation. Maybe we need to pass this motion and make a vow, make a pledge today to those who hear my voice, to those who may read Hansard , that this fight is not over, that this motion may not bring about what is intended. If it does not, we will fight again, and we will bring this issue up, over and over and over and over again.

We will watch the expenditures of this minister, and we will make sure that this minister and the Ministry of Health never, ever push to the back burner those people who have hepatitis C. And those doctors who deny surgery for people who need it will receive personal phone calls to ask why, because the B.C. health system should not ever deny people the treatment that they need.

[3:30]

Maybe what we do through the debate to pass this motion is renew a commitment to people who are suffering that those of us who care are going to carry this fight forward -- because clearly, this motion won't do it. I'm saddened that the amendment that would have put teeth into what is otherwise a toothless, toothless motion could not go forward.

Hon. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to make my views heard. I don't know . . . . If, by the time this debate is over, I've figured out a way to amend it, maybe we can get another member of this chamber -- perhaps a member from the party opposite -- to do that.

S. Hawkins: I'm very pleased to stand up today and join the debate. I very much supported the amendment that was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition as well -- to compensate all the victims and to make sure that that money actually went to the victims and not into the NDP coffers. I want to say right from the start that the Minister of Health has inherited from the previous Minister of Health a portfolio that is in complete chaos and disarray. Amongst the messes that she inherited is the financial compensation package for hepatitis C victims.

Before I continue, I'd like to put some facts on the record. The Minister of Health said that the opposition had never raised this issue with the government before. Well, you know, it's really obvious that the minister and the government ignore the voices of the people and the letters they receive. About a month ago, we did write a letter to the Premier. The letter, dated April 9 -- and I'm the signatory to the letter -- says:

"Dear Premier,

"I'm extremely disappointed with the decisions your government has made in regards to compensating victims who have contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood. The agreement your Health minister made with the other Health ministers in Canada specifically excludes those infected with the disease before 1986.

"Last week, when you were in Ottawa, you publicly acknowledged this injustice by admitting you were not all that comfortable with the agreement and promised hepatitis C victims, 'We're going to work hard to see what we can do.' Since making those statements, your Health minister has done nothing but damage control, and you have remained silent.

"I find it unconscionable that you would give victims of hepatitis C such a false sense of hope, by telling them that you intent to re-examine the compensation package one day and then remaining silent the next. These patients already have to live with this devastating, terminal disease, without also having to suffer through more of your empty promises.

"Government compensation has already been provided for those who have contracted the AIDS virus through tainted blood, including those infected before 1986. By not offering the same compensation package to hepatitis C victims infected before 1986, you are leaving them no choice but to launch class action suits. This means your government will waste even more taxpayer dollars on court costs, fighting society's most vulnerable.

"I demand you provide some answers to the 400 hepatitis victims in B.C. who are looking for fairness in an agreement which so far has victimized them again.

"I remind you of Justice Krever's recommendation that without delay the provinces and territories devise statutory, no-fault schemes for compensating persons who suffer serious adverse consequences as a result of the administration of blood components or blood products."

We attached Justice Krever's recommendation to that letter.

I put it on the record because obviously the minister has failed to read it, the Premier has failed to give it to the Health minister for her consideration, or they have just ignored it -- like they have ignored the voices of the hepatitis C victims who have been excluded from compensation.

The Minister of Health, as well, stood up and said -- in response to the Leader of the Opposition's question in question period on Premier Harris's announcement today -- that Premier Harris was not going to compensate the victims. It appears that the Minister of Health was misinformed, because we have a news report in front of us -- and I did see the clip of Premier Harris's comments -- and he very clearly says that the province will compensate all victims of tainted blood at an added cost to taxpayers of between $100 million and $200 million. He says: "I think this is the right thing to do.

I think that it's fair, and I think that it fits with the spirit of Krever." He goes on to say: "There are victims out there who can't afford to wait for intergovernmental or legal wrangling to take place, and I think that's what Krever would have wanted to avoid."

There's the Ontario government -- a lot more right-wing than the members opposite . . . . But do you know what? They're listening to Krever. They're doing the right thing, and they're going to compensate all the victims. They're not going to drag them through the court. They're not going to victimize

[ Page 7436 ]

them again. They're not going to put money in a fund to just treat them the way this motion before us says that the members opposite want to. What Ontario says it's going to do is actually compensate the victims and get the money in their pockets.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

We know hepatitis C is a contagious disease caused by exposure to the hepatitis C virus. The virus typically causes inflammation of the liver and impairment of liver function. I remember, as a nurse who cared for these patients in the early eighties, that it was called hepatitis C because there had already been descriptions and identifications of other forms of viral hepatitis called hep A and hep B. Hepatitis A is commonly contracted by the oral route -- you have to eat or drink something. Hepatitis B is commonly contracted by exposure to blood or body fluids.

For years, in the early parts of my nursing days, it was obvious that there was another form of viral hepatitis which existed and frequently followed a few weeks after a blood transfusion. For years we called it non-A, non-B, because we didn't know what to call it. There were no known tests for that virus; they would come up negative.

The testing of blood for the presence of hepatitis C virus commenced, in the Canadian blood system, in June of 1990. Prior to that time, hepatitis C testing was available in other countries, but it wasn't offered in Canada. It's because of this lack of available testing that financial compensation is being offered to patients who received infected blood between January 1, 1986, and July 1, 1990.

The federal Minister of Health announced on March 27 of this year that the federal, provincial and territorial governments had all agreed -- even the government opposite -- to a financial assistance program for Canadians who were infected by hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990. The B.C. Minister of Health agreed to the terms of that package. That compensation package was endorsed by all the members sitting opposite, by their Premier and by their cabinet, including the previous Health minister and the present one. They all agreed to exclude victims of hepatitis C that were infected prior to January 1, 1986.

Perhaps the Health minister didn't really know that patients transfused prior to 1986 were at risk; maybe she didn't know that. Well, that might be one claim, but I think that would be untrue.

The B.C. Ministry of Health conducted a limited look-back, testing from Children's Hospital and Women's Hospital in Vancouver in 1995. They were looking specifically for evidence of HIV infection contracted through the blood system between 1982 and 1985. No HIV patients were identified, but 28 individuals were identified who were carrying the hep C virus at that time. In response to that finding, the ministry appointed a standing industry advisory group on blood issues.

The advisory group advised the ministry in September 1996 to actively solicit people who had received blood transfusions between January 1985 and June 1990, to be tested for hepatitis C. So the Ministry of Health sent out 52,000 letters in April 1997, and by November 1997 well over 1,000 patients had been identified who tested positive for hepatitis C after receiving transfusions in the risk period, 1985 to 1990.

Just to get the record straight, this Ministry of Health was made aware of 28 patients who were infected with hepatitis C by transfusion between 1982 and 1985. A proportion of the 1,000 or so patients infected with hepatitis C between January 1985 and June 1990 would have been infected during 1985. The ministry was aware of these facts in November 1997, long before the federal and provincial Health ministers unanimously agreed to exclude patients infected before 1986. Hon. Speaker, how could anyone knowingly and purposefully set out to exclude tainted blood victims from fair compensation?

They knew they were infected before 1985; their own review showed that. We may hear the argument that no one could have been aware that the blood system was harbouring such an infection. I think if that argument comes forward, it's spurious as well.

I found this note in Cecil's Textbook of Medicine , 1979, Canadian edition: "Immunologic evidence now indicates that the majority of patients who develop acute hepatitis following blood transfusions are infected with an unknown agent. They exhibit no serologic response indicative of hepatitis A or hepatitis B." I would add: " . . . nor any other viruses which could be identified at that time." As long ago as 1960 there were published medical reports suggesting the use of routinely available blood chemistries to screen donated blood for evidence of liver inflammation -- one of the effects of hepatitis.

In 1981, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that the risk of non-A, non-B hepatitis in transfusion recipients correlated to the level of an easily measured liver enzyme in the blood of the donors. This type of measurement was called surrogate testing, where instead of looking for the virus that causes hepatitis C, you would look for the effects of hepatitis C. In 1988 a study was started by three Canadian hospitals to see if surrogate testing would reduce the likelihood of non-A, non-B hepatitis in the Canadian blood system.

That report of the Canadian Post-Transfusion Hepatitis Prevention Study Group -- there was a lot of work going on at that time -- shows conclusively that if banked blood had been tested with readily available surrogate testing, the risk of hepatitis C-infected blood being used would have been reduced fourfold. In other words, three-quarters of those infected by blood products before June 1990 would have been spared the infection had Canada adopted surrogate testing. That testing was available then.

The argument being put forward to exclude the pre-1986 victims of hep C is really spurious. The Ministry of Health knew that patients had been infected before 1986. There was current knowledge prior to 1982 that blood transfusion was frequently associated with an unknown infection, and there was current knowledge available prior to 1982 that a surrogate screening test for the blood -- a simple liver-function test -- was available in virtually any medical laboratory. This is why Justice Krever, after years of review and testimony, recommended the compensation of all transfusion victims of hep C.

My colleagues and I have spoken up in support of innocent victims' rights to fair compensation, because of the negligence of the blood system. We believe that the victims of the tainted blood scandal should not be victimized again.

This government, this Premier and his Health minister have done nothing but confuse the victims and the public regarding this very important issue. At the end of March the Health minister said the provinces and the federal government had reached a final compensation agreement which excluded pre-1986 hepatitis C victims. At the same time that she was waxing eloquent about what a great job they had done in finalizing this agreement, the Premier announced he was uncomfortable with it. Was he asleep at the switch again? Was he not paying attention at the cabinet table?

I would assume that they had discussed this very important issue of compensation at the cabinet table. Why didn't he find his voice and his conscience at that table? Why didn't he find some compassion for those hep C victims at that cabinet meeting before the deal was agreed to by his government? Why didn't he do that?

[ Page 7437 ]

But it gets better. While the Premier was saying that he's now uncomfortable and is promising the victims that he's going to work hard to see what he can do about reviewing the deal, the Health minister denies that anything will be done. For the next week or so after the Premier made those statements, his Health minister did nothing but damage control, and he simply did nothing. I found it unconscionable that he would give those hep C victims such a sense of false hope by telling them he would work to re-examine the compensation package one day and then do absolutely nothing; he remained silent the next day.

The hep C victims already have to live life with a devastating chronic disease, without having to suffer through more empty promises by this government. For the last few weeks we've seen this government and those members flip-flop on where they stand on the issue of fair compensation to the hep C victims. And today, in the motion that's before us, we don't see anything about fair compensation. We don't see anything in that motion that tells us that if they are going to get compensation, it is going to go directly to the victims that need it. The motion is not clear on that issue.

The amendment that the Leader of the Opposition was attempting to introduce made that very clear. The government could have supported it, but they didn't. So we wonder where they stand on that.

[3:45]

A couple of weeks ago, at a rally on the steps of the Legislature, there were about 75 to 100 hep C victims and their families and supporters. We heard the members for Victoria-Hillside and Rossland-Trail promise excluded hep C victims that they would work hard for fair compensation. Inside the Legislature, however, the Health minister was saying that the deal was done. Last week -- and they have been all over the place on this -- those members and their Health minister were flip-flopping again regarding their position on compensation.

Perhaps, when the next members opposite stand up today, we'll have their clear position. I don't think the Health minister made her position clear. What the hep C victims are looking for is fair compensation. They're not looking for the minister to get more money in her health care budget. We don't know if she's actually going to spend it on them. We want to see the members stand up -- those who are going to speak -- and say that they're for fair compensation to hepatitis C victims that are excluded right now, and that the money should go directly to those victims.

We hope that they'll show just a spark of compassion for those victims. This isn't just an issue of responsibility and culpability; it is very much an issue of compassion. This is an issue that involves people like you and me. They find themselves victims today because of something they had absolutely no control over. In fact, for many, the very blood that was supposed to save their lives is now slowly killing them, and they live their lives in a painful nightmare.

Their voices can't all be heard in the Legislature today. But I want to bring some of their voices here today, because they've written me. I've got dozens of letters, phone calls, notes and appeals for us to stand up and make their voices heard. I'd just like to read a letter from Mr. Julius Kaplan, and he's a constituent of mine. He says: "I, Julius Kaplan, had my cardiac surgery May 28, 1984, in Vancouver General Hospital and got hepatitis C through tainted blood. I was so sick that three different times I was on death's bed and am still not so good. So will you please let the government know about it?"

In many cases, these hepatitis C victims have been stripped of their ability to support their families. Many find themselves on social assistance, never even imagining that they could have fallen that far. Not only do many feel that they've lost their quality of life, but they've also felt a loss of dignity. This is what many hepatitis C victims of the tainted blood scandal and their families are facing in their lives today.

I've got another letter from another constituent of mine, Joanne Day. She writes to me:

"In the spring of 1985, when I was 16 years old, I had necessary jaw surgery. My parents consulted several medical experts on my behalf, who all recommended the surgery. Subsequent to the surgery, complications arose and I required a blood transfusion. My parents were concerned about the risks of contaminated blood and did everything in their power to give me their compatible blood, but were not able to due to Red Cross policy. Provincial and federal governments upheld this policy."

"I went on to complete a bachelor of education, married an RCMP officer and have been teaching elementary students.

"The past three and a half years, I have been ill. Last fall I was diagnosed with hepatitis C, attributed to the 1985 transfusion. I have already had to take months of sick leave from the job I love, as I am dealing with severe fatigue and abdominal problems.

"I understand victims who contracted the disease after 1986 will be compensated and those like me will not be . . . . I beg you to do the right thing and vote to treat all victims fairly and equally."

That's what this side of the House believes in; that's what we would like to do.

I have a letter from Darlene Nicolaas, in Vancouver, who says:

"You may ask how this has affected my life. I am an innocent victim of this insidious disease. It has affected not only my life but the lives of my family. I don't believe you fully understand that you are not only dealing with the 'infected' but also the 'affected', and that encompasses my family -- their feelings of stress, pain, suffering and grief related to watching a loved one suffer and their health deteriorate.

"I can no longer work full days with my husband in our small business, partly due to the short-term memory loss and also the fact that most days I have to rest at least two hours in the afternoon, due to the extreme fatigue . . . . "

Lastly, I have a letter from Mrs. Elaine Barry in Quesnel. People all across this province are affected. I'm getting letters from everywhere, and I understand that copies of these letters went to the government as well. They obviously didn't read our letter, but I will make sure that they hear the voices in these letters. Mrs. Barry writes to me and says:

"Living outside major centres offers different ranges of problems. Travel is very difficult, and when you cannot drive to major centres, then you have to look at round-trip flights. You are looking at having to leave your position of employment. Friends and family try to be supportive, but they are all very afraid. In our area, doctors never come and stay, and then you are very worried about the care. The specialists in the major centres say they may have to discontinue seeing you if the testing and information is not followed through, or immediately.

"These people can't be removed from their family and friends to move to these major centres. Their lives and jobs, for as long as they may have them, are in their hometowns. Some of these victims may have never lived anywhere else but in their hometowns . . . .

"My husband contracted hep C in 1985 during life-saving heart valve replacement surgery."

They're all saying the same thing. They're saying they're suffering, they're saying they shouldn't be treated differently from the victims after 1986, they're saying that they're deserv-

[ Page 7438 ]

ing of some compassion, and they're saying that they want us to do the right thing. They want us to say that we are compassionate, that we do care, that we understand a little bit of what they've gone through. Many of these folks, you know, got the blood, and it was no choice of their own to get that blood. That was there to save their lives, and as I said before, the blood that was supposed to save their lives is killing them.

Someone was responsible, whether we're responsible in 1982, 1986 or 1990. There's a fine line drawn there. It is not just an issue of responsibility and culpability. I've said that before. It is an issue of compassion, and the compensation deal struck by the federal and provincial governments was based on the issue of culpability. None of the ministers cared to address the issue of compassion -- not one of them. I believe that as legislators we have a responsibility to ensure that the decisions we are making are fair.

There are many voices speaking up now. They're saying that the compensation agreement is not fair. Opposition to this compensation agreement is being raised in legislatures across this country by all political parties. I've personally received dozens of letters and calls from hepatitis C victims who are desperately seeking help. I have met many, many victims who are fighting for fair compensation. My colleagues and I have spoken to many victims who wanted to be here in the Legislature today, but they just couldn't because it was financially, emotionally and physically hard for them to be here.

My colleagues and I can take pride that we've chosen to have compassion. Our societies charge governments with the responsibility to meet the medical care and treatment needs of patients in a caring and compassionate manner, and I've always believed that caring and compassion is what health care is all about.

The role of compensation and assistance packages for victims of preventable transfusion-related diseases is about compassion. It's not the role of any government to take vulnerable people and make their situations worse, but this is precisely what we saw governments in Canada do on March 27, 1998. On that day, governments collectively did wrong. As legislators, we need to do better. We must do better. We owe at least that much to those who have been victimized by what was once a negligent system and who now continue to live their lives courageously and productively.

I call upon members opposite to make their position clear. I call on all the members opposite to help provide comfort and compassion to the hep C victims of the tainted blood scandal. We need a commitment from this government that any compensation package or funds received for hepatitis victims will be paid directly to the victims, and we don't have that commitment right now. We don't have it from this Health minister; we don't have it from this motion; we don't have it from this Premier; we don't have it from any member so far on the government benches opposite.

In that regard, I'd like to move the following amendment to the motion:

[Be it resolved that as British Columbia will spend more than $550 million providing health care services to people who contracted the Hepatitis C virus through the blood system, the Legislative Assembly urges the federal government to develop a plan to address and fund compensation of those British Columbians who contracted Hepatitis C through tainted blood prior to 1986 and that those funds be paid directly to the victims.]

I can't say it in the amendment, but I want to say that this government should show leadership. British Columbians want the victims compensated. This government needs to tell the people of this province that it will do the right thing. We expect them to do the right thing, and we hope they will do the right thing.

E. Conroy: This is an issue which, for me, has been fraught with difficulty. Maybe I'll begin by explaining to you what it's like to have hepatitis C and some of the symptoms of the disease. On a personal note, I've very likely had the disease for about 25 years now. I was one of the ones that contributed to the problem we're discussing today, because I always felt it was my civic duty to donate blood. Unbeknownst to me, for many years I was donating blood that was contaminated with hepatitis C because I had no idea that I had the disease.

Symptoms of hepatitis C start very, very slowly. You don't notice them right away at first. You just seem to be getting a little drowsy. The couch became like a magnet for me. Every time I'd walk by the couch, it would just kind of lure me in, and I'd just try and seek some comfort from it. After you start to go through the drowsy period, all of a sudden things don't quite make as much sense to you as they did before. As the previous speaker mentioned, short-term memory loss comes into the picture.

The old neurons in your brain are firing through a cloudy substance, and they don't make connections like they normally do. As a result of that, it's very difficult in terms of keeping your short-term memory intact.

Following the short-term memory loss come periods of maybe more protracted fatigue -- listlessness. With that comes a sense of disorientation. The loss of one's ability to operate a motor vehicle follows quite quickly after that. Soon you're in a situation where you suffer sleep reversal. You're awake when you would normally be asleep and vice versa. Your whole pattern goes out of whack, and it's very, very difficult to function. Hence the problem that a lot of hepatitis C sufferers have whereby they lose the ability to work.

I've personally seen situations where productive members of our society who enjoyed the amenities that many of us enjoy have gone from a position of being there to a position of being on social assistance, simply because they lost their ability to work and they lost their ability to function. In conjunction with your loss of ability to function comes pressure on your family and friends, because when you can't function, you need assistance.

So the whole thing kind of comes around full circle to the point where a real productive member of society, in their mind -- and maybe in their actions -- becomes a burden on society, as it may be described.

For myself . . . . I went even farther than that. Five months ago I was in a situation where the disease had taken me virtually to the point of death. I was fortunate at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute that a liver became available, and I was able to survive. But had I gone another week without the availability of a transplant, I wouldn't be in this chamber talking to you today, because the medical people felt there was no point putting a good liver into somebody who was going to croak. And that's exactly the situation I was in. So I feel very, very fortunate to be here.

[4:00]

I could go on for hours talking about the impact of the disease on me and also on my family. In particular, it's very, very, very difficult for one's family. It's had the . . . . Again, from personal experience, I've seen it tear families apart. The social problems that are caused as a result of this disease . . . . I think the historical record is going to tell the tale of that.

After you get to the point -- just to digress a little bit -- where you've lost your ability to drive and to function in

[ Page 7439 ]

society, along with that goes the horrible trauma of feeling that everything you've worked for and worked toward all your life is gone. For example, I'm in a situation now where -- I say it kind of jokingly -- I'm one of the few people I know that's worth more alive than dead. The reason for that is because I can't buy mortgage insurance; I can't buy life insurance.

If I were to expire within the next year, which could be a definite possibility, I'm really concerned and somewhat fearful of the position my family would be in, simply because I just don't have the ability at this particular point in my life to make sure that they have the proper foundation to protect them in the event that I'm not here, because I have a disease called hepatitis C.

What do we do about this? This is the part that I've been struggling with for maybe the last three or four weeks in particular, because since I got my transplant in November, I've been concentrating mainly on situations around organ donation and trying to enhance the availability of organs within British Columbia, to make sure that some of the victims of diseases like hepatitis C are going to live long enough to collect compensation, should they ever be allowed to have it. So it's only been in the last five weeks or so that I've really been forced into putting my mind to what should happen. I've been wrestling with this a lot.

I guess, because I'm a victim . . . . Let me go back a bit. I think it would be easy for me, as a legislator and as somebody who's had two liver transplants as a result of hepatitis C, to stand up here at this desk, bang my desk and scream for compensation. I could probably be a national spokesperson for folks with hepatitis C, if I were to do that. But I can't quite do that, because I'm not quite sure what the answer is.

I've read a lot of scientific information in the last while to try and answer this question. But in reading all the scientific information and in discussions with people on all sides of this argument, I've got to the point now where I've taken the scientific information and chucked it, because I don't think this is necessarily about scientific information.

It's like what many of the members who've already spoken have said: I think this is about compassion. How do we find that compassion to deal with these people who haven't been dealt with, in the pre-1986 hepatitis C problem? I'd like to stand here and say that the provincial government is going to fix it, that it's going to do what I think everybody out there considers to be the right thing and that it's going to compensate those victims. But it is about money; there's no doubt about that in my mind. It's about money. As a provincial government, we're in a situation right now where it would be very difficult to be compassionate around the issue of money. So how do we do it?

I guess where I'm at right now -- and I may not be here next week -- is that I have to look to the federal government. I think the federal government has to be brought back into this debate; they have to be forced back into this debate by the provinces. I know they've said no; I know they've said it resoundingly. We all know, from reading the newspapers last week, what happened around the vote in the federal Parliament about the situation around hepatitis C and the firmness of the federal government in terms of their position on hepatitis C.

But somehow we -- the provinces -- have to break that resolve that they have. We have to force them to come back to the table so we can sit down and discuss this issue again. It has to come up again in the legislatures of this country, because we have people out there who went into our hospitals to find a cure and came out, in essence, sicker than they were when they went in, through no fault of their own. There's something not right about that. There's something that just doesn't ring true.

Yes, we are looking after these people through our medical system, through our social services systems -- all of those kinds of things -- but we're talking about broken lives and broken people. When we can find the compassion as Canadians to deal with situations like the floods in Manitoba or ice storms in Quebec, surely to goodness we can find some compassion to deal with human beings in this country.

As provincial governments, we have to somehow reach down and communicate to the federal government -- to force the federal government back to the table so that we can discuss how we're going to deal with this problem as rational human beings.

I'd just like to caution the member for Okanagan West. She mentioned the Ontario model. I haven't had an opportunity yet to discuss the Ontario model with any of my colleagues on a personal basis or to read about it. Certainly, if there's something there, we have to have a look at that and see if that can be a framework for some kind of settlement of this situation.

But I think that just like members opposite are cautious about the legislation that's coming forth from our government, maybe the members in this Legislature should be somewhat cautious about the legislation that's coming forth from the government of Ontario. Certainly we should be investigating that and dealing with that as much as we possibly can, but we have to get back together at the table with the federal government.

On a personal note, I'd certainly welcome from members opposite any communication at all whereby I might be able to deliver some messages. As I say, as a legislator and a person with hepatitis C -- a person who's gone through two liver transplants -- I feel that maybe I could play a very, very major role in dealing with this issue. But we have to get together in this Legislature and decide exactly what that role is going to be.

So I would encourage everybody on the opposite side of the House and my colleagues as well: if we could sit down and discuss this issue, not from a political point of view, not from the point of view of trying to make political points or any of that kind of stuff, but from the point of view of putting our heads together and sitting down and coming up with a unified approach that we can move forward with and try and get this thing done, try and get it solved . . . . Right now it just seems to me that we're just playing politics with it too much, and this is something that should be above politics.

I would hope that we can all get together here and really try and find a way to solve this.

I'd just like to conclude by thanking everybody on all sides of this House who've spoken out for people with hepatitis C. The horror stories you hear about the disease are true. It's ruined lives and families; it's truly a devastating situation. The impact is only coming . . . . When I had my transplant in November, there were four other people on the floor where I was who had recently been transplanted, and three out of those four people were hepatitis C victims.

So when I said earlier that I was focusing my main efforts, up until the last few weeks when compensation has become an issue, on trying to make sure that organs were more readily available -- just to keep some of these people alive so they can live long enough maybe to see their lives turn around and to see some hope and betterment in their lives . . . .

Again, I just want to stress to everyone over there: let's try and work this out in a manner that's above politics. Let's try and work this out in a manner that truly is going to go out there and help those hepatitis C victims.

[ Page 7440 ]

Deputy Speaker: Before we continue, having examined the amendment from the member for Okanagan West, the Chair finds the motion in order, and we will now be having debate on the amendment.

On the amendment.

G. Campbell: I appreciate the comments of the member opposite, and I want the member and the government to know that this amendment is offered specifically in the spirit that the member pointed out. It is critical, I believe, that we send a clear and unequivocal message that the resources we are asking the federal government to find are resources for individuals and their families, not for government-to-government negotiations. I couldn't agree more when the member says that we should not be playing politics with this.

We should be putting that aside and saying: how do we solve the problems that are being faced by victims of hepatitis C who contracted it prior to 1986? That is the question that we must ask ourselves as representatives of our constituencies from across the province.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker -- and I say it without hesitation -- that the people in my constituency and the people of this province would like people with hepatitis C to be given the care and the support they need as individuals. This motion suggests that funds be paid directly to the victims of hepatitis C. We don't want money to disappear into government coffers; we don't want money to disappear and be frittered into other programs.

We would like these resources to go to one specified targeted group: the victims of hepatitis C prior to 1986 -- to make sure that those people are treated fairly and equitably, that their families have the kind of assistance that is required and that this is done in as fair and equitable a manner as possible.

I would encourage the House -- I would encourage the government -- to support this amendment. It is made in the spirit of helping individuals, it is made in the spirit of helping their families and helping their friends, and it is made in the spirit of compassion that I believe Canadians have always embraced and that we should embrace in this House. It is made in the spirit of leadership that says to the federal government: "Take the leadership. Care for these individuals. Care for their families. Assure that when we talk of a health care system, we're talking about a health care system for all of us in the country."

I urge the members opposite to support the amendment. It is made in the spirit of finding a solution, it is made in the spirit of compassion, and I believe it is worthy of the House's support and all the members' support, as we move forward.

[4:15]

A. Sanders: I rise to speak to Motion 46, in favour of the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Okanagan West.

My family and I consider it to be by the grace of God that I am able to address the hepatitis C debate as a legislator and not as a victim. When my daughter was born in 1990, I had seriously low hemoglobin -- profound anemia. It was too low to look after her properly and to look after myself, and too low to have the energy to care for her needs, for the needs of my three-year-old son and for my family. It was too low to hope that nutritional support -- the addition of iron in the diet and so on -- would go far enough to make me well again post-pregnancy.

As a medical care provider, I knew that a transfusion was a sensible solution. I knew that in order to move forward, to be the best I could with my newborn child, a transfusion was in order.

But I was also a health care giver who had been profoundly affected by the tragedies that had befallen my patients over a number of years who had been recipients of blood products: the hemophiliac youth who was HIV-positive from blood products and dead by 23; the post-bypass grandparent who contracted AIDS from an interoperative transfusion; the victims that I now cared for in my general practice who had HIV or AIDS to complicate their lives, when they had done nothing more than have surgery and have postoperative or interoperative blood transfusion.

I was told that my fears were irrational, that now screening procedures were in place, that the Red Cross and our federal government would be doing the screening necessary to make sure that diseases were not present. This wasn't some for-profit organization, but I still had a fear, and the fear was as large as fear itself. I decided at that point -- regardless of the fact that we had good screening mechanisms in place to ensure that people would no longer get diseases such as AIDS from blood transfusion -- that I would not have a blood transfusion under any circumstances.

I had all the knowledge but not all the information. I had all the reasoning skills but not all the politics. I had all the rational arguments and medical training in favour of transfusion but chose not to have this procedure, because intuition told me at that time in 1990 that it was the wrong thing to do. So I stand here today hepatitis-free, specifically hepatitis C-free. I derive little comfort from the fact that I am one of the potential victims government would deem deserving of compensation, one of those potential people who would have contracted hepatitis C after 1986.

There is no compensation good enough to tell me that I have less chance as a hepatitis C victim to work and make future plans and goals; or less time to spend -- because of the disease that I have contracted -- with my family; or that I could infect my family by the unintentional shared use of a tooth brush, dental floss, manicure scissors or a razor -- this is something that hepatitis C victims live with. These are actual day-to-day circumstances we think about when we have small children at home and in which these people fear they will give contaminated blood to the people they love the most.

Not only does this disease damage individuals, it damages families. People with hepatitis C live in fear every single day that they will inadvertently transfer their disease to their uninfected families, and that fear is greater than most of us can ever imagine.

I can't imagine being a person with hepatitis C and living my life complicated by liver failure; memory loss, as the hon. member from Trail mentioned; premature death; and if that, at best, was not the case, skin rashes, thyroid disease as a result of hepatitis C, other kinds of blood abnormalities and perhaps even kidney failure -- all because I had a blood product approved and condoned for use by the government that is here to look after my best interests as a citizen of Canada.

I had a young man in 1992 who was dying from hepatitis C. He had contracted the disease prior to 1986, and at that time he was on interferon therapy as a last resort to try and buy him some time from his demise from hepatitis C. He was hospitalized and then released on a Thursday evening. He went home, on his interferon medication, played cards with his wife and four children in the family home -- where he had not been for two weeks -- then went outside to the garage and shot himself. One of the things that many people don't understand about one of the very few so-called treatments we have for hepatitis C -- other than a liver transplant -- is

[ Page 7441 ]

that interferon, unfortunately, has some very nasty side effects. Severe depression, psychosis and suicidal ideation are some of the side effects that are not uncommon with interferon therapy.

As I can tell you for this gentleman, who has left behind four children and a wife -- all of whom have been on social assistance since he contracted hepatitis C -- the side effects of what we call the cure, part of the medical package to reimburse people with this disease . . . . It's just not enough. Who is here to speak for him? Who is here to speak for any of those infected before 1986?

Who is here to make what is wrong right, in a situation no different, in my mind, from those women who used thalidomide during pregnancy to ward off nausea and vomiting and pregnancy-induced sickness and ended up with children with severe birth deformities? Why are these people before 1986 any different from those families, those women, those adults who lived through thalidomide?

I'm here and I will speak for them all -- as a potential victim, from personal history; as a parent; as a health caregiver; as a legislator. We must send a clear message that the province of British Columbia stands up for all hepatitis C victims and will not revictimize those who contracted the disease before 1986. We had the ability to test them; we chose not to. The resources are for victims of hepatitis C and the families of those victims. They are not to go into government coffers but directly to those families and victims.

Public confidence in this province -- in this country -- in health services depends on this action. Public confidence in government absolutely insists on it.

G. Wilson: My comments will be brief. I stand to support the amendment and to make two very brief comments. I'm confident that this amendment greatly strengthens the motion that is before this Legislative Assembly. It does include the word "compensation," which I think is essential, recognizing that British Columbia has the obligation to administer and deliver health care and that the federal government has the obligation and fiduciary responsibility to adequately fund it.

Secondly, it seems to me that this greatly improves the motion, because it calls for those funds to be paid to victims. I would say that there must be an understanding -- and I think that this would be in the spirit of this motion and needs to be on the record -- that when we talk about "directly to the victims," it must be recognized that such direct compensation must not be used in a manner that would somehow penalize those people who are currently on income assistance and for whom additional revenue or income may be seen as a detriment.

If these funds are to be applied, they are to be applied without penalty and without loss to anybody who may currently be forced into a position of receiving income assistance from the government.

I'm pleased that this motion is in order. I certainly support it, and I would hope that all Members of the Legislative Assembly will support the motion as it is now amended.

S. Orcherton: I'm somewhat confused here. I'm not sure what the amendment does, in fact, to change the intent of the motion. I see that we're striking out the words "the needs," and substituting "compensation," and carrying on after "1986" and saying: "and that those funds be paid directly to the victims."

There's been some talk and some discussion and some debate in this House about the politics of this issue. I know that my colleague from Rossland-Trail was up, expressing some concern around the politics of this situation. Unfortunately, this is a political situation. It is one not necessarily of the making of the members of this House, but certainly it is, in my view, a national issue -- in terms of the national politics, in terms of the federal government.

So I'm not really sure what the intent of this amendment is. My sense in hearing the minister speak earlier was that in fact the motion would allow us to move forward and argue vociferously on behalf of British Columbians, particularly those who've contracted hepatitis C, that there should be national programs in place to deal with the needs of those individuals -- national programs such as a national drug policy program, where pharmaceutical costs could be underwritten by the federal government. Right now, those costs for folks are very high.

Other provinces don't have the same kinds of pharmaceutical programs that we have in place in British Columbia and don't have the same benefit that can be applied to individuals who need large amounts of very costly drugs.

In terms of meeting the needs of the people who have contracted hepatitis C, I think that a national drug program is something very positive to strive towards. I fail to see how we could possibly say, in terms of this amendment, that those funds be paid directly to victims. If we have a national drug program to help the folks with hepatitis C, then certainly we wouldn't be paying the money for the drugs directly to the victims; we'd be working in concert with the federal government and other provincial governments to put in place a national drug program that meets the needs of people who've contracted hepatitis C.

The minister also said earlier that we should be moving towards a home care program for individuals with hepatitis C. I agree: we could have a national program in place. In my view, these are very, very positive arguments -- not only just on the hepatitis C issue, but in terms of a compassionate nation. I think we all want Canada to be a more compassionate nation. A homemaker program, where individuals can come in to help people who contracted hepatitis C and aid them in their daily living, which is very, very difficult when people have hepatitis C . . . .

To have that kind of a program funded nationally, to pay for workers to come into an individual's home . . . . I don't see how we could do that by having those funds being paid directly to victims. I don't see how that would be workable, and I think we'd be putting in place a whole level of bureaucracy that is really not necessary, required or being asked for by anyone that I've spoken to on this issue.

[4:30]

The minister talked earlier -- and again I agree -- that there should be a national disability pension program in place. We talk about politics, and certainly over recent times the federal Liberal government has, in my view, been moving very stridently towards dismantling the Canada Pension Plan system, which has disability provisions in it. I think we should be moving towards a disability plan system for people with hepatitis C.

We should be moving towards that kind of a program and arguing very stridently on behalf of that kind of initiative -- not only just for a disability pension to allow people to live with some sense of dignity after they've contracted this horrible disease but for a disability program that actually has survivors' benefits in it.

I've talked to many, many people who have hepatitis C. A number of them are in the gallery today, and a number were out in front of the Legislature today talking about this issue with me and other colleagues from the assembly. One thing

[ Page 7442 ]

that they felt very, very strongly about is that they've contracted hepatitis C and they can't get life insurance. Is there not a proper way to proceed to make sure that they're protected and that their families are protected? We should be arguing with the federal jurisdiction to put in a national disability pension plan, one that has death benefits and survivor benefits in it for people who have contracted hepatitis C in Canada. That's what we should be arguing for, and I think that's what the original motion argues for.

As I said earlier, I don't see how this amendment adds to what the original motion was. I think we have to really put aside politics on this issue. There are a whole variety of things that need to occur in terms of providing support for people with hepatitis C. You know, we really have to move. I would hope that once we get through this amendment business here, we can move and have a unanimous decision to support the motion.

I think that what we're really talking about is a lot of process, that we all have the same intent in terms of trying to provide support for people with hepatitis C, but we're talking about a process. My view is that we should be continuing to lobby the federal government for those three issues. This is a national tragedy that's occurred in our country. I believe it very clearly needs and requires a national solution -- not a solution from British Columbia or one from Ontario or one from Quebec but a national solution.

If we don't move to find that national solution, I think we're going to really have a continuation of a national tragedy that's been inflicted upon so many people in British Columbia.

I think I'll leave it at that. I'm in somewhat of a quandary. I don't know how this amendment really adds to the intent of the motion. I don't know whether the members opposite are talking about moving to some kind of voucher system if you get hepatitis C -- or really what's happening here. I do know, however, that we do have to move to what I call and categorize as a national solution to this issue.

There is no question in my mind that we have to provide the support necessary to people who have hepatitis C -- those people who went into the hospital and received tainted blood. Those people went into the hospital because they were sick. Frankly, they came out sicker -- potentially with a death sentence. People talk about the legal side of this issue, and I guess the courts will rule how the courts will rule, but I think as a country and as a province we really have to look at the moral side of this issue. We have to develop programs that deal with our moral and ethical responsibilities to these people both as a government of British Columbia and as other governments -- and the federa