* (1700)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos),

"WHEREAS the victims of contaminated blood and their families have suffered, and continue to suffer, human tragedy, pain, and a variety of losses as a result of the use of blood or blood products; and

"WHEREAS the Provincial Government has a responsibility to reduce the repercussions of the tragedy, implement compassionate social policy, and adopt a leadership position nationally; and

"WHEREAS the dates – January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1991 – adopted by Federal Health Minister Alan Rock as the time frame for compensation to victims of Hepatitis C acquired as a result of contaminated blood or blood products are, Mr. Rock's position to the contrary, both artificial and arbitrary since tests to detect Hepatitis C were available and were used in other jurisdictions long before 1986; and

"WHEREAS the Provincial Government supports this artificial and arbitrary time frame; and

"WHEREAS the Canadian Blood Committee, of which Manitoba was an active member, made a decision in Winnipeg on May 19, 1989 to destroy all records of its 1982 to 1989 meetings, so eradicating critical information, and possibly incriminating evidence, on its positions on, decisions about, and knowledge of contaminated blood and its victims; and

"WHEREAS Justice Horace Krever in the final Report of The Inquiry into the Canadian Blood System both recognizes and identifies the many responsibilities of provincial Governments in the contaminated blood scandal; and

"WHEREAS the first recommendation of Justice Krever's report states, "It is recommended 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,"; and

"WHEREAS both the Ontario and Quebec Provincial Governments have recognized their responsibilities in these matters, but the Manitoba Government has failed to do so.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to consider adopting a no-fault compensation plan which would cover all victims of Hepatitis C, infected as a result of receiving contaminated blood or blood products; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Provincial Government to consider developing this plan so that primary and secondary victims are included, without compromising other social benefits; access to care and equitable benefits are established according to the severity of the disease; and individuals and groups representing victims are fully consulted; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Provincial Government to take full advantage of all funding offered by the Federal Government, including any funds designated for the direct care and treatment of victims of Hepatitis C."

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address this resolution today. Not only have I dealt with the issue of hepatitis C many times before in this House, but it certainly is an issue that I hold near and dear to my heart, having become a friend of many of the persons who are living with hepatitis C and having become an acquaintance of many, well, of a few of those people who do not qualify for the compensation package.

I am familiar with the pain and with the grief and with the destitution and poverty that characterize their lives, so I am happy to put this resolution before the House, and I certainly hope that we will have the opportunity to pass this resolution today, Madam Speaker.

I think the resolution itself puts the case very succinctly. It addresses the issue of the arbitrary time frame, and I will come back to that. It addresses the eradication of critical information, information which was destroyed by the Canadian Blood Committee. In fact, the decision was taken at a meeting held in our city. The resolution points out Justice Horace Krever's report, his report entitled The Inquiry into the Canadian Blood System, and it also points out his recognition of government responsibility in cases of contaminated blood. As well, the resolution indicates that Ontario and Quebec, have or will, are pledged to extend the compensation package, unlike Manitoba. I suppose I should add, unlike many other jurisdictions in Canada, to their shame.

This resolution resolves that the Manitoba government, this government consider extending compensation to cover all victims of hepatitis C. The resolution refers, of course, to those who were infected as a result of contaminated blood or blood products. There are many victims of hepatitis C who were not infected this way, and I do not think we need to go into a discussion of the various ways in which people can acquire hepatitis C. This resolution directs its attention to those individuals who were infected with hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood or blood product.

The point that I am making here, Madam Speaker, is that the resolution presents logical arguments which outline government respon-sibility to its citizens, but, on the other hand, I think it is clear, and I would like to say here and on the record, the most important reasons for extending compensation to people with hepatitis C, again acquired through contaminated blood, are not legalistic, but rather they are moral. We should extend compensation on compassionate grounds, because it is the right thing to do. Most Canadians believe it is the right thing to do, and most Manitobans believe it is the right thing to do.

* (1710)

Compensation for all is sound for a whole host of reasons: first of all, it is medically sound; secondly, it is legally compelling; thirdly, compensation was necessitated by government failure. It is a financially sound decision. To extend compensation would not be a threat to medicare, as the previous Minister of Health was fond of saying during our debates in Estimates and in Question Period last spring, when this was an issue in the news every day. Extending compensation would not set a precedent. Quite clearly, it is a socially just thing to do, and I would like to add again, it was endorsed by Justice Horace Krever in his very lengthy report.

Let me add to these reasons. I want to address the issue of compensation and the fact that it is not a threat to medicare. Again, I want to address it because the members opposite, particularly the Minister of Health, were very fond of saying it was a threat to health care. He raised this bugaboo ad nauseam in Estimates and in the House, but this kind of compensation is an emergency one-time budget item. It will not bankrupt this government; it will not bankrupt the federal government to extend compensation.

The numbers of individuals who were infected before 1986 in Manitoba are extremely small, so the compensation amount is likely to be small. I was speaking to people in the community today, and they figured that, if the number was a hundred, that was probably high and it is much more likely to be less. Most people who were infected with hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood before 1986 are no longer alive. They are no longer alive because they probably died from the disease that necessitated their transfusion in the first place. Those individuals who are alive probably received their contaminated blood because of surgery, so they were transfused in that way.

You know, I think it is very interesting that Ontario is willing to extend compensation. I am told that recently Ontario offered a preliminary package of $10,000 to each person who fell outside the January 1, 1986, to December 31, 1991 window, and the Ontario government set aside $100 million for this initial package. Reports are, Madam Speaker, that the pot was barely touched. Again, one of the reasons is that many of those individuals infected with hepatitis C before 1986 have already died from the disease that necessitated their transfusion, so clearly if these individuals are dead, they do not qualify for compensation.

Awarding compensation to all those infected who acquired hepatitis C, again, as a result of contaminated blood, Madam Speaker, would not be a precedent-setting compensatory decision. The Minister of Health previously argued last year. Some of us might remember, he was very zealous to deny compensation. He previously argued that such a compensation package, extending compensation without regard to the dates, would open the floodgates, he said, and it would drown us all in litigation, so it was claimed. Of course, his logic was, and continues to be, faulty. Compensation on blood injury does not open the floodgates to compensation for all kinds of medical mishap.

Here I want to underline blood injury and medical mishap. Medical mishaps are usually covered by private insurance. I want to note that a blood injury is a regulatory and industrial failure. It is not a medical misadventure. It is not the doctor who ordered the blood transfusion who is responsible, but the bodies who are responsible for the blood in the first place. So it does not open the floodgates to all kinds of medical misadventures, litigation. The minister was wrong last year and is wrong this year.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the federal government has already set some kind of precedent, if we want to talk about precedents for compensation for citizens harmed by the regulatory and manufacturing failures, that is, who received blood borne diseases. I am referring to the case of those who acquired HIV through contaminated blood. There is a com-pensation package. This province has sanc-tioned a compensation package for those who received HIV as a result of blood borne disease, so it has happened before. I do not know why it could not happen in this particular emergency.

I want to indicate as well that in these cases past compensation was not dependent on time, Madam Speaker. All individuals affected with HIV as a result of contaminated blood were compensated even before the time HIV testing was available, and yet this government wants to deny compensation to those people who were infected before 1986 on the grounds, and they are very flimsy grounds, because it is a very arguable and arbitrary point, but they want to deny compensation on the grounds that no testing was available, and, therefore, they are not responsible for individuals acquiring hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood.

I want to add here, Madam Speaker, that Dr. Michelle Brille-Edwards, who is an expert on hepatitis C and on blood borne illnesses, writes, and I want to quote her if I might: The governments repeatedly portray the situation falsely, pretending that there was a brand-new hepatitis test in 1986, used promptly in the U.S. and not used in Canada. This is done to create the illusion that the government's liability began only in 1986. The facts of the matter are vastly different. The test in question was an old test called ALT developed in 1958. ALT has been in everyday clinical laboratory uses since the 1960s to gauge liver function. People with hepatitis have abnormally high level test results, so can people with other diseases.

She goes on, and I would certainly like to continue quoting her, but I realize that my time is short. The point is, Madam Speaker, that according to this expert we knew all along that infectious hepatitis was transferred and was transferable through blood transfusions. The federal Liberals are certainly culpable, extremely culpable in this matter. They are the ones who set the abysmally low standard.

Anyway, this government, along with the federal Liberals, refuses to extend compensation, although many medical authorities say, and blood experts say, that they knew all along that hepatitis could be transferred through blood.

* (1720)

Madam Speaker, I wanted to spend some time tracing out the history of the hepatitis C compensation issue. I see time is not on my side, so I will not do this. But I do want to say that I have made the point that the Liberal position was quite abysmal. I do want to say that the work that we have done in this House, that the opposition has done in this House, has not been well received. Every motion we have moved, every suggestion we have made, every choice we have offered, every alternative we put forward–and members opposite are always asking for ideas. We have given idea after idea after idea, and they have all been rejected.

The former Minister of Health was adamant in rejecting any idea of extending compensation. Now we have a new Health minister, and I think it is interesting that we do. I think it is to his advantage that he has the opportunity today to set the record straight, to do what Manitobans want. Madam Speaker, 85 percent of Manitobans do want compensation to be extended, so I think he is very fortunate that he has the opportunity today to vote in favour of this resolution, to do the right thing, to do the moral thing, to do the compassionate thing, to do the caring thing, to set a standard in leadership for some of the other provinces which have not yet come on board.

So I ask the minister to consider today supporting this resolution. Now I am not that hopeful, because it was just a week ago when we asked the minister a series of questions, and I must confess that I was quite disappointed in his responses to the hepatitis questions as last week.

For example, he could not explain why people living with hepatitis C had to wait about a year for an appointment. He could not explain why one victim was left in the hallway. The only kind of medical attention that person could get was hallway medicine. He refused to follow the example of the province of Quebec and access Manitoba's share of the federal govern-ment's $300-million transfer and use this fund to extend compensation, but he has one chance to change his mind–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honour-able member's time has expired.

Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I am pleased to rise today in response to the private member's resolution on hepatitis C. Madam Speaker, allow me to begin my remarks this afternoon by expressing once again our govern-ment's regret that the victims of contaminated blood and their families have had to endure their suffering and loss.

Today we can only take steps to prevent a reoccurrence and to respond to the circumstances of those who have already been negatively affected. In addressing this resolution today, I want to begin by speaking to the events that gave rise to the situation. Then I intend to outline what actions our government is taking to prevent similar circumstances from happening again and to provide assistance to those who have been affected by this tragedy.

Madam Speaker, direct testing for the presence of the hepatitis C virus was fully implemented in Canada by June 30, 1990. All blood donors have been screened for hepatitis C from mid-1992 with a highly sensitive test by the Canadian Red Cross Society and more recently by the Canadian Blood Services.

The federal and provincial governments are negotiating an assistance package for individuals who were infected by the blood system between 1986 and 1990. The federal-provincial govern-ments are proposing to provide finances for health services, not direct financial assistance for those individuals pre-1986 and post-1990 who were infected with hepatitis C.

This is based on the findings of the Krever inquiry, and because no direct tests were available prior to 1986, as well as the fact that the U.S.A. only adopted surrogate tests in 1986. In late 1997, the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of Health determined that the Canadian Red Cross Society or CRCS Blood Services would be transferred to a new blood agency, the Canadian Blood Services, otherwise known as CBS.

In addition, the role of the Canadian Blood Agency was also integrated into Canadian Blood Services. The work of the transition team was complete by the end of September 1998, and the executive management team was fully in place by October 1998. The Krever inquiry recom-mended that the Canadian blood supply system should be governed by five basic principles. The first principle, blood is a public resource; Principle No. 2: Donors of blood and plasma should not be paid for their donations, except in rare circumstances; Principle No. 3: Whole blood, plasma and platelets must be collected in sufficient quantities in Canada to meet domestic needs for blood components and blood products; Principle No. 4: Canadians should have free and universal access to blood products and blood components; and Principle No. 5: Safety of the blood supply system is paramount.

With these basic but fundamental principles and values in mind, the mission of CBS was developed. This mission statement, which is fully endorsed and supported by Manitoba, is that the Canadian Blood Services provides a safe, secure, reliable and cost-effective supply of blood, blood products and their alternatives, and is committed to operating Canada's independent national blood supply system in a manner that nurtures the trust, commitment and confidence of all Canadians.

I would like now to discuss health initiatives in Manitoba because this is an issue that we do take very seriously, and I as a nurse am very aware of hepatitis C and its effects. The first health initiative that I would like to talk about is that hepatitis C is now reportable in Manitoba. Justice Krever, in the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada, has recommended that hepatitis C be reportable and that physicians comply with reporting this infection. As of January 1998, hepatitis C is now reportable in Manitoba under regulations of The Public Health Act. Once diagnosed, this will enable those so infected with the hepatitis C virus to receive early consultation, treatment and care.

The second initiative deals with surveillance for hepatitis. The Laboratory Centre for Disease Control or LCDC of Health Canada is formulating an action plan to develop sentinel surveillance sites for comprehensive integrated surveillance of hepatitis in Canada. Winnipeg is one of a few centres in Canada that can offer integrated public health and clinical surveillance. Manitoba is actively pursuing with the federal government the idea of having Winnipeg as one of these sentinel sites. If successful, this initiative would enhance services provided to hepatitis patients throughout Manitoba.

A third health initiative in Manitoba involves the viral hepatitis investigation unit. Manitoba Health will continue to work with the Winnipeg Hospital Authority and the Winnipeg Community and Long Term Care Authority and the viral hepatitis investigation unit to develop a comprehensive care model for hepatitis C, inclusive of hepatologist training. This could result in additional hepatitis clinics at the Health Sciences Centre and/or additional community-based nurses in the Winnipeg Community and Long Term Care Authority to determine risk factors, monitor cases, counsel and provide education to minimize liver damage.

The fourth health initiative in Manitoba includes discussion on an additional hepatologist. It is expected that additional hepatology expertise will be required to manage the increasing number of cases with increasingly sophisticated antiviral drugs. Manitoba Health has recently approved funding of $150,000 for an additional hepatologist, a physician specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis. There is currently a shortage of hepatologists in Canada. Consequently, recruit-ment may be difficult, but our commitment remains, and the government will work with the WHA in acquiring these medical resources.

* (1730)

The fifth health care initiative in Manitoba involves enhanced pharmacological treatment. New drug treatment regimes will continue to be introduced for patients with the hepatitis C virus. Manitoba, through the Drug Standards and Therapeutics Committee, will continue to monitor the availability, effectiveness, and appropriateness for coverage under Pharmacare.

I will now address the issue of financial assistance, compensation and the settlement of January 1, 1986, to July 1, 1990, claims. On March 27, 1998, federal-provincial-territorial ministers of Health announced a $1.1-billion fund to provide financial assistance to Canadians infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system between January 1, 1986, and July 1, 1990.

This package also included assistance for individuals who were infected by a partner or parent who was infected during this period. Applicants must demonstrate that they are HCV infected or hepatitis C virus infected. They must then show that they were transfused or received blood products during the period January 1, 1986, and July 1, 1990, and that they have no previous history of intravenous drug use.

Now, to look back at look-back programs for hepatitis C. Individuals may have been infected with the hepatitis C virus through exposure to blood and blood products without recognizing that they were infected. The federal government is encouraging look-back programs to identify individuals who received blood prior to screening with second generation hepatitis C tests in 1992. For individuals suspected of being infected with the hepatitis C virus, referral to physicians for additional evaluation, counselling and treatment care would be initiated.

Looking now at the pre-1986/post-1990 group. Individuals infected with hepatitis C through the blood system before 1986 and after 1990 are not included in any offer of financial assistance. On September 18, 1998, the federal Minister of Health proposed a $300-million transfer to provinces and territories over 20 years to help pay for enhanced health services for the treatment of hepatitis C, especially for those infected before January 1, 1986, and after July 1, 1990. Manitoba's allocation under the federal proposal is estimated at $7.8 million over this 20-year period.

An undertaking that spells out the shared objectives and terms under which these transfers would occur has been under discussion since September of 1998. Manitoba has indicated to the federal government that we are prepared to support and sign this undertaking. Both the Manitoba and federal governments are committed to ensuring that individuals infected with hepatitis C from blood have appropriate access to the therapeutic health care services they require, a care, not cash, approach. Manitoba remains focused on and committed to care for these individuals and all Manitobans, not cash.

Madam Speaker, to conclude, Manitoba is a committed member and partner of the Canadian Blood Services and will continue to be an active voice regarding the provision of safe and appropriate blood services for Manitobans specifically. Manitoba was a consenting partner to the March 1, 1998, $1.1-billion announcement to provide financial assistance to Canadians infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system between January 1, 1986, and July 1, 1990. Our position has not changed and our government continues to support this endeavour.

The Manitoba government is committed to ensuring that individuals infected with hepatitis C from blood have appropriate access to the therapeutic health care services they require and will continue to support care, not cash, initiatives.

Manitoba will continue to work towards enhancing our position in regard to hepatitis C surveillance and the development of a comprehensive integrated hepatitis program which would optimize prevention, education, care, research and support for hepatitis patients in this province. We are committed, Madam Speaker, and I think our commitment shows in the efforts that are being made here in Manitoba. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, I was actually hoping that the honourable members over there would have some support to speak to this very important resolution. I guess there are members over there who believe that their only duty here is to come here to vote and not to speak.

But, Madam Speaker, these important issues do warrant very serious consideration and debate. It is my pleasure, and I appreciate the opportunity to rise before the members of this House to speak to the resolution for those infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood products.

First, I wish to express to those who have been infected and to their families my regret for the suffering that they have endured. It certainly is something that places these people in a helpless position. Tragedies such as this are probably the most difficult issues in many cases that we face as politicians in terms of our understanding of these challenges, and the control that we have is somewhat limited in terms of what is best for the people who are affected by this.

It is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that this does talk more about money, and money does not always fix these very serious issues. For obvious reasons, it is a very emotional issue. At the same time, we as legislators must continue to approach the issue with compassion as well as rational judgment. I think that the honourable members across the way who have an opportunity to address this and speak to this issue have chosen not to, other than the member who brings the resolution forward.

I think it is incumbent upon all of them to put their ideas forward, so that we have an understanding of where they are coming from, because it is more than, as I indicated, Madam Speaker, just putting money to this, because money is not necessarily going to fix that. We have noticed that in our health care budgets, that we have increased as a government and as a province by increasing our health care budget by hundreds of millions of dollars ever since we came into government, and putting money into it does not always correct the wrongs that have been created and the challenges that the public meets and especially this very important issue with hepatitis C.

In the honourable member's resolution, the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) includes a clause that reads: Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to reduce the repercussions of the tragedy, implement compassionate social policy and adopt a leadership position nationally.

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment for a few minutes on this clause, because I believe that what she describes here is exactly what the government of this province has done in addressing the issue. I think in many respects we have covered that aspect, and the honourable member fails to recognize that and put those comments on the record.

* (1740)

I think that she has looked at the negative side of this, and she says that she is offering suggestions. But I think there should be some consideration given to what has already been done for this issue here. Our government is working to reduce the repercussions of this tragedy, the reoccurence, by taking several steps to prevent that reoccurence if this should happen again and to prevent similar circumstances from arising again in the future.

As the honourable member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) has outlined, the Province of Manitoba has supported the transfer of blood services formerly handled by their Canadian Red Cross Society to the Canadian Blood Services. We have also fully endorsed the mission of the Canadian Blood Services which states that the CBS provides a safe, secure, reliable and cost-effective supply of blood, blood products and their alternatives, and it is committed to operating Canada's independent national blood supply system in a manner that nurtures the trust, the commitment and the confidence of all Canadians. Madam Speaker, as a blood donor myself, I often think about the consequences of that very issue, that very concern, and I think that those who are making that contribution should not take that lightly because of the effects that it can have on people and recipients.

When you are giving blood, it takes about 10 or 15 minutes usually, and it gives you some time to think of the contribution that you are making and what an important, valued contribution that is to those who are in desperate need. But if that blood happens to be tainted, then that is certainly not what we want to deal with here. So it is so important that the Blood Services agency and anybody that is participating with them should ensure that that blood is uncontaminated.

Madam Speaker, I think that when we talk about the Canadian Blood Services as an agency, I think it also begs the question that with this resolution the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) is suggesting that we as a government, it is our responsibility. I think that the Canadian Blood Services agency is to deal with everybody across the country. That is a federal responsibility. That was implemented and imposed by the federal government with their direction and discretion.

I think that from my point of view, I think we as a government and the fact that we have made major contributions to the health care budget, these patients in Manitoba prior to 1986 fall within that scope and will get health care benefits the same as any other resident, although I certainly have a considerable amount of compassion for them, and I look on that with great seriousness. I think all we have to do is to imagine one of our own family members being affected by something like that, and that would maybe bring this message home to a stronger degree and maybe not necessarily place any more importance on it, but I think the reality would be a lot greater.

But, Madam Speaker, I think that with the fact that the federal government has continued to cut back on our transfer payments, I think the provincial government has been very honourable in terms of the contributions that we have made. For us to be able to do certain things and to do more, I think we are asking in some respects a little bit of the impossible, to take from one pocket and put it into the other.

I think that the federal government has a responsibility that is owed to all Canadians and especially the people in Manitoba and across this country to ensure that those people, after due diligence and examination of the whole aspect, are compensated if that is the decision of the governments across the country. But I do believe that this government, which I have been a part of for the past nine years, has made a generous contribution and will continue to make a generous contribution. This is something that, if there is something that is overlooked here, I think that we should maybe consider what other aspects that we can do with this.

Another step that we have taken to reduce any further infections of hepatitis C, Madam Speaker, and to help those who are already infected is to make hepatitis C reportable in Manitoba under regulations of The Public Health Act, and this will allow infected individuals to receive early consultation and treatment. That is really important from the aspect that it puts an onus on the medical profession. Too often we as legislators are asked to do something based on information that in many cases we do not have any knowledge or experience with. We rely on the medical profession to give us their best advice, and their advice is not always depending on the amount of research and consideration that is given.

In some cases, they do not report these incidents, for whatever reason. There are lots of these people that will, in many cases, regardless of what you do, whether you are talking hepatitis C or any other aspect in terms of diagnosis, they fall through the cracks. The results of that should not fall on government. That is the point that I am making here, but the honourable member, in her resolution, wants it to be all encompassing, and that is not reality. Govern-ments are not in a position to do that. You know, there are certain things that we as government can do.

Manitoba Health is working with the Winnipeg Hospital Authority and the Winnipeg Community and Long Term Care Authority and the viral hepatitis investigation unit to develop a comprehensive care model for hepatitis C. We have approved funding of $150,000 for an additional hepatologist in Manitoba, and new drug treatments will continue to be introduced to patients with the hepatitis C virus.

Madam Speaker, I would also suggest that patients with the hepatitis look at other alternatives that may be of a supportive nature whenever possible. Those are things that they can do in terms of their own–nobody knows their own circumstances or feels their own circumstances better than the people who are living with it. I think it is really important that they are in tune with how they feel and what makes them feel good and what makes them feel bad, what they realize is a benefit, rather than relying on the doctor to say to them, well, you look good today or you feel good today and this is good or that is good. I think it is really incumbent upon every one of us to do that, not only those who have hepatitis, diagnosed as hepatitis C.

All of these steps will help us to better manage and to give high-quality care and treatment to Manitobans infected with hepatitis C. Providing the best possible care is how our government is implementing compassionate social policy for those infected with this virus in Manitoba. We realize that the greatest need for those with hepatitis C is to receive immediate, ongoing care and treatment, and our government is 100 percent committed to providing the best possible care available for hepatitis C. This is an approach we share with the federal government, and we continue to work together to finalize the proposed 20-year, $300-million program of transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces to support enhanced health services for the treatment of hepatitis C.

* (1750)

Madam Speaker, our government is also actively pursuing the national role in monitoring hepatitis C by negotiating with the federal government to have Winnipeg become a sentinel surveillance site for comprehensive integrated surveillance of hepatitis C in Canada. I think our government recognizes a responsibility to provide this financial compensation to those who were infected January 1, 1986, to July 1, 1990, through contaminated blood products. I think that, contrary to what the honourable member for Osborne has stated, there is logical reasoning behind the establishment of this time frame.

I see that my time has run out, or do I have some more time? [interjection] Okay. With that I would yield to honourable members across the way to put their words on the record. If they really are committed to this, in support of that, I would ask them to speak on this as well.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I too just want to put a couple of words on the record on the member for Osborne's resolution. I know the issue of hepatitis C is an issue with which she has been very closely identified over the years and it means a great deal to her. Having said that, I have had the opportunity on different occasions in dealing with this very important issue that really affects the lives of so many Manitobans if not directly through infection but indirectly through families and friends and so forth.

There was a great deal of lobbying that was done a couple of years back as governments of all levels tried to come to grips on how best to deal with this critical issue. When the conclusion was a legal time frame and compen-sation then was handed out for those that fell within that legal time frame, it seemed to appease a good number of people, but there is absolutely no doubt that a lot of people were left out. At the time, I know I had stood and had asked the government to look at having further compensation to complement the agreement that was signed.

Madam Speaker, being very much aware at the time of the arguments, I would have to do more research in order to comment in any great detail on it. So I do make reference to previous speeches that I have given on this particular issue in hopes that individuals that might choose to read what is being said today will recognize that this is in fact an issue that has been before the Legislature, which many members of the Legislature have had opportunity to be able to comment on. I believe, at least on my part, my personal part, whenever the opportunity has been there, that I have shared words.

We notice that some provincial governments, in particular the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, have seen fit to provide additional compensation packages. We also note that other provinces have chosen not to have compensation packages. I think that there are at least arguments that can be put forward to have the provincial government of the day relook at this particular issue. We have the Province of Ontario, I believe, that has now had a compensation package in place for a while. So it allows us to get some sort of a gauge in terms of participation from individuals in the province of Ontario, see how that program is in fact working. I think that there is merit for the government of the day to get that sort of an assessment.

I listened as the member for Osborne was speaking on the resolution, and not necessarily wanting to preclude what the national government might be doing today or in the future in regard to those individuals that fall outside of that legal description, but I do take some exception in terms of how the member for Osborne tried to politicize it. Madam Speaker, I think that one has to recognize that it is a very serious issue; and, if one attempts to politicize the issue, we could very easily talk about the lack of compassion from New Democratic administrations, whether it was in B.C. or Roy Romanow who played a critical role in coming up with this particular agreement. So we have to recognize that all three major political parties did, in fact, support that original package.

Now, as provincial legislators, MLAs, we can do what we can to ensure that there is compensation to the best of our abilities in whatever form, and I would suggest that there is a need for us to revisit this issue. I have advocated in the past for a need to look at having additional compensation for individuals that fell out of that area, and I hope that the government will. It would even, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, be a good issue going into the next provincial election. What are the different political parties prepared to say in addressing this issue? I like to believe that no political party owns the issue of high morals, common sense. We like to think that all of us are caring, compassionate people, and will recognize when there is in fact an injustice, and that, when something can be done, we move towards it.

I know as an MLA, I have had constituents raise the issue with me, and when they do raise the issue, one of the things I do make reference to is the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) because I know she is likely one of the more ably minded individuals inside this Chamber in dealing with the hepatitis C, and with that particular issue.

Having said that, I will listen to further debate on this particular issue.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to add some comments on this particular subject. Having been a former Minister of Health and having been minister when the issue was negotiated and discussed, I think, to a great deal across the width and breadth of our country, a long period of time. It was one of those issues in which a host of other issues and some very important, fundamental questions about our health care system were brought to the attention of the public.

Although the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) then and now comes forward with a resolution to expand the compensation package that was agreed to initially by all provinces, territorial governments and the national government–and which both the government of Ontario and Quebec took a different course–but all other governments put together this position after many, many months of very hard negotiation between us and with the federal government. Many of the fundamental questions about how we handle matters like this and what degree of insurance in essence that we provide beyond that tort liability for actions in our medical system come to the fore in this debate. What I have noticed in that discussion is that, with the member for Osborne and some of her colleagues in their remarks, there has been an absence of discussion of those very fundamental principles. Yes, many times we think we are doing the right thing to react today, but what we do in one particular area has to also, I think, be extended to other like situations, if that is what we in fact are going to do.

The difficulty with what the member for Osborne proposes is that other individuals who may not be able to garner the public support as this group has would not be treated the same way under her proposal, would not find–

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable minister will have 13 minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).