[ 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.

Hon. A. Petter: In the members' gallery today are 22 students from Johnston Heights Secondary School in Surrey, who are here not only to learn about government but also to help in kicking off Youth Week. They are accompanied by their teacher Brent Derbyshire. I would like the House to please make them very welcome.

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: 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 ]

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

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]

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

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 ]

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 ]

HABITAT CONSERVATION TRUST FUND
AND SIX MILE RANCH 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

"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

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

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 ]

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

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

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

[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.]

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 ]

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]

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.

It's certainly apparent -- and I think it always has been, but it is increasingly so -- that Canadians want assistance and support for those people who were infected before 1986. I think that message has been very clear to provincial governments and to the federal government as well. Citizens want the government of Canada to provide fair and compassionate assistance -- compassionate support -- to everyone infected by the blood supply provided by the federal government.

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 ]

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 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]

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 ]

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 ]

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]

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 ]

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 ]

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]

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."

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 ]

[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 ]

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]

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."

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. . . ."

"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."

[ Page 7438 ]

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.]

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]

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 ]

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 ]

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]

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 ]

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]

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 ]

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 federal government, in particular. We have to work to provide the leadership necessary from this House to lever the federal government to move to a national solution to this problem.

I find myself not being able to support the amendment. I just can't see how it adds to where we're going in terms of finding the proper levels of support and meeting the needs of those people who have contracted hepatitis C. I think we have to move unanimously in this House to get a national drug program in place for people, to build a disability pension program, to provide the homemaker services necessary for people who have contracted hepatitis C and to take those issues to a national table and argue about those issues and other issues so that we can provide the proper support necessary for those people who have contracted this horrible, debilitating disease known as hepatitis C.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate on the amendment today, because it speaks about the decency and humanity to which this Legislature should direct their energies today. It's not about any other issue.

I can tell you that I do share the discomfort that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about when he said he believed that the Premier was somehow uncomfortable. I can tell you that what he didn't quote were the Premier's words: ". . .we cannot and will not act unilaterally in British Columbia." What is wrong with this government demonstrating some leadership on some very, very tough questions? Not possible? Not likely to come forward? There are certainly some difficulties in how this Premier has represented this issue. Frankly, I believe he's taken a very cowardly approach to whether or not individual Canadians -- individual British Columbians -- should be compensated.

I can tell you it's not a new method of operation for this government. I was the Health critic in 1993 when the then Health minister Elizabeth Cull stood in this chamber and said the very same words. I'm happy to say into the record today that she would not move unilaterally, that she would not demonstrate any leadership on the tough questions around tainted blood. This is the question, whether it's HIV or hep C. It's the management of the blood system in this country, in this province, where this government has never, in seven years, demonstrated any leadership on those questions. That's an enormous concern to me.

This is the same government that says there's a single tier of health care in this province. I can tell you today that there are British Columbians who don't have the $700 a month to pay for interferon, who simply don't have that level of funding. And they're told they can somehow pay for that product, or if they happen to be lucky enough to be selected for a drug program, they might have that product provided to them. That is selectivity on behalf of this government in terms of compassion. This government doesn't get to cherry-pick who will receive appropriate treatment for hepatitis C in British Columbia. That is the dilemma before us today: that this government has put itself in the position of doing just that. This government knows full well that it is involved in deciding who receives interferon drug treatment, who is part of the drug programs in place today and who is told that the bill is $700 a month: "Good luck paying for that." That's a despicable way for this government to behave when they're the ones who stand up repeatedly in this chamber and talk about a single tier of health care. It's not in place today.

For this government to suggest that they're telling the truth when they talk about $550 million currently in place. . . . How do we know that? Indeed, I'm not confident that this government has told the truth in the past regarding budget statements. So when the minister comes to her feet, I'd be pleased to know how she's breaking down that $550 million and what level of funding will go to home support and to drug treatment programs in this province. That number needs some further consideration.

I have some concerns, too, that members opposite will somehow see this discussion as being about blame -- that they're going to find somebody to blame and somehow that's going to elevate this discussion. Frankly, it makes this discussion despicable. Can we believe that the government seeing fit to call this discussion today will generate some activity -- that somehow the lives of hepatitis C victims will be different tomorrow based on this debate? I hope that is what is in the hearts and minds of members opposite. But I have my concerns. I have my true concerns on that question. I'm looking

[ Page 7443 ]

I believe we have an obligation for fairness. The issue doesn't deserve to be defused by the members opposite -- who they're fighting with or who they might choose to blame. The discussion is whether or not we are prepared to compensate victims of hepatitis C in the province -- effectively, appropriately, decently, fairly. Frankly, it's a trust issue. These people have come to these individuals opposite -- to this government -- asking, explaining and expanding on the difficulties in their lives for their family members, for the victims of hepatitis C. When that level of anguish is placed on the table, it deserves a reasonable response. It merits some humanity, some compassion from the members opposite. This tainted blood issue has been with us for more than 30 years. The records are clear; the research is clear. We have an obligation; we have some responsibility that belongs to the province of British Columbia. There's no doubt in my mind.

I made the point about the number of individuals who don't believe there's a single tier of health care in British Columbia. Some of them are with us in the gallery today. Many have been in these buildings over the last number of weeks. This is this minister's opportunity to stand up and say: "Yes, indeed. Here's an opportunity for fairness and decency."

I'm appealing for compassion today. It seems to me that if this government truly was interested in committing some level of decency to this debate, they would rise up and support our amendment, which talks about individuals being compensated directly. Those individuals have a right to expect dollars from the health care system to provide the services they would choose to access, not a program that determines how they will be assisted through the series of very trying events, the very terrible steps in this disease process. We must honour those individuals by allowing them to have some dignity and some decency in the decisions that affect them and their families.

Our objective is to receive compensation for all victims who have received tainted blood through the blood supply system. That is the right and proper way to proceed.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is with difficulty, actually. . . . I appreciate what seems to be or may be the intent of the opposition, but I rise to speak against the amendment. I do that for several reasons.

One of the reasons -- and I want to respond to some points that have been raised -- is around the word "compensation" as opposed to "compassionate payment" or whatever. The word "compensation" for most people -- and, I think, in the court's eye, as well -- speaks to a legal culpability. While I understand there are many people who've raised in the House the issue that there was a test available in '59, and there were some used in the seventies in Austria -- I think, but I'm not sure -- that has not, I don't think, been proved by the people who seem to have the greatest level of expertise. So the question is: when is a test accepted enough that it is reasonable to expect that it will be used by, in this case, the blood supply system, or a physician or whoever? In this case, it's the blood supply system.

The '86-to-'90 decision was based on just that: when could we reasonably have expected that the blood supply system would use the test? Those were the years that were determined, with a fair degree of unanimity, I think. That's not to say the test wasn't available in 1959; although, quite frankly, the tests that were available earlier produced more false positives and false negatives than they did any degree of accuracy.

The second reason I rise to speak against the amendment, hon. Speaker, is that the amendment says that those funds are to be paid directly by the government to the people who are designated to receive them. That means that the people prior to '86 will be treated in a way that is different than the people who are post-'86. The compensation for '86 to '90 is not paid directly to the victim; it will either go through their lawyers or through an agency that will be established. . . .

[4:45]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: There was never any intention in the agreement that was signed that any of the money would be directed to provincial governments. But it does go through another agency that does the adjudication and the decision-making about the timing of those dollars and the need of people around those dollars. It's not as if this is sort of a one-time payment. It's a payment with some issues around when people need more in terms of how their illness is progressing. So there's a difference between how people before '86 would receive support and people who are post-'86.

Thirdly, the question raised by the member for Richmond East was: who will receive appropriate treatment? Well, everybody receives appropriate treatment. That's why the motion includes saying to the federal government: "With a $700 million cutback, we need those dollars restored in order to be sure that people do receive appropriate treatment" -- as the member talks about.

The issue of choice of services -- that if the money went directly to people, they would have a choice, they could choose the services they receive. . . . That is basically a voucher system. I think that would be an interesting health care debate if we are to suggest that dollars should go directly to people who would then make their own choices. It's probably an interesting debate to have around either education or health care. But I think that it is not an appropriate issue for this debate.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: We do want the money to go to victims; there's no question about that. But it has to go -- as it has for the '86-to-'90 group -- through some kind of agency that does that kind of adjudication. Should the money go to the victims? Of course it should. Should packages go to the provinces? Of course not. But the provinces do need additional dollars to ensure that people have the health and social services supports that they need, which have been clawed back by this federal government.

The federal government would be wise, as my colleague two speakers before said, to look at a national disability package. That is going to be a critical issue for people with hepatitis C. I don't think you can do that if what you're doing is giving money directly to individuals. It would mean, by this amendment, that we have said to the federal government, "It's not

[ Page 7444 ]

With those comments, I close.

G. Farrell-Collins: I listened really carefully to what the minister just said. I have to tell you that I'm very disappointed. This isn't the age-old NDP fight about federal transfer payment cutbacks; that's not what this is about. This is about people who are sick. The government played a role in making them sick. They have a right to compensation, and they have a right to be treated fairly no matter when they got sick. I can't believe that this government would stand up and use this issue as a way to cry and to fight about the transfer payment fight that they've been fighting since 1991. That's not what this is about. This is not about transfer payments; this is not about you trying to balance your health care budget; this is not about the government getting more money from the federal government so they can go and spend it on things like bailouts at Skeena Cellulose. It's about people.

The minister stands up and gives us the legal dissertation about what compensation means, the legal dissertation about what compensation is for -- when somebody is legally responsible, whether the government is legally liable. This isn't a legal issue. It's a moral issue; it's a decency issue; it's a compensation issue. If this government would get off its socialist soapbox, get rid of its mantra about federal cutbacks, start taking some responsibility and instead of talking about leadership, like the member from Hillside, start actually leading, they would support this amendment. The government doesn't want to pay compensation to those individuals. We're about to see that in a minute when they all stand in unison and vote against compensation for pre-'86 infections. That's what they're going to do.

The people out there who have been affected by this deserve fairness. They deserve to be treated equally; they deserve to be treated equitably; they deserve to be treated with respect. When I saw this original motion come onto the notice of motions in Votes and Proceedings last week, I read it very carefully. I thought the government was actually going to stand up and join Quebec and join Ontario and talk about compensating people fairly and equitably. That's what I thought it was. But then I started to read it, and I realized there was no compensation. There wasn't one penny that was going to come to British Columbia from the federal government under this motion, for the victims. It was going to go into the government so that the government could do with it what it wanted.

Well, hon. Speaker, the government has choices to make on health care. They do it every time they draw up their budget. If we're short of money for health care, take the $329 million for bailing out one company and put it into health care, put it into home care, put it into a pharmaceutical plan. Do it on your own. Start it. Show some leadership. Join with Ontario; join with Quebec. It looks like Manitoba is now on board too.

I just got a press release from the federal government. It came out about ten minutes ago. They're calling a meeting of the Health ministers from across the country. The Minister of Health is calling a meeting in Ottawa. This Minister of Health has a chance to take a message to Ottawa -- not from the government of British Columbia, not even from the Legislature, but from the people of B.C. -- that says to Ottawa and to the other provinces: "We in British Columbia believe there's a moral right that needs to be done here, and we're prepared to belly up to the bar" -- as the Premier of Alberta said -- "and put our money on the table." Let's stop the posturing. Let's stop pointing a finger and saying that only the federal government can do this. Let's stop using this as a tool to get more cash for British Columbia's lack of a balanced budget, because that's what it's about. That's what the motion is that we read, that was originally on the order paper. This government can make the choice to spend the appropriate amount on health care any time. It doesn't need the federal government to kick in the money to do it. It can do it.

Let's look at what this is really about. It's about whether or not the government is going to take a lead, whether they're actually going to do something about it instead of just talking about it, whether they're going to start talking about what they're going to do, instead of standing up, like the member for Victoria-Hillside and the Minister of Health, and talking about all the things they'd like to see done, all the things the federal government should do and all the things someone else should do. Why can't this Minister of Health -- now that she's going to have the opportunity, as of a few minutes ago, to sit at the table with the other Ministers of Health -- do what she didn't do the first time, which is to get this deal right so that the people who were infected pre-1986 are treated with fairness and treated equally to the people who were infected afterwards?

This place here belongs to the people of British Columbia. This is the people's House. The people are here today demanding action. The people need help, the people need compassion, and the people need justice. If they can't get it here, where can they get it? If they can't get it today, when can they get it? It's time that the government stood up, did the right thing, and supported the amendment, supported compensation and supported people being treated fairly instead of legally.

J. Cashore: I think it's unfortunate that when we debate an issue of this importance, it is polarized, as is so often the nature of the debate in this House -- not always, but so often. But on this topic of all topics, it's very unfortunate that that is the case, because I believe that if you took all the members who are present in the House right now and sat them down in another venue, perhaps in a circle, and enabled people to speak from their experience, as the member for Rossland-Trail did, you'd have a much different kind of discussion right now. Not to single out the Opposition House Leader especially, but just to point out that he challenges the government, with regard to finger-pointing, yet in the very process of making that challenge, he's finger-pointing. I mean, when will we in this chamber realize, in the context that the medium is the message, that what we do here sometimes really demonstrates to anybody who may be sitting in the gallery that yes, there is principle, and yes, there is purpose, but also that there is that need and desire, through the gift of polarization, to be able to demonstrate that we have the quotable quote, not necessarily the solution.

Speaking to the amendment, I just want to say that the Opposition House Leader is absolutely right. It's not about cutbacks; that's not what this is about. This is about providing the full array of appropriate support that can be made avail

[ Page 7445 ]

But at the same time, when you are doing the work of government and you are sitting down at a table with another government, you have a responsibility in the context of that discussion to discuss the full length, breadth and scope of all the issues that have to be addressed in order to make a rational decision. The length, breath and scope of those issues do, in reality, dispassionately and without pointing fingers, point out the facts -- just as a matter of fact -- that $700 million in health care funding that was part of a social contract has not been made available. That is appropriate, in doing our work as governments sitting down together, to point that out so that we come through with the best possible approach that includes an array of benefits. Yes, that includes compensation, but compensation does not preclude home care and other kinds of benefits to be delivered through a health care system that is able to address this situation in its fullness.

I speak against this amendment in the interest of being able to deliver the essence of what we all want and in the interest of being able to serve the needs of all of those who are victims.

[5:00]

YEAS -- 35
Sanders	Gingell	C. Clark
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	de Jong
Plant	Abbott	Reid
Neufeld	Coell	Chong
Whittred	Jarvis	Anderson
Nettleton	Penner	J. Wilson
Weisbeck	Nebbeling	Hogg
Hawkins	Coleman	Stephens
Hansen	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Barisoff	Dalton
Masi	Krueger	McKinnon
G. Wilson		Reitsma

NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Conroy	Janssen	Geisbrecht
Doyle	Kasper	Bowbrick
Sawicki	Smallwood	Sihota
Hartley	Waddell	Farnworth
Ramsey	Lovick	MacPhail
Dosanjh	Miller	Petter
	Priddy

On the main motion.

P. Reitsma: When I listened to the personal account of the member for Rossland-Trail, speaking to the main motion, it made me realize how important health and the family really are. It also makes you realize what safety is all about. The day after my son was born in 1975, he had a blood transfusion. I was confident that all was safe and happy, and I am happy to say, of course, I now realize how grateful I am that everything was safe and that he did not contract any of the diseases.

The decision of the federal government to limit compensation is devastating to thousands of hepatitis C victims. Last week, on April 2, the Premier confirmed that he was uncomfortable with the compensation package. Well, so is everyone.

What is acceptable for the 1986-1990 hepatitis C victims should form the basis for compensation for those pre-1986 victims. They should not be treated differently -- equal treatment for everyone, regardless of the date. It's also an issue of dignity, of compassion and fairness. It's an issue of suffering. The victims today are still the victims tomorrow.

Recently I stayed with a family whose daughter is a victim of hepatitis C. We talked about it around the dinner table -- how difficult it is to work, how hard it is to find work, how difficult it is to get a mortgage and life insurance, when your whole life revolves around the disease. For the last week and over the weekend I've had an opportunity to talk to a number of victims in my riding, to people who are dreadfully worried about their health, the future and their jobs.

The first one I talked to was on the couch, and she said: "Paul, I'm so tired today, but I'm so afraid of what's going to happen to the people I look after. There's no one else." Another gentleman I talked to said: "Well, I've lived a fairly long life already. It doesn't really affect me all that much, because I may not have all that long to live." But I'm thinking of the younger people. People are reaching financial destitution. People are losing their homes. The cost of drugs is in the hundreds of dollars. People are having to go on social assistance or to leave their jobs, not knowing what's going to happen with their families, their careers and, as I mentioned, their homes.

People are also in the dark. They don't know who to call or where to call. When they call Health Canada, they get a message back from the operator stating: "We'll know in a couple of months what's going to happen, how the details are going to be worked out, what the process is going to be." That's not good enough, and I would suggest that maybe the B.C. government should establish a special number for people so that they can phone for information. At least it would help the level of anxiety.

Talking about unilateral action, just a few years ago, in 1993, the province of Nova Scotia broke ranks and unilaterally moved to compensate those residents of Nova Scotia who contracted HIV through tainted blood. This action prompted the federal government to develop a compensation package for all Canadians, and this was done after the absolutely impassioned plea of Janet Connors, whose husband Randy had died. She made a plea to the Nova Scotia government, and they acted unilaterally. That prompted the federal government and other provinces to follow suit. I understand that the HIV compensation was in the range of $100,000 to $125,000 initially and $2,500 a month for the rest of their lives -- however short it might have been.

When I talk to people, they say: "Well, I'd rather have hepatitis C than HIV." But people die of hepatitis C. They will be dying, and they don't care whether it's HIV or hepatitis C. They will be dying, and that's why they have to be looked after. Victims don't care who comes up. . .or what the debate is going to be, as long as the provincial governments and the federal government come together and come up with a package to compensate them. I just ask every member to put

[ Page 7446 ]

I think we must have a commitment that funds will be paid directly to the victims. We've talked about putting politics before people. Well, hon. Speaker, it has to be people before politics. We all must stand up with one voice -- the voice of support. That's what is needed for the victims. That's the hope and the care they're looking forward to, so that at least that anxiety -- those troubles in their later lives of who's going to pay for what bill and where -- will be looked after. Once again, it's people before politics. We must stand up with one voice -- the voice of support for those victims who are part of a national tragedy.

L. Reid: I want to make some comments regarding interferon treatment. I don't know if the minister has read the March 1998 news bulletin of the B.C. chapter of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada. The article is entitled "Need Help with Interferon Costs." This individual says: "I have a great deal of difficulty lately trying to continue my interferon treatment without interruption." She ran out of money. Indeed, there is a second level of health care in this province, and again this government is directly involved in selectively deciding who receives that level of treatment and who doesn't. It's a shameful, shameful exercise, and frankly, it's happening.

[5:15]

[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 the needs and compensation of those British Columbians who contracted Hepatitis C through tainted blood prior to 1986 and that the compensation be paid directly to the victims.]

In the previous amendment, the government and the minister stated that they had a grave concern in the way the amendment was worded, in that the money they require for health care services -- the member for Victoria-Hillside mentioned a Pharmacare program, home care, etc. -- wouldn't be available. This amendment calls for two things: funding the needs -- which was in the original motion -- where the government can do as it wants, like those various types of health care the minister mentioned; and second, it also calls for compensation. Then it states that only the compensation will be paid directly to the victims.

So it leaves the government's motion essentially intact, except that it adds "compensation" and says that that compensation should be paid to the victims. It does what the government wanted to do in the original motion, but adds compensation and says that the compensation should go to the victims.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. This amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

M. Sihota: I wasn't anticipating being part of this debate, although I have been following this issue as it relates to hepatitis C, both in the papers and certainly during the course of the afternoon. I have been engaged in ongoing discussions about this issue with my colleague the member for Victoria-Hillside, who, I may say, has taken a leadership role in our caucus in ensuring that this issue is brought to the floor of the Legislature in the way that it has been. I know he has had more than just a passing interest in this issue, in dealing with a number of his constituents.

Perhaps the best place to start is to try to lower the temperature of the debate that has been occurring here a little bit by making a number of points. The points are as follows. We went through a process in this country, looking at issues as they relate to compensation and liability. That process went through the Krever commission. The Krever report was issued, and there were concerns about what the government's reaction would be in light of that report. It's also clear that the federal government then took a decision. Mr. Rock, in his capacity as federal Minister of Health, outlined a series of initiatives to be taken by the federal government in concert with the provinces.

I want to talk about that decision in two contexts. The first context is this: having witnessed this in many different forums over the years. . . . Sometimes, when you issue a report, you don't quite get it right. There are times when there will be public reaction you don't anticipate that comes from a report. I think it's only fair when that happens that government, be it federal or provincial, take a sober second look -- particularly around issues that are difficult and delicate in terms of public policy and public administration. This happens to be one of those issues.

Now, when you get into those kinds of issues, it's been my experience -- and I think I've been around the horn a bit -- that those things aren't resolved in a highly charged, highly partisan, highly accusatory kind of atmosphere, the kind of atmosphere that started to develop here in this chamber today. These things are a challenge, and trying to find solutions is a challenge. I guess there are always places to play political games, but I'm not persuaded in my mind that this is the type of issue that invites that kind of action. To play upon the emotions of people for political benefit is really not the way we ought to be dealing with this issue. I hasten to say that there was some of that going on in this chamber today.

We need to take a sober second look at this issue, in light of the fact that it's evident that it just wasn't gotten right, if I can put it that way, by the Krever commission. To his credit, I think the first hint of that came from the Premier of this province, who, on a trip to Ottawa, indicated that he was somewhat uncomfortable. . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Well, look, if you don't like it. . . . You know, I've listened to you; listen to me for a moment.

He indicated his level of discomfort around this issue. I think he signalled at that point what he was detecting in terms of comment from the public. It's fair that we've been getting that kind of comment from the public.

In my view, it's also not fair or appropriate in the course of debate around this type of issue, in the way that I've described it, to point accusatory fingers at the desire of this

[ Page 7447 ]

This comes at a time, no matter which way you want to cut it, when we're all under pressure in terms of managing our budgets. It comes at a time when the federal government has clearly withdrawn its historical level of participation in health care funding across the country, to the detriment of have provinces like British Columbia. That's also a fact that nobody ought to dispute here. With all the attendant risks in terms of the health care system -- and I've seen them -- we've provided care to the tune of $353 million to those people who contracted the problem prior to 1986. It's not as if we aren't of the mind. . . . Let me put it in the positive. We're clearly of the mind to sit down with the federal government and the other provinces to work, as my colleague the member for Victoria-Hillside so aptly put it, in the context of a common table to try to find some kind of common resolution to this problem.

As to the response, the place for that, in my view, really ought to be in the dialogue that is occurring -- or will obviously have to occur -- between the federal government and the provincial governments around the country. That's good. I suspect that in the weeks ahead, that will happen. But I would caution everybody on the other side of the chamber not to suggest that this government is somehow unwilling to participate. We are, we have been, and we will continue to do it.

You know, it's very hard to extract compassion from the debate here. Each and every one of us has been struck by the constituents that have come into our offices and talked about the debilitating effects upon them since they contracted hepatitis C. We understand, as human beings, the toll that it takes. We understand, as human beings, that it's only natural that members of the Legislature want to reach out and try to help the people sitting before them who have a real problem. It's the thing that draws most of us into public office: the desire and the ability to lend a helping hand. Certainly from my experience, that is often the catalyst that results in solutions being found, which are often found in a moment of dialogue and discussion that's free from a highly charged partisan atmosphere -- the kind of atmosphere that, unfortunately, we started to see develop here today. There ought to be a discussion.

It's been a very, very long year -- for myself as an individual. I've seen death. Maybe I'm just at that age in my life when family members are no longer with me. I'm going through that right now in terms of someone very close to me who doesn't have much time left. You know, your mind always goes in many different directions, but one of those directions it goes in is that you often think about what else can be done to help find a cure, to help find an answer -- the kind of research that can be done in society to try to prevent these kinds of events from occurring to others, the kind of contribution that we can make as individuals or as government. Sometimes the solutions aren't there; sometimes it's just a mystery in terms of what can be done.

But in the context of hepatitis C, I don't think that we should overlook our responsibility to ensure that there are appropriate commitments made both by individuals and by government in terms of research, so as to ensure that the appropriate treatments can be offered to individuals who may be inflicted, unfortunately, with hepatitis C -- or D or E, and I don't mean to cut it off there. I think we have an obligation to do that as well.

All of this is wrapped up in terms of the fiscal realities we also find ourselves in. I mean, governments are under pressure to balance budgets. Governments are under pressure not to increase debt. Governments are under pressure to live within their means. Those are the other realities that all of us on both sides of the House have to recognize. I've been in opposition. I can tell you, it's a lot easier to ignore those realities when you're in opposition than when you're in government.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Well, the hon. member tells me that we have no sense of priority. I'm sorry to hear that the hon. member, who's usually not so hard-edged, is as hard-edged as she is with regard to that comment. This government has a very clear sense of priorities, and I'm quite happy to get into that debate in terms of our commitment to health care, which can be measured against any other government in the country. I think all hon. members on both sides of the House know that this government has an exemplary track record in terms of providing resources for health care that really surpasses the commitment that other governments elsewhere in the country have made. It's very easy to sort of dissolve into rhetoric around that, and I'll resist the temptation in the fond hope that the members opposite will as well.

Let me just get back to the points I was making. We have the Krever commission. We have an outcome that clearly has not met the test in terms of the public eye. We clearly have a responsibility to try to do better, and our government is clearly committed to trying to search for solutions and a resolution to this issue that, hopefully, will satisfy more than is the case right now.

I don't know if we're going to be able to arrive at a perfect point in time where we can satisfy all of the requests of all of the people that have been affected. But I want to make it clear to those that are affected by hepatitis C that there is a depth of both compassion and commitment from this side of the House to try to assist them in their struggle.

[5:30]

I've had the pleasure of working with the family since before I was elected as an MLA, to try to assist them and, most importantly, to try to make Jarad's life as comfortable as it can be in this very difficult situation. You know, I have to say that, although some members from the other side will try to say what a great job they do with health care, my constituent has not received that care. That's why it's important that we pass this amendment unanimously in this House: so that the patients, the infected and the families can have reassurance that in fact they are going to receive care, and that they're not going to be moved around and pushed around and put in lines. . .and not receive the care and the help at home that they all deserve.

[ Page 7448 ]

Hon. Speaker, it's quite noisy in the House. I wonder if. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. members, I draw to your attention that the noise level rises and makes it difficult to speak and be heard.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We were all -- all the members of this House -- with the member for Rossland-Trail when he and his family were going through their difficulties. Our thoughts were with them. I'm so glad -- as are all members -- to have him back in the House, participating fully, and I'm sure that his family are very pleased. But there are families out there that are not happy today, that are not receiving care.

I want to take a little bit of time and talk about Jarad. That's why I want the members on the other side, very seriously, to put aside partisan politics and their apparent obsession with $700 million -- to look at the caring part of this, at what we can do in providing for the needs, in ensuring that the medication that some members have argued for is available, that respite is available, that people do not have to be denied, and that their expenses from travelling back and forth for care, both in the province and out of the province, are covered.

The situation in my constituency with the Gibbenhuck family has been a very troubling experience for the family -- one that has caused severe stress in the family. We wondered at certain times whether the family, the marriage, would survive. With respect to financial difficulties, the family has had to use every penny. We have even had to work on their behalf to ensure that funds that were supposedly locked up for seven and eight years could be freed to help the family cover the expenses that were not covered. The family estimates that it has cost $300,000 to care for their nine-year-old son. Our community is a giving community, a caring community. Penticton and the South Okanagan have been able to help the Gibbenhucks very much.

That's why I am calling on the members on the government side to vote in favour of this amendment -- because it will provide the items that the member for Victoria-Hillside and other members have called for. But it will also give the victims some degree of comfort and confidence that they too are going to be recognized in this serious issue, that they are not going to be left out in the cold, as they have been all too often. Those individuals and those families need that comfort. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville said that we need compassion and to show people that we care. I ask him to show that he has courage, that he does care and that he will vote for this amendment. Then we can get on with addressing the needs of those who are infected and their families.

Hon. Speaker, let us take the partisan politics out of this issue. Let us put the patient as our number one priority. Let us put the families as our number one priority. As the Leader of the Official Opposition has said, let us show courage to the country. We can show leadership on this issue. All too often we take these personal tragedies, these family tragedies, and we link dollars and cents to them. Well, let's de-link ourselves from those dollars and cents here today, and let us link ourselves with conscience. Let us link ourselves with what is the right thing to do for people, with the right thing to do for sick individuals, with what is right for those who will not be with us much longer and with what is right for those families that need support. Let us all do the right thing today.

Let us vote for this amendment, because it provides for the need that many of the members on the other side have argued for today. It gives the families and the patients -- those infected -- what they need: some safety, some comfort and some commitment. I ask all members in this House today to forget their partisan politics, to vote for this amendment and to show the affected hepatitis C patients in British Columbia that their elected officials do care for them and that we do know that they are our number one responsibility.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the opportunity to join this debate and to speak in favour of the amendment that has been proposed.

Hepatitis C is a condition that has affected at least two of my constituents in the Shuswap. Two have contacted me; there may well be others. I was very much struck by their cases. In both cases the lives of my constituents have been affected in very dramatic and very tragic ways by the unfortunate situation around the tainted blood they received. Both of my constituents contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood. One was infected prior to 1986, and one was infected after 1986. Hence, under the current package that's on the table -- the current agreement that has been negotiated between the provinces and the federal government -- one will be entitled to support and the other will not.

I guess the thing we have to ask about the current agreement is: does it meet the test of fairness? Does it meet the test of responsibility? Does it meet the test of accountability? In all those areas the current package falls short. Clearly the answer to the question of whether it meets those tests is no. Those infected prior to 1986 by tainted blood, through no fault of their own, deserve compensation as much as those who were infected between 1986 and 1990.

I'm proud that the official opposition has taken this position from the beginning. We have viewed this as an issue of compassion, an issue of fairness and, certainly, an issue of government responsibility. As many others have said in the House today, this should not be a partisan political issue, and certainly that's the case.

What we have seen -- again, through no fault of their own -- are the lives of a lot of people turned upside down in this province and in this country. We have seen far too many instances of where relationships and careers have been disrupted, if not destroyed, by this tragedy. We have seen far too many people who have suffered physically, psychologically and financially from a crisis over which they had absolutely no control. All that these people did was to trust in the medical systems of their provinces and their country. They trusted in the authorities -- that when they were provided with blood, that blood would not hurt them; it would save their lives, not end them.

Whether an individual contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood in December of 1985 or in January of 1986, their suffering is no less or no greater because of the one-month difference between the times they contracted hepatitis C. That is part of the tragedy here: we can't, in an instance like this, set down artificial times, because clearly there is going to be unfairness inherent in that. I think that that's one of the reasons why all members of the House will shortly be endorsing, hopefully, the amendment to the resolution that has been put forward.

I want to briefly mention two constituents of mine who have contacted me with respect to this issue. One is a gentle-

[ Page 7449 ]

This is a man who has taken great pride in being self-sufficient all his life and who has worked very hard to raise his family in this country. Yet he finds himself unable to work, unable to pursue the profession that he loves, because of the illness that has affected him through no fault of his own. It's sad and unfortunate. We have this opportunity, hopefully, to do something better for someone who has been grievously affected by this.

The second constituent I want to mention is a woman from Sorrento, who between July of 1986 and April of 1987 was infused with hepatitis C-tainted blood. She notes in her letter: "During these procedures, I was informed by Vernon Jubilee Hospital staff that the blood had been tested at least three times for all infectious diseases prior to my receiving it." Again, I'm sure that staff at the hospital were entirely sincere when they made those promises to this woman. But, regrettably, that did not save her from the sad situation she is in.

I just want to conclude; I gather we're getting close to some understanding on this. This issue has been a huge source of stress and strain not only to my constituents but obviously to all victims of hepatitis C. Clearly, the sooner we can resolve the issues around this package, the better off they will be. It's unfortunate perhaps that previous amendments haven't been able to go forward. But hopefully, the refinements that have been discussed through today's process can bring this matter to a conclusion.

[5:45]

L. Reid: I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, because I believe the minister has an amendment that will indeed find favour with all members of this chamber.

The Speaker: The process would be, hon. member, for you to ask leave to withdraw your motion.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, may I have leave?

Leave granted.

L. Reid: I do so withdraw.

K. Whittred: It gives me great pleasure to rise to offer an amendment to the motion. Following consultation with the Minister of Health, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I offer the following amendment:

[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 the needs of and a compassionate payment, similar in nature to that paid to those victims between January 1, 1986, and July 1, 1990, to those British Columbians who contracted Hepatitis C through tainted blood prior to 1986 and that the payment be made directly to the victims.]

The Speaker: Congratulations to all, but it may be premature.

Amendment approved.

On the main motion as amended.

Hon. P. Priddy: I am very pleased that we were able to work together -- which is, of course, how it says in the records that we're all supposed to do -- to reach an agreement on the motion. I won't take this as a precedent that it will be this way every time, but I will make a note of the day and time on this.

I think the reason that we were able to do that is that while we can discuss or debate the process and definitions and so on -- much of which happened this afternoon -- in people's hearts it still really was about who those people are. There's some difference in how we might get there, but it's a view of the faces of people with hepatitis C in this province. Of course, it's always about putting names to faces or remembering the faces -- not the statistics of how many people, but actually being able to envision the faces -- which allows us, as legislators, to be able to reach agreement on some of these issues.

I think that what this amended motion does is talk about the federal government addressing and funding the needs of people with hepatitis C, which speaks again to the issue of not being a way to balance the budget or whatever, but the fact that we have a whole, safe, intact health care system in this province and that the federal government has a responsibility to assist to do that. It also speaks to the issue of compassion. In the phrase that has been used in this motion, there is an acknowledgment of the fact that people in British Columbia -- and I thank the opposition for their work on this -- do care. They care very much, and they know that that caring and compassion is not about a cut-off date, regardless of the fact of whether there might be a legal one. I think that message is very strong.

I thank people for their work on it. I thank the voices of people with hepatitis C for being so strong on the issue, and we'll wait to thank the federal government for their assistance in this.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

The Speaker: Congratulations, hon. members.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I beg leave on behalf of the government to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 7450 ]

Committee A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
WOMEN'S EQUALITY
(continued)

L. Stephens: I want to ask a question that was asked last week. Does the minister have the total amount that the B.C. government has spent on the stopping the violence against women policy for '98-99? Could we have that budget figure, please? That's the total: transition houses, aboriginal family violence, sexual assault victim services, wife assault coordination, criminal injury compensation, assaultive men's intervention and sex offender treatment, women's centres, public education, prevention and organizational support and staff training. Those are all of the initiatives that have dollar amounts attached to them that the government has designated as the stopping the violence against women initiative. I'd like to have the total amount of all of those programs.

Hon. S. Hammell: We are assembling that information but don't have your list. If you give it to us, we'll continue and get it to you.

L. Stephens: I will provide that list.

We're going to go on to aboriginal women's programs and issues that affect aboriginal women. I see that the budget is $2,130,788 and that the number of contracts is 92, primarily with the Ministries of Health and Aboriginal Affairs. Could the minister elaborate on what those programs are and on what is being done for aboriginal communities around family violence?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm going to attack this question from a couple of perspectives. That is one part of it, but there is more to it. We recognize the diverse experience, contribution and needs of all women regardless of their origin, age, race, ethnicity, religion, ability, sexual orientation or marital status, and we do advocate on their behalf. We fund 92 programs developed by first nations communities to end family violence in aboriginal communities.

There are transition houses in Vancouver, Sardis, Telegraph Creek and Williams Lake that deliver programs that are particularly culturally sensitive to the needs of aboriginal women, as well as Haida Gwaii, a transition house currently under development and, in fact, very close to being opened. Helping Spirit Lodge is the only transition house for aboriginal women and children in the downtown east side of Vancouver, and it receives $508,000 in funding from us and has approximately 33 beds. So it's quite a significant contribution.

Again, I'll mention the work of Peggy's Place, the transition house in the downtown east side that helps women with mental health issues who are fleeing abusive relationships, and the specialized transition house in Surrey which deals with issues around misuse of drugs and alcohol.

In answer to your specific question, we partner with the Ministries of Health and Aboriginal Affairs to fund the Aboriginal Health Association of B.C. for family violence services. The services funded are delivered by aboriginal-controlled agencies focused on aboriginal communities. This method of funding aboriginal agencies is part of the government's commitment to aboriginal people that recognizes their right to make internal decisions without interference from non-aboriginal people. We annually transfer funds to the Ministry of Health under a memorandum of understanding.

I'll give you two examples. The services include counselling to children and families, intervention-prevention, education activities and workshops with a primary focus on family violence. The council is organized geographically, and the money is distributed on that basis. I'll give you a couple of examples. Firstly, there's funding to Tsleil-Waututh first nation to provide counselling to assist in breaking the cycle of family violence and sexual assault in the local community; it is spiritual and holistic in content; and it introduces ways to heal the cycle of abuse. The second example I'll give you is funding to Osoyoos Bay Indian band to provide a quality education program for community members and staff; and information, resources, material and a network of support for individuals directly affected by anger.

L. Stephens: The minister said that the funding went to community associations in the aboriginal communities. One of the concerns is that funding that goes to the band councils can sometimes not end up in the places that it's supposed to go to. Could the minister clarify whether or not any of these 92 contracts are with the band councils, or are they with the aboriginal community services groups?

Hon. S. Hammell: No, it is not through the band councils; it's through regional aboriginal health councils.

L. Stephens: The health regions in the province have been broken down into the various sectors. How many contracts are in each of those health regions and how many dollars have been attached to each of these six regions?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm referring to last year. It probably won't change much, but it's in the process of being delivered this year, so use it as your base. There were 92 contracts last year, and they went to six regions. One is the Fraser Valley, and there were 15 contracts at $300,000; the lower mainland -- seven contracts at $300,000; the northeast -- 25 contracts at

[ Page 7451 ]

L. Stephens: I notice from the '95-96 contract designations that the Fraser Valley lost one, the northeast gained a couple, the northwest lost a couple and Vancouver Island increased a couple of those. Could the minister clarify what happened there? Why were some of these contracts lost but others given?

Hon. S. Hammell: What has remained consistent is the funding, for each region remains about the same. The contracts may vary from one area to another, depending on what the region sees as the best way to focus their time and energy as well as resources. The decision is largely made within the region with the Ministry of Health.

L. Stephens: Is there a report that summarizes the deliverables of the contracts? Do you have an accountability mechanism put in place for these contracts?

Hon. S. Hammell: We can send you that.

L. Stephens: Thank you, I would be pleased to receive it. But could the minister just talk about what is included in that process, what kind of summaries are expected from these groups? What kind of accountability is expected?

Hon. S. Hammell: I have this report that I'm quite willing to send to you. It describes each program -- the funding type, the costs, the clients, the region and the purpose. This may be more specifically what you're looking for.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could just tell me what her goals and objectives are for the funding that goes into aboriginal family violence programs. What are the outcomes that the ministry is hoping to achieve here?

Hon. S. Hammell: The goals are no different than those goals around funding violence prevention -- any other area. Our hope is to raise awareness and do some preventive work. Ultimately, we would like to see a society with less violence in it. As we've talked about here many times, that is a complex challenge. An area where we need to assist as much as possible is in the aboriginal community, and this is one way we are doing that.

L. Stephens: As the minister knows, there are issues around aboriginal violence that are somewhat different from the rest of the community. There are particular challenges in the aboriginal communities. The Aboriginal Women's Action Network has been in touch with the ministry regularly, advocating for the services that are needed there, and they've identified 11 issues that are important to that particular organization and to aboriginal people in general.

I wonder if the minister would talk about what she has done to address these issues from the Aboriginal Women's Action Network. Some of their concerns are the excessively high apprehension rates for aboriginal children and the lack of detox centres, to name just a couple. We're going to talk about a few of those, so perhaps the minister can say what she has been doing for aboriginal people in these concerns.

[3:00]

They work very closely with Vancouver Status of Women, as well as with the National Action Committee. I have spoken twice with the National Action Committee where the Aboriginal Women's Action Network was one of the main conversations going on during these conversations with NAC. There's a close affiliation between. . . . One of the key players in terms of NAC and the aboriginal women's network, one of the very active people, sits on both of those committees.

The aboriginal women's network asked me to come down to Vancouver, to the downtown east side, and do a tour with them. That's the first thing I did to get a very close look at some of the issues that they were dealing with. So I spent one afternoon with them, visited a number of the services in the downtown east side that are critical and learned firsthand, along with my deputy, some of the issues that they're working on and dealing with.

I'll just go through some of the things here. We met with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association in 1996 to discuss their plans to build a 47-unit women's residence. The government has since committed over $5 million in support of a low-cost housing project in the downtown east side coordinated by the Bridge Housing Society for Women. The facility will house two apartments and will provide second-stage emergency housing for people in need of longer-term emergency housing.

I just want to go back to some of the work I talked about, in terms of responding to the needs of aboriginal women in the downtown east side. Helping Spirit Lodge is the only transition house for aboriginal women and children in the downtown east side of Vancouver. It receives funding of $508,138 from us and, as I mentioned before, has 33 beds. Again, I'll mention the work of Peggy's Place, a transition house in the downtown east side that helps women with special mental health issues who are fleeing abusive relationships. Also, we assisted in the aboriginal health conference that was held, I think, around January or February. Over 500 aboriginal women attended that health conference -- not only from the downtown east side and Vancouver but from around the province -- to deal with health issues.

So AWAN is a very important organization. It does speak loudly on behalf of aboriginal women in the downtown east side. I'm very pleased to have it there and to be working with them.

L. Stephens: On the issue of aboriginal women's health, there's the on-reserve and the off-reserve. The on-reserve is the purview of the federal government, and we won't talk about that today. That's not something that is within our purview.

But 47 percent of status Indians live off reserve, and of these, 54 percent are women. The leading cause of death for aboriginal women that live off reserve in British Columbia is accidents -- that's traffic fatalities, respiratory disease, cancer and suicide. Almost one-fifth of these deaths are violent deaths. In fact, the suicide rate is the highest in the 15-to-24 age group, and it's growing. I think there have been a number

[ Page 7452 ]

So I wonder if the minister could talk about whether or not part of the criteria for funding for these community-based programs is to deal particularly with drug and alcohol abuse, the suicide rates and educational opportunities for aboriginal youth and those who look to services of this government to alleviate the aboriginal people's health care, particularly the women. I'm not talking specifically about the downtown east side; we'll talk about that later. We're talking generally about the aboriginal women in urban centres.

Hon. S. Hammell: What I'm doing is referring to the book, which I will make sure that you get. There's not only our money in the aboriginal health councils; there's also mental health money from the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health monitors and works with the community on the assignment of all these programs. There is a variety of programs. What I can do is just give you a flavour of them. You were asking specifically about addiction. I know you're not only referring to the lower mainland, but I just turned to that page. The Circle of Eagles Lodge Society alcohol, drug and sexual abuse counsellor "provides alcohol and drug services to men on mandatory parole from federal and provincial prisons." The Helping Spirit Lodge Society has a spousal assault program, which "provides counselling to assist abusive men in changing their violent behaviour," and "provides an opportunity to attend alcohol-free powwows, sun dances and workshops to improve behaviour."

The Musqueam Indian band's Safe Home for Youth "seeks to prevent ongoing deterioration (sociopsychological) of children at high risk and their families" and "prevents apprehension of Musqueam children by MSS" -- the Ministry of Human Resources now -- "or MCF. The program offers culturally appropriate knowledge and counselling." The Musqueam Indian band, again, "provides counselling to troubled youths dealing with family violence. It provides potlatches, circle meetings, spiritual self-healing and workshops in an alcohol- and drug-free environment." That is a small handful and a flavour of the programs that are found throughout this work with Health and Aboriginal Affairs.

L. Stephens: I'd be happy to receive that document.

I'd like to ask whether or not there is input into the Aboriginal Health Association of B.C. Does the ministry have anyone sitting on the council? Does the ministry meet with the Aboriginal Health Association regularly, from time to time or. . . ? What kind of relationship does the ministry have with the B.C. Aboriginal Health Association?

Hon. S. Hammell: We liaise through the Ministry of Health with the Aboriginal Health Association.

L. Stephens: What other programs are delivered by the partnership ministries? Does the minister know what other partnerships her ministry has with other ministries?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have a partnership with the Attorney General. I think we've pretty much covered those areas. But we partner with Attorney General, with Health and with Aboriginal Affairs, as it pertains to the family violence program.

L. Stephens: What other programs in Aboriginal Affairs are addressed in relation to the Ministry of Women's Equality, aside from violence? Is there anything else? Are there any other programs in Aboriginal Affairs that impact on women?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have done some workshops around the gender-lens training with the treaty negotiators. That about covers any additional program, because most of our program area -- in fact, all of it -- is in family violence.

L. Stephens: The aboriginal women and treaties project -- could the minister elaborate on what that is and what the outcomes were? What were the report recommendations?

Hon. S. Hammell: In 1996 we commissioned a background paper called "Aboriginal Women and Treaty-Making in B.C." The paper gave an overview of the issues that were of concern to aboriginal women in the treaty process. The purpose of it was to inform government ministries and provincial negotiators on how and when they should consider the role, conditions and participation of aboriginal women.

[3:15]

Phase two involved consultation with aboriginal women involved in treaty negotiations, to solicit comments on their roles and experiences. The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and I collaborated on that report, received advice back to government on how to strengthen the process and informed the treaty tables. We have used those two projects to assist in the treaty negotiations. As I mentioned, we have done some gender balance and gender-lens training with the treaty tables that are working with aboriginal communities in the negotiations.

Not only has phase one of the report been widely spread and sent widely, we have also used phase two to further inform our work as government.

L. Stephens: My understanding is that some of the concerns of the aboriginal women were that their voices were not being heard at the treaty tables and that they had restricted opportunities for input into the treaty-making process. Part of the mandate of these particular hearings was to help facilitate that in some way. Two questions. Could these reports -- there's 1 and 2 -- be made available to the opposition? Second, what kinds of enhanced opportunities, as a result of these reports, do aboriginal women have in order to have their voices heard at the treaty-making tables around the province?

Hon. S. Hammell: We will provide you with the report. Again, I'll emphasize that part of our action was to be sure that the people from our side that were sent to the table were further trained in the gender lens and further sensitized to be broad enough to include the women's voices. This is a particularly fine question, because the treaty negotiations are done government to government. What we do is ensure that our side is sensitive and respectful but continues to press for those voices to be heard.

L. Stephens: One of the concerns of the aboriginal community is that there is no aboriginal analyst or any kind of

[ Page 7453 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: We did have; we lost that person. It's a concern that I share with the community, and we'll continue to work towards rectifying it. Just to be very clear, at this point we do not have someone, but I hope that as we proceed, that will be corrected.

L. Stephens: It's just a suggestion, but perhaps somebody from Aboriginal Affairs could be seconded or could have some kind of liaison with your ministry to make sure that women's concerns in the treaty-making process are addressed and could have a specific responsibility to an individual.

The other concern is that in the urban areas, aboriginal programs are piecemeal. Program planning and the services are delivered in a uncoordinated fashion. I wonder if the minister would speak to that issue: whether or not she is speaking with other ministries to make sure that aboriginal programs are in fact integrated. I know that one of the focuses of the government is to make programs delivered by all ministries of government as integrated as possible. The complaint from the aboriginal community is that that is not happening. I wonder if the minister could comment.

Hon. S. Hammell: Given that we don't have an analyst currently within the ministry, I want to reassure the member that we do work very closely with the Aboriginal Affairs ministry. We are able to use the expertise of the aboriginal people within that ministry. Although our ministry doesn't yet have a person of its own, we do work with the other ministry.

Regarding the delivery of services, one of the principles for us -- and we work with Health around it -- is that the most effective delivery of services is done by the communities themselves. They can best assess the needs and go in and provide a service that is necessary and effective. We work through the Ministry of Health on the delivery of family violence services. I can't speak directly to the myriad of other services that are provided by other ministries, but as a policy throughout government, we are trying to streamline and make more efficient all services that come from government.

There are coordinating committees in many communities throughout the provinces. For example, in Vancouver there is a coordinating committee that includes women-serving agencies and members from the local community as it deals with some of the issues around family violence. That's also true in New Westminster; it's true in Coquitlam. In fact, I just met with one of them prior to coming here this morning. Government as a whole is trying to walk that line between keeping things efficient and effective while remaining in touch with communities and their needs and also taking direction from them.

L. Stephens: Who would these coordinating committees be? What would their official title be?

Hon. S. Hammell: I can't recall the precise name of every one of those three that I just mentioned. I will find out the precise names for you. They originally came together around the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. That was the coordinating committee for that work, and it extended out into the violence, as well as to a lot of work the women's centres do. They work in tandem with the police, for example. The meeting I had this morning with the Port Coquitlam group was at the courthouse -- or the police station, as I guess you would call it -- with the police and the coordinating committee. So it's where the police, the justice, are trying to work together with the community to coordinate their activities around violence.

L. Stephens: We were talking specifically about aboriginal programs, and that's what I'd like to stick to: the aboriginal programs that the ministry, through Health and Aboriginal Affairs funds. . .these 92 contracts around the province. I really want to just talk about the aboriginal programs. Could the minister clear up that, in fact, what she's talking about are the aboriginal programs? Or is that all of the Stopping the Violence initiatives?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, it's more general than just aboriginal.

L. Stephens: Okay, thank you. That's what I had thought that the minister was talking about. I want to go back again and talk specifically about aboriginal programs. I know some of the programs are included in the communities and community-based groups that provide other services as well. But I want to talk specifically about what is available to the aboriginal community. A lot of the concerns and difficulties in the aboriginal community are a little different than what other communities have to face, so that's what I want to concentrate on.

We were talking a little earlier about the treaty-making process, that aboriginal women want to have access to that treaty-making process; they want to make sure that their voices are heard and that they are able to participate. Can the minister tell me if, in fact, there have been workshops, training programs or educational programs of some kind to assist aboriginal women to develop some skills in order to participate at those treaty-making tables on an equal basis with the males that are negotiating?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me see if I can take a run at some of your concerns and try to address them. First, there's the whole concern around coordinating that I've heard you raise. One of the reasons that we fund our violence program through. . . . It's an MOU, a memorandum of understanding. The actual monitoring and delivery of the program sits with the Ministry of Health, because that puts them as the coordinator of that activity. Therefore there's no duplication; they can make sure that there's more effective delivery of both those services -- and that both ministries aren't doing it.

Our Treaty Commission. . . . We have informed the table of the need to include our side of the table, as well as informed in general the native communities throughout British Columbia on the issue of women's concerns by sharing the report with them. So that was sent out widely.

We do some work with A Safer Future for B.C. Women, in that grant program. We do work where we can with our first nations women. Let me give you some examples.

Am I being clear? I hope I'm being clear for you. The money around family violence is coordinated through Health. The treaty-making process. . . . We have done a project and we have done some gender-lens training with our side of the table, as well as share the concerns that were identified in our report broadly within the community. It is the Treaty Commission's responsibility to pick up that side of the equation. We then do specific projects through A Safer Future for B.C.

[ Page 7454 ]

The Esketemc first nation of Alkali Lake received $14,000 under the A Safer Future project for an Esketemc violence and harassment policy. This project will promote equality for women by addressing the root causes of violence against women and by working to change the mindset within the community through the process of developing and implementing a violence and harassment policy. So that's an example of a project that we've done. I can ensure that you get a description of the programs through A Safer Future that went through that program.

I just want to underline that we don't choose who comes to the negotiation table from the other side. All we can do is inform them of concerns that have come to us and share them, which we have done.

[3:30]

There are some others that the urban population is very concerned about. I'm not talking about the lower mainland specifically; I'm talking about all across the province, where there are large urban aboriginal populations. One of the concerns is that there is an excessively high apprehension rate of aboriginal children. I'd like to know if the ministry is involved in any way in addressing some of these issues.

Hon. S. Hammell: I have made a commitment to AWAN, the Aboriginal Women's Action Network, to follow that up with the Minister for Children and Families.

L. Stephens: But at the moment the ministry has no direct relationship to these issues at all; it's simply that when groups come before the minister in an advocacy role, she will take on that position with whatever ministry is responsible for those services.

Hon. S. Hammell: I can take concerns that come to me to the minister responsible, which I have said I would do.

L. Stephens: In the area of the detox facilities and the in- and out-patient addiction treatment facilities geared for aboriginal women, has this ministry done anything in that regard?

Hon. S. Hammell: Again, I would go back to information I've given previously. If we are dealing with women who are leaving abusive relationships and have drug and alcohol problems, then we are responsible for that, or we have the two specialized transition houses for both alcohol and drug as well as mental health issues. So we have no direct program responsibility. But through the Advisory Council on Women's Health, there is discussion around how the drug and alcohol issues and the new mental health plan affect women, and aboriginal women are included in that discussion.

L. Stephens: Hon. Chair, you know we are sort of getting into the same quagmire that we were in on Thursday of last week. I want to talk today about the programs out of the Stopping the Violence initiatives. There are line-ministry responsibilities for Stopping the Violence initiatives. We've talked about a number of those, and we're going to get to more of them. But aboriginal health issues encompass a wide range of concerns, not just violence issues.

I really want to know what the advocacy of this ministry is around concerns of women other than violence at this point -- including the apprehension of aboriginal children, the detox facilities, AIDS, disabilities, mental health. The minister talked about transition houses and also about the counselling services that are available for drug and alcohol abuse at a couple of other transition houses. We've talked about those, so let's leave them aside and simply talk about these other issues that aren't in the transition houses at the moment.

What is the minister doing to make sure that these kinds of services are advocated for aboriginal women in urban centres around the province with other ministries and other groups or within her own ministry? I know that the minister is familiar with these. I know that she was in Prince George, as I was, and talked to the groups of women there, who brought forward all of these concerns. So I'd like to know what the minister is doing to address them.

Hon. S. Hammell: I want to be as clear as I possibly can and do not want to obscure any answer. We try to integrate within our work the diversity of all women. So when we have the transition houses or our programs, we look at aboriginal women as well as women of ethnic backgrounds and old women. We try to incorporate our work to include all women.

In terms of health issues, we work through the Advisory Council on Women's Health. That group and the health bureau listen to and work with specific concerns around aboriginal women. I need to be careful here, but there are some issues around cancer, for example. Aboriginal women are at significantly higher risk of getting cervical cancer than the general population. That's an issue which has been discussed at that level, and action has been initiated to ensure that some of that information gets out and that women in the aboriginal community are aware of the Pap smear and of the need to have it on a regular basis. So our work is sort of as inclusive as it can be, given our priorities and our limited resources.

L. Stephens: I'd like to know what the ministry is doing and what it has done to improve services to aboriginal women in urban centres by working through the health council? What has the ministry been able to accomplish for these women?

Hon. S. Hammell: I genuinely do not understand the question. I do not know whether you are asking about the work done through the Advisory Council on Women's Health, which is an advisory council of women to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Women's Equality on all health issues around women in general. We've talked about how that has moved towards a focus on seeing violence against women as a health issue. It has looked at the mental health plan, and it has done a variety of things around women's health, supported by the women's health bureau, the Women's Hospital and that kind of general work. That assists aboriginal women as well as women in general in British Columbia.

The Women's Hospital has a specific interest in aboriginal women, working directly with them. To canvass the specifics in more detail, I would respectfully ask you to refer that question to the Minister of Health. We work with the health advisory council to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Women's Equality, particularly around the issues of family violence. We've only just started doing this. Just this last year, we've joined them in the health issues.

That is something that is quite different from the aboriginal health councils, which fund programs through the Minis-

[ Page 7455 ]

L. Stephens: I want to know what programs or what advocacy your ministry is doing for aboriginal women around the province and through the women's advisory health council. I want to know. . . . I want to be able to say to aboriginal women that yes, the Ministry of Women's Equality has done this, or yes, the government is listening and is doing that. The areas that they've identified are AIDS, mental health, apprehension of children, diabetes and disabilities. These are issues that they've raised specifically.

I would like to know what this minister has done, in her partnership role with Health and with Aboriginal Affairs, to address those issues. Specifically, what can the minister say? Yes, we're aware of this issue. Yes, we've had representation on this. Yes, we have done some studies and reports, and this is the direction that we're taking on. Pick one of them: mental health, diabetes, AIDS, disabilities, aboriginal children apprehensions. That's what I'd like to know. What specifically is being done to assist aboriginal women in urban centres?

Hon. S. Hammell: Again, I'll just reiterate. I feel a little bit like we're butting heads here. This ministry does not fund programs for AIDS, mental health, diabetes or any of that. That is a responsibility of the Minister of Health, and we work through the ministry's advisory council with their set of priorities on how they will work with women. We, the Ministry of Women's Equality, are on that advisory council, with a policy person to assist and bring our expertise to the table as decisions are made around all women in British Columbia, including aboriginal women, ethnic women, women who are seniors and the variety of women. . . . If there were to be a piece of research done, for example, around the cost of violence in the health care system, we would work through that advisory council to do so. I've mentioned to you the priorities of that advisory council. Their first priority is having the health system recognize that violence against women is a health issue, and we work with the Health ministry to ensure that that is recognized throughout the system.

There are more issues. . . . I'm sorry if I'm not hearing you correctly and not answering your question directly. Let me try two more specifics, and maybe this is what you're trying to get at. We provided the technical and funding support for two self-directed projects related to health issues for young women: body image, and respect and leadership for young aboriginal women. We did that through the A Safer Future program. We also provided funding support to the third British Columbia Conference on Aboriginal Women and Wellness, and we also supported a mini-conference with the northern aboriginal women's group on alcohol- and drug-related problems for B.C. women.

L. Stephens: We're into the same sort of mindset that we were in on Thursday. I want to know what this ministry is doing -- and what this minister is doing -- to advocate on behalf of women in this province and those particular issues. I want to know what is being done -- what concrete examples the minister can give me that she is in fact doing something for women in the province on those issues. What is happening through the Ministry of Health? She can tell me what the Ministry of Health has done as a result of this minister's advocacy work for women. Has this minister gone to the women's advisory health council and said: "Look, in the areas around this province, aboriginal women are being devastated by AIDS. What are you going to do about it? What can we do about it? What can both ministries do to work to solve this problem?" That's what I want to know.

I want to hear the minister say: "This is what we've done; this is what I have done. This is what is in progress, and this is why these particular groups can take comfort that something is being done." That's what I want to hear, because that's what these groups want to hear too. And I'm not hearing that, so obviously the only thing I can conclude is that nothing's being done, that this minister is doing nothing for these issues that I've repeatedly mentioned are a large concern around the province. It's simple; that's all I want to know. I want the minister to say that she's been working on this issue, this issue or this issue with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Ministry of Human Resources -- whoever -- and: "This is the result of our consultations, and these are the initiatives that are included in my budgets or in the aims and purposes of this ministry for this next year, 1998-99."

[3:45]

We work with the aboriginal community on all violence issues, and we advocate that their voices be heard through. . . . We use our funding to ensure that some of their voices are heard as they gather together. Let me again be specific. The aboriginal wellness conference brought together about 500 aboriginal women, where they discussed their issues. Without our funding, they can't do that. It's not our business then to tell them what their issues are; it's our business to assist them in identifying those issues and beginning to work on them.

Hon. Chair, I'm not sure what the member wants. We do work specifically with aboriginal communities. Part of their role is to identify those issues, and we work with them on raising those concerns.

L. Stephens: That's precisely what they're doing; they're raising these concerns. What they're saying is that they can't get the resources to address those concerns that they have to deal with as community-based organizations -- some of which are social housing for aboriginal people who are unjustly evicted. There are all kinds of things that they can't deal with because they simply don't have the resources to do that: racism, sexism of aboriginal members, and aboriginal children in the school system who are forced into special needs categories. There are all kinds of unfair apprehensions, which we talked about earlier. Discretionary powers of social workers is another huge issue. The way that B.C. Benefits is administered to aboriginal women. . . . These are all issues that have been brought forward to your ministry particularly. I know that they have been presented to your ministry. These

[ Page 7456 ]

I'm sure that the minister is familiar with the justice issues for aboriginal women -- which are very pressing and very serious. My understanding is that the government has closed the Vancouver Aboriginal Justice Centre. Has that made an impact on the Ministry of Women's Equality? Has the Minister of Women's Equality done anything about that? Are there any plans to address that closure? It's certainly meant that aboriginal women's lives are much more complicated as a result of that.

Hon. S. Hammell: To my recollection, the issue has not been raised with us at this ministry.

L. Stephens: Well, perhaps the minister can take it from this that it has been raised and that there needs to be some serious reporting and discussions around aboriginal justice centres and aboriginal justice, period. So I would encourage the minister to take that up with the Attorney General and to ask him to focus on the impacts of the justice system on women -- not just his Violence Against Women in Relationships policy but the other issues that affect aboriginal women as well.

We're going to start on the A Safer Future prevention program -- $610,000 -- and the four components: community action, school action, Change Agents and Speaking Up and Speaking Out. These are all programs for preventing violence against women, where the funding goes to local groups, non-profit organizations and equity-seeking organizations in the form of contributions to deal with education and advocacy for women. Perhaps the minister could start with community action and just outline briefly how many grants have been allocated to the community action section of the prevention programs.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm going to describe last year's program to you, because this year's program is just beginning. So the $610,000 is a description of this year's program, though it's very similar to last year's. Community action is funding for programs or projects done in partnership with local governments, business or other organizations which also contribute funds. That area spent $60,795.

L. Stephens: What is the amount of funding for the school action programs?

Hon. S. Hammell: The school action funding for projects is a description of funding for projects which also involve school partners. There have been nine projects for $109,009.

I'll just go on, because I assume you're going to ask. . . . Change Agents is funding for groups that do not have access to partners to implement violence prevention projects; there were nine projects for $179,035. Speaking Up and Speaking Out -- funding for projects that support women's participation in public policy discussions and decision was $66,210.

L. Stephens: How many projects?

Hon. S. Hammell: Sorry -- eight.

L. Stephens: There are funding guidelines that determine whether or not organizations receive this funding. Are these funding guidelines. . . ? Is this part of the accountability package of your ministry? And do you have accountability mechanisms built into these funding guidelines?

Hon. S. Hammell: There is an evaluation process built into each project.

L. Stephens: Has the ministry identified any gaps in any of these programs?

Hon. S. Hammell: I don't quite understand what you mean by gaps.

L. Stephens: Two questions, I guess. The first one is: are they in fact doing what the ministry has intended them to do? And secondly, where can there be some improvements? Has the ministry undergone any reviews of these programs to identify gaps and identify where improvements can be made?

Hon. S. Hammell: Each application for funding under A Safer Future for B.C. Women is assessed against clearly identifiable program criteria, and each funded project includes a plan for evaluation. We will help projects share what they have learned about prevention through regional workshops and by posting their findings on the ministry's web site. The ministry will be evaluating the overall results of A Safer Future for B.C. Women once the program has been in operation for two complete fiscal years. Once we've done a swing of two years, we will do an evaluation. Based on that evaluation, we will continue to strengthen the program and to share the knowledge of prevention with communities across the province.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

It is interesting to note that one of the major issues out of the symposium held in January was the need to share best practices or best programs so that a community that is looking to do some kind of prevention doesn't necessarily have to reinvent the wheel. They can identify or shop around with a number of projects that have been effective elsewhere so that they can get involved and try to make a difference in their community.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry fund any pilot projects on issues?

Hon. S. Hammell: I guess it depends on what you mean by "pilot." Many of the Safer Future projects could be considered pilots in the sense that they go up, there is an effort made in the community, there's an evaluation process, and we then further evaluate after two years. If that is a successful project, it would then have been piloted, and other people could refer to it as something that they might wish to do. For example, I would consider the safety audit and the whole move of the safety features around prevention of violence that have been embedded in the Cowichan community plan to be a pilot for the province. If other cities within the province wanted to use that information and see how successful that project was, then they have something that has gone before them that they can refer to.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry participate in any of the human rights discussions -- equality and human rights committees, or projects, or anything of that sort?

[ Page 7457 ]

[4:00]

L. Stephens: Can the minister tell the committee what her ministry is doing to strengthen the government's response to violence against women, aside from the programs that we've been talking about here, aside from these issues in these areas -- everything that's community action, everything that's funded through school action, and Change Agents, and Speaking Up and Speaking Out. . .not about those programs, not about what this ministry funds through these programs, but what is the ministry doing above and beyond those funded programs to strengthen the government's response to violence against women?

Hon. S. Hammell: A significant amount of our energy goes into working with the community around prevention projects. Some of them are fairly obvious, and some of them I can repeat again. For example, I met this morning with the Port Coquitlam coordinating committee around Violence Against Women in Relationships. It's the second time within a month I've met with them to discuss issues around violence against women in their community and to seek advice and feedback from the community around many of the issues. They have concerns and I have concerns, and it's only if you stay connected to the grass roots that you do actually hear what is going on in the community. We receive information and we follow up on it. Sometimes information is very specific and can be followed up by a direct discussion with another ministry, or by moving it through the policy. So let me say that we talk and meet with the grass roots of the community and then feed back their concerns to various ministries, and sometimes we look for policy change and sometimes we work directly with another minister around an issue.

One example would be that we got feedback from the community that the harassment policy should be translated into Punjabi and Chinese, so we did that. That's two ministers, plus linking with the community and providing some information so the community can then be more knowledgeable around that particular issue. We worked with the Attorney General on the cell phones and around strengthening notification procedures and protection orders.

I'm not sure that this is the kind of answer the member is looking for. Maybe, if it isn't, she can be a little clearer for me on exactly what the question is.

L. Stephens: I was looking for some concrete initiatives of the ministry in dealing with violence against women. I know that the ministry and the Attorney General's ministry did a review of the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy and had some consultations around the province and on some of the responses that flowed from that. I also believe that during last year's. . . . Well, I know, I was there. I heard the minister say that she was going to be conducting consultations around domestic violence legislation. I understand that the minister has done that, so perhaps she could talk about what progress domestic violence legislation would make with her government.

Hon. S. Hammell: I know that you have a particular interest in this legislation and that you have tabled it five times for consideration, and I understand and respect that. Following that initiative, we went out into our community to test very deeply the waters around whether our community wanted us to bring in this legislation. At this point in time there is not the support for the legislation. Perhaps the reason is that we have taken a slightly different tack in British Columbia than in other areas: we have provided a very strong system of transition houses, safe homes and second-stage housing. We believe that what we want to do is to get women into a situation where they can be supported and assisted through this period of time. We also have a very strong Violence Against Women in Relationships policy, where we do not see the assault in a domestic dispute as merely a civil matter to be discharged between two people but as actually a criminal offence; and if required, charges and prosecution will proceed if the evidence is there.

We went out into eight different communities, and the message was the same within every community at every table of consultation, and that was that the women-serving agencies do not want to bring in the domestic violence legislation at this time. They want us instead to continue to work with the police to strengthen the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy.

L. Stephens: One of the recommendations was that emergency intervention orders should be used -- similar to the Saskatchewan legislation which I tabled in this House -- and that justices of the peace should be used and available within 24 hours, which is also from the Saskatchewan legislation. I wonder if the minister could talk about these two particular tools that could be used.

I understand the concerns of transition house personnel around the safety of women. I know that their argument has been that they have concerns that the safety of the women would not be in place if there were domestic violence legislation. I don't share that view. Certainly domestic violence legislation would not replace transition houses; it would simply give the police and other victim-serving organizations another mechanism to deal with the offender in a criminal way. I think the minister knows that that piece of legislation does say that it has all the effect of the Criminal Code and that it is very enforceable -- more enforceable than the policy the Attorney General has in place at the moment.

Can the minister tell me when she identified these gaps and which ones she is prepared to deal with to help protect women and to keep them safer. If she's not going to introduce violence-in-relationships legislation, what is she going to do to improve this policy of the Attorney General's?

Hon. S. Hammell: We are working with the Attorney General on emergency intervention as well as the 24-hour justice of the peace. We're actively pursuing those two areas.

L. Stephens: Just before we leave that, I'm sure the minister knows that Alberta now has domestic violence legislation. Saskatchewan has had it since '91, as have Manitoba and various jurisdictions in the United States. As a matter of fact, the U.S. has a national program and legislation on domestic violence -- not just a program, but domestic violence legislation -- at the national level that deals with violence against women. It's unfortunate that British Columbia doesn't see fit to bring in legislation of its own, because I think that's a disservice to women in the province.

There were a number of recommendations that arose from the inquest into the Gakhal deaths in Vernon, some that

[ Page 7458 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: Just before we move on, I'd like to make a few points around your closing comments around domestic violence legislation.

Again, I want to try to give you the different ways of approaching. . . . Certainly different provinces have approached this problem from different perspectives, and I can't say with any confidence that the problem is disappearing because of one particular approach. But let me be very clear about one thing. In Alberta they have one transition house -- shelter or second-stage -- for 118,000 people. In B.C. we have one transition house -- shelter or second-stage -- for 47,400. So we believe strongly that one of the keys to addressing the issue of violence against women is to provide that infrastructure so that there is a place for the woman to go where there is support for her and her children, and counselling. That is a commitment we've made. And those figures hold true. We have more transition houses than Saskatchewan, which also has that legislation.

Also, I want the member to remember that with all due respect, I did take her words seriously last year. I was very interested in her legislation and did follow up through consultations throughout the province. We met with eight different communities; we had intensive discussions in concert with the Attorney General. Our women-serving community at this point in time does not want us to bring in that legislation. As you have said, there may be ways to enhance our work, but once you've gone out for consultations, I think it would be to some extent disrespectful to then turn around and proceed with something that people have clearly told you they don't want at this point in time.

So we have looked, and we are working with the Attorney General to see where we can, again, make more improvements. What the community did say very clearly was that they did want further training of police. That is a constant theme that's out there, and that is being followed up on.

[4:15]

We have, though, responded when we can within communities. For instance, after the murders of the women and children in Black Creek and Vernon, my ministry offered support to those communities coping with the aftermath of those killings. And $10,000 was provided to the women-serving agencies in Campbell River and Courtenay to assist with their response, which included a public awareness campaign around violence against women.

In Vernon, after the Gakhal murders -- although we're not talking about the Josiah Wood report -- we provided money to a coordinating committee to support the critical incident debriefing and a more coordinated response to violence against women. In fact, we've just gone up into Vernon last week with our first regional workshop around prevention, and we engaged a huge number of the community in the workshop -- in fact, we were full to overflowing in terms of what we could handle. The response to prevention activities in the Vernon area was very good.

L. Stephens: The status of the government's response I was looking for was on the chief coroner's recommendations, which are public and have been for some time. The Violence Against Women in Relationships. . . . Well, I've got a whole bunch of questions. Let's start with No. 1: was there draft legislation on a government domestic violence bill that went out for consultation? Was there any kind of draft for people to respond to?

Hon. S. Hammell: We clearly presented the legislation as an option.

L. Stephens: What kind of legislation? Was the minister talking specifically about the Saskatchewan legislation, or did she have draft legislation of her own?

Hon. S. Hammell: We do not have draft legislation of our own, so it must have been the Saskatchewan legislation. I'm not absolutely clear on this.

L. Stephens: The minister was talking about Vernon a few minutes ago. I understand that the Vernon Women's Centre received $15,000 for a study. Has that been completed, and is it available for public consumption?

Hon. S. Hammell: Twenty thousand dollars was provided to that coordinating committee to do the critical instant debriefing, as well as a more coordinated response. That must be the program you're referring to. If there's an actual. . . . They would have had to put in a proposal, which I can get.

L. Stephens: Can I take it from the minister's response that that should be in the ministry somewhere and that I could receive a copy of it? The minister is nodding her head that yes, that's the case.

The chief coroner's recommendations that arose from the inquest into the Gakhal deaths outlined a number of ministries, provincial groups and organizations that needed to put in place some changed protocols. The Ministry of Women's Equality was one of them. One recommendation was minimum standards for counsellors and volunteers. Exploration of early intervention opportunities was another. That is where I believe legislation would be of benefit; certainly the Saskatchewan legislation would. Other ones were improved public education and awareness, continuing implementation of the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy and education for police officers.

During the Attorney General's estimates, I had a chance to talk with him about some of these. He assures me that the education for police officers is continuing and is being enhanced around the province and that the exploration of early intervention opportunities is as well. I understand that the ministry has addressed the issue of minimum standards for counsellors and volunteers, because we spoke about that last week.

The continuing implementation of the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy was the subject of the consultations that went around the province. Some of the gaps that were identified were: the discretionary practices of police, the lack of coordination of the K-file designation, availability of police willing to assist women, and charge-approval criteria that are too stringent -- and that too many charges are never laid. Could the minister respond with what she and her ministry have been doing to try to rectify some of these gaps that were identified?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have an ongoing working committee that works with the Attorney General as he reviews

[ Page 7459 ]

It is constantly raised, so I want to acknowledge that you raise an issue that is very valid and one we are looking at. It also leads me to mention, just for a second, the value of the coordinating committees at the local level, such as the one I met with this morning. I will get more information to you on it. The K-files and the discussion of how they're too tight and how we have to look at other information as it relates to the K-files was again raised by the police at that meeting this morning, on which I will give feedback into the Attorney General's ministry through my ministry and through direct conversation.

These conversations continue. I hear information, and I pass it on. We work together at the table, continually trying to improve that policy, and we will continue to do so.

L. Stephens: Last year I raised the issue with the Attorney General, too, about the reports I was hearing from around the province, and I'm sure the minister was hearing these same reports about the inconsistencies of the RCMP, primarily, in their charging or their lack of charging. Some detachments did; some didn't. Some were better than others, and some were particularly bad. The Vernon one was the one that took most of the heat for the detachments that were, in fact, not responding to the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. The Attorney General has assured me he has put some things in place that will help to address that.

I wonder if the minister would perhaps tell me what the Ministry of Women's Equality is doing with transition homes to assist them to be able to be aware of what women's rights are and what they can expect from the local detachment of the RCMP or city police, whichever it may be, to make sure that women are in fact getting the services they are entitled to under the law.

Hon. S. Hammell: There are actually three things I'll mention to you around this area. Josiah Wood's report back should hit this directly on the head, and we will be getting very direct advice from him on this particular issue. In the meantime, our staff members work with the coordinating committees that are in the local areas, and we support the umbrella agencies that provide the training, workshops and educational aspects, such as the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses, as well as the Association of Specialized Victims Counselling Programs. Both of those groups act as the leaders within their particular organizations to then provide information and training around a variety of these issues.

L. Stephens: I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to have a look at Chief Judge Metzger's report on the delays and backlogs in the Provincial Court system. There are some very serious concerns there for women and children. It talks about women and children becoming destitute waiting for maintenance orders, families waiting for over a year to obtain those maintenance orders, courts in crisis, people waiting inordinate lengths of time, and the party who is economically, emotionally or physically stronger being able to impose custody and access terms while the courts find a date for these issues to become resolved. He goes on to talk about family law, and the irreparable emotional harm that children are suffering as a result of these delays and backlogs in the Provincial Court system. So I would like the minister to comment on whether or not she has been apprised of the report and what she's doing to try to raise those issues with the Attorney General to make sure that women and children are being well served in the province.

Hon. S. Hammell: I have asked my staff to take a look at that report and to report back to me, and that is ongoing. Let me say that I share your concern around any hardship that a delay in the court system may cause people, and any consequence that flows out of that. We have done a number of things. One of them is to accept the guidelines around maintenance, which, if I recall, the opposition also agreed with. Hopefully, that will facilitate and actually prevent the need to go to court for maintenance agreements, given that there will be a targeted amount that the court is going to basically acknowledge, once a court date and information is provided. In the long term, I hope that some of the efficiencies that are done in concert with the federal government will be useful for us here and be more efficient and facilitate some of this. In the meantime, I'm very aware of the report and very concerned and have asked my staff to report back to me.

L. Stephens: I would just pass along some information that I'm sure the minister is probably aware of -- the Attorney General wasn't. Many of the women who are going for the mediation programs feel that they have no choice but to go to those mediation programs and that if they do not, they will be seen by the justice system to be uncooperative. I know the minister knows, as well, that mediation is not supposed to be appropriate when violence issues are part of the whole package. I think the minister also knows that most of these conflicts do revolve around domestic violence, and so that particular policy is not being followed either. Many women feel that they are victimized again by having to go to mediation, and that there is another hurdle for them to jump over to get access to the courts. I want to highlight that for the minister, and perhaps she can look into it. It's not just from one area of the province that I've heard that; it's from all of the areas where mandatory -- or even just mediation -- counselling is being implemented.

[4:30]

Hon. S. Hammell: The intervention services for assaultive men received $538,401 from us. We have 19 contracts in total. I'm just going to go through them. They're throughout a variety of regions. Vancouver Island has two delivered by the Ministry of Health and two delivered by the AG, for a total of four -- $91,000. Metro Vancouver has three delivered by the Attorney General -- $83,000. The Fraser region has two delivered by the Ministry of Health and three by the AG, for a total of five -- $204,773. The interior has one delivered by the Ministry of Health and three delivered by the Attorney General, for a total of four -- $83,800. The north has one by the Ministry of Health and two by the Attorney General, for a total of three -- $75,211.

[ Page 7460 ]

L. Stephens: Does the ministry have any stats on how many people take part in those programs?

Hon. S. Hammell: There's an average of between 1,400 and 1,500 men processed through this program. The number of clients completing the program is increasing and is at approximately 65 percent this year.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry have any stats on repeat offenders?

Hon. S. Hammell: Evaluations are now being done on these programs. What we do know is that there is a lower level of recidivism among those who have completed the program, compared to those who have not completed it. That's what I can tell you at this point in time.

L. Stephens: Has the minister given any consideration to encouraging the Attorney General to look at allowing the courts to order mandatory treatment programs for assaultive men?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm actually looking forward to the results of the evaluation, because there may be some insights into answers to that particular question. My sort of gut instinct is that it is non-productive or counterproductive to insist someone take a cure that they do not believe they need and that a mandatory approach to this problem is. . . . I'm speaking personally, at this point in time, and I'm looking forward to the results. My instincts tell me that a mandatory approach would be non-productive and that we need to put limited resources into those people who have recognized they have a problem and are prepared to work on it. I could be wrong, but I do believe that at this point in time judges can insist, as part of the sentencing, on mandatory attendance at some of these programs.

L. Stephens: There is a debate that is going on among various groups and individuals about whether or not mandatory counselling programs would be effective or if things would continue on much as they are. There is a fellow -- his name is Neil Jacobson -- who was up here. He's from the University of Washington, and he was talking to some B.C. psychology students about this issue of batterers. He says that treatment is wasted on batterers. He goes on to talk about a study that has been done -- the most scientifically sound study that has ever been done, he says. It was done for the U.S. Navy, with a huge sample size and a control group that had had no treatment. He said that it confirms what he has been saying for years -- that batterers are men who, generally speaking, are not going to change, which is why they should be behind bars. He says: "If battering carried an automatic jail sentence, that would have a major impact, but currently what you end up with is a slap on the wrist." He goes on to say that allocating government resources to help the female victims makes more sense. I think a lot of people would probably agree with that statement.

Has the ministry done any studies? Has the Attorney General's ministry undertaken any studies? Are there any initiatives in place to determine whether or not treatment programs in this province are effective -- and if perhaps they can be improved? Is there anything being done to address this particular issue?

Hon. S. Hammell: Evaluations are being done on these programs, so I'm actually quite interested in what that will show. You do have people in programs who then can be followed to see what kinds of results are a consequence of that. But I think the jury is still out on whether assaultive programs for men are useful or not. If you think of a continuum of behaviour, the most severe being that which is the most difficult to change and then it moves down to less severe, it seems to me that there is clearly some opportunity for behaviour change at some point in time, depending on how ingrained the behaviour is and how much a part of a personality it has become. Certainly I would recognize. . .and be the first to be concerned about a hard-core batterer changing his behaviour because of a counselling program. But then I think that the jury's still out.

In response to the person that came up from the States, there was further comment by someone from here around the issue of who brought forward the statistics that said that in fact the programs were productive. I'm actually very interested, because all the time you're in government you are very cognizant of the fact that you do have limited resources. This year we chose to put the extra resources we had into two new transition houses because we felt that was the best use of them as opposed to the other option, which was to beef up the assaultive men's treatment program. We believe that clearly we still have need for that support for women in the community.

D. Symons: I have just a few questions to ask the minister, relating to the line items in the estimates book. I notice that overall spending for the operations of the ministry this year is down by about 15 percent and that spending changes occur more dramatically in some operations than others. So if we could just spend a few minutes looking at those figures, I'd appreciate it.

The main changes seem to occur under corporate services. Certainly for programs and policy, those figures seem somewhat similar. Looking at the first few sections, the first STOBs, the money part of salaries and benefits seems down slightly, but not to any great extent. But when we get into the next section to do with the operating costs, we find that professional services -- STOB 20 -- has dropped considerably from the past year, and that the next one, information systems, has also had a dramatic drop from the previous year. I might as well get all three in here: STOB 30, office and business expenses, has also gone down considerably. So I wonder if you might give me an idea of what professional services, information systems, and office and business expenses you are not incurring this year that you were incurring last year.

[4:45]

Let me just go through. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: I was just going to say that the critic has done a very good job. She has managed to get a question, I

[ Page 7461 ]

L. Stephens: I thank the minister for that. I must say that I didn't want to leave a stone unturned in these estimates, which is why we're going to talk about multiculturalism now. I know we've talked about some of the issues around multiculturalism, particularly the violence programs, the educational programs and the various language initiatives which have been undertaken that assist the multicultural community as well. So aside from those issues, is there anything in the multiculturalism action plan for '98-99 that is in addition to the violence programs, the education programs, the language translation programs and those kinds of things? Is there anything new that has been added to last year's multicultural action plan?

Hon. S. Hammell: We are just finalizing our program for this year in terms of multiculturalism, although it will build strongly on some of the things that we've done in the past. We have a person within our ministry who is responsible for the overall sort of monitoring and advocating on behalf of the multicultural aspect within the ministry. We're pleased she's there. Having raised the fact that we have not yet got our aboriginal person in place, I'm going to highlight the fact that have our multicultural person in place. We are actively using the talents within our ministry, because we have a fairly diverse background. The people within our ministry have a diverse background, and we are using their expertise to assist us.

Obviously, you know some of the safety initiatives that we've done. I'm referring again to last year, because I can't be too specific yet about this year. But we have done "Keeping Safe: Women at Work" -- we've reprinted that into the languages. . . . We've done the harassment. . . . We joined with Multiculturalism B.C., sponsoring a conference on hate crime prevention -- for stopping the violence against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and the transgendered. And there are grants and training subsidies to improve access to transition houses by aboriginal women and women of multicultural backgrounds. Again, we've done the economic equality. . . .

We've looked at that Internet program. Again, we mentioned earlier the B.C. 21 program that allowed us to ensure that a lot of people- or women-serving organizations got onto the Internet -- 28 community organizations serving multicultural, immigrant and visible minority groups affiliated with AMSSA of B.C., to assist them to get online. There was a very specific drive to include the multicultural community in that effort.

One health initiative included sponsoring the TV series "Women Being" to provide multicultural public education on women's health issues. It was first broadcast in September '97 and repeated in March '98, and it was also shown on a variety of ethnic stations. So that's just a touch at some of the things that we did last year. But we have yet to finalize the specific program that we'll be targeting this year.

L. Stephens: Is there an amount of money that this ministry is spending in multicultural media? I'm thinking particularly of channel 20, the multicultural channel. Does the ministry have an amount of money that they've set aside to fund different initiatives on their own -- or perhaps contribute to a government communications budget for a centralized initiative on the part of government around multicultural issues on the multicultural channel?

Hon. S. Hammell: We don't have a particular budget that is only dedicated to that. Oftentimes you can work with the multicultural stations where you can do a public service and get the message out that way. No, we don't have a particular budget for that channel.

L. Stephens: A particularly ugly part of society is racism. We've seen some particularly ugly events in the province in the last little while around the issue of racism. Could the minister tell us what kinds of initiatives on the issue of racism she will be undertaking in the coming year that affect her ministry?

Hon. S. Hammell: I believe, actually, that there's a very close correlation between racism and sexism. They're kinds of discrimination based on either colour or sex. We are constantly working on the sexism issue, and we draw, as well as we can, the parallels across to the racism issue. Some of the issues have happened very closely to me, personally, in the recent past. I was very familiar with the person who was murdered at the temple, and I felt that very personally. I also attended the vigil around the issue on Saturday night. Racism is an issue that wanders amongst every community. Every ethnic community has to deal with its own community around the issue. Although I will not be pointing out to you a specific program that we are doing around racism, we support the work of the Attorney General and the Minister of Education around that issue. But we work very hard around the issues of sexism and draw the parallels whenever we can.

L. Stephens: One of the areas that came up in conversation with the immigrant women's society was credentialing. When a lot of immigrants -- not just women but men as well; and I think this was in the paper either today or Saturday -- come to Canada with degrees from their home countries, those credentials are not recognized in Canada. The two issues for them are lack of recognition of credentials and the inability to get experience in Canada, or in British Columbia particularly, in their field of training. There needs to be some way to address those issues. One of the concerns is that perhaps some of the associations have barriers to individuals, one being work experience another being language. First of all, I want to highlight those two areas for the minister: lack of credit for academic achievements in their home countries and the inability to get work in Canada or in British Columbia in their field of expertise, to get the kind of experience they need to access better jobs. What we're talking about here is economic security, and it affects both men and women in the multicultural area.

First of all, is the minister aware of this? If so, what can she do about it? And what can she perhaps pass on to other ministries of government to help address this problem?

Hon. S. Hammell: In the last administration, we worked with the Open Learning Institute to provide a place to go to take your credentials to be evaluated. It was modelled on the Ontario system, if I recall correctly. So we have developed in British Columbia a system of accreditation where we do take a look at what is brought to the table from other countries. We have in fact streamlined and made a B.C.-sensitive system. I haven't looked at that in depth recently. I will take a moment to do that and pass on to the member any information that I look at.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased that the government has acted on this and that there are some mechanisms in place to deal

[ Page 7462 ]

To touch a little bit on in-service training, perhaps the minister could talk a little bit about. . . . I see there's about $200,000 in the in-service training budget for this year. Presumably, this is for transition house staff who work with the Stopping the Violence programs around the province. Just talk about what those in-service training programs in this year's budget consist of.

Hon. S. Hammell: Before I go into the detail, I just want to give the feedback to the member opposite that I received when I moved around the women-serving community. Of all the things we do in the ministry, this is probably considered one of the most valuable: to maintain and continue to train -- have a pool of money so that women can get their skills up, keep them up and learn the new things that are coming down the pike.

The Chair: I declare a recess. I think we have business to do in the other House.

[5:00]

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

L. Stephens: We were talking about in-service training, and the minister was discussing what her ministry is currently doing to provide that.

Hon. S. Hammell: The training subsidy program provides subsidies for direct service workers working with women who have experienced violence and with their children who have witnessed abuse. In fiscal 1997-98, 211 applications for training subsidies were approved, for a total of $141,900 -- an average of $672.63 per subsidy. Training subsidies are for direct service workers with non-profit organizations that provide services in Stopping the Violence Against Women, and for course costs and/or travel, based on Treasury Board guidelines and approved by an interministry committee. Training subsidy funds are also used to support the development and delivery of training. For example, training funds are supporting the update of the core curriculum for STV counsellors and the development of curriculum for management training for women's organizations.

L. Stephens: Are the training requirements for staff around the new accountability guidelines that the ministry is undertaking included as well?

Hon. S. Hammell: The answer is yes. I'd just like to make the point that I began with, just so you have the numbers. Ninety-three percent of the agencies felt that the subsidized training resulted in improved quality of service to women who had experienced violence, 94 percent of the agencies said that the training subsidy program made a difference in their agency being able to afford training for direct service workers, and 88 percent of direct service workers reported that they shared what they learned in subsidized training with their co-workers.

L. Stephens: Do the people who benefit from the in-service training have a range of courses that are available to them? If that is so, what would the range be? What kinds of courses would be available for this in-service training?

Hon. S. Hammell: The courses run the gamut from direct service to the person coming -- for instance, critical debriefing, trauma debriefing, and assisting and counselling skills as people are working through the trauma that oftentimes the woman experiences -- right through to management of transition house operations. So there is a wide variety of courses, depending on what aspect is being offered at that particular time.

L. Stephens: We'll move on to the policy and evaluation functions of the ministry. Could the minister give the committee a brief overview of the functions that the policy and evaluations department of the ministry is working on?

[5:15]

You made the suggestion, and we concurred, that we should take a look at that policy and do a report on how successful we've been with the implementation of the various aspects of it. That policy included things like highway construction and high-occupancy-vehicle agreements, and asked us to look at targets for including people who have traditionally not been represented in road-building and bridge-building. We worked with the policy around the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, and that ended up in legislation. And we work continually on Violence Against Women in Relationships.

Just to try to wrap up, the policy branch works with other government agencies to influence their work so that it impacts positively on women.

L. Stephens: When she was talking about the FTEs, the minister didn't talk about the amount of money that is in the policy and evaluation branch.

Hon. S. Hammell: It's $643,000.

L. Stephens: I want to talk about issues that the ministry is not directly responsible for but is involved in. Other lead ministries have the primary responsibility for these issues, but the ministry is touched by them because they in fact impact on women. I'm thinking of domestic workers. There have been a number of concerns around domestic workers and their exploitation. I wonder if the minister could talk about what her ministry is doing and how she's been working in partnership with other ministries to make some changes to the lives of domestic workers in British Columbia.

[ Page 7463 ]

L. Stephens: I would ask that that information be available to the official opposition. I see the minister nodding yes. I thank her for that.

Is there anything this minister is doing to advocate on behalf of female small business owners, by doing any policy and evaluation studies?

Hon. S. Hammell: We touched slightly on this issue of small business and women in small business a while back. I mentioned at that time that I had worked with Women Entrepreneurs of Canada. In fact, I'm going to speak with a group in North Vancouver this week -- assuming I catch the flight, given the length of time that we have to scamper to somewhere. . . . Actually, I think I have leave for it -- if, in fact, my leave is not cancelled, like it was last time.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: Thank you -- would you? You probably have more influence than I do on this one.

I have worked with Uniquely B.C. and supported their work, given the fact that over 50 percent of their clients are women. The work has been largely supportive in nature and sort of acknowledging widely that women are very active in the business community. They are doing very, very well. Prior to last year's budget I worked with the businesswomen's advocate in small business, who did a superb job. The support is more incidental and moral support, rather than specific policy support, at this time.

L. Stephens: As the minister knows, being involved with the federal-provincial-territorial interministry meetings that go on from time to time, custody and access is becoming a very difficult subject. The federal subcommittee was here last week, in Vancouver, conducting hearings. My understanding is that they had to cut it short but that they will be back. Is the minister doing anything in the way of custody and access? Have there been any policy initiatives underway to try to get a grip on what is happening with custody and access?

Hon. S. Hammell: Custody and access is an issue that is often raised with me, although I don't have the specific line responsibility for it. It is not an issue at the federal-provincial-territorial table because it rests at the Attorney General's table and at the Ministry for Children and Families table. That's the separation of the specific policy and line responsibility for them.

However, having said that, you hear things and bring forward issues, and we do work with the Ministry of Attorney General in examining the custody and access issues raised by women. The example that I would bring forward is the one we've talked about -- around maintenance orders -- where we worked with the Attorney General. In fact, there was some discussion around those before we adopted and supported the federal initiative.

I am very aware that the federal government was here around custody and access. We are very concerned that women's voices get heard at that table -- as well as men's -- and have been working very hard to ensure that people are aware that the parliamentary committee is in town and that they need to be there and present their points of view so that a balanced picture is left with the committee.

L. Stephens: The minister is absolutely correct that the hearings, from what I understand, have been quite lively, shall we say, and that women's voices do need to be heard very strongly in those committee hearings. I would like to encourage the minister to continue to advocate and to monitor what is happening in that regard with the other ministries of government that are directly responsible for it.

We talked a little bit earlier about the need for training for service providers, and that included not only transition house workers but also justice services workers and victim services workers. One of the acknowledgments has been that there needs to be training, for all individuals involved in providing services to women, around the dynamics of domestic violence, which are different from other kinds of violence. I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about whether or not her ministry has had input into developing training manuals for service providers and whether or not, in this particular budget, there is any further work being done in that area.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the past we have, but in this budget we don't.

L. Stephens: Another area that is causing considerable concern is the reduction in legal aid. I'm not sure whether the minister is familiar with what's happened at legal aid. There are a number of things. The reduced funding is one. The second issue is that the criteria have been restricted, so many women are not qualifying for legal aid. Therefore some of these women are ending up in court with no representation. That, in turn, has led to judges not making judgments, because these women do not have legal representation. So the hearings are adjourned, which adds to the delays and the backlog in the justice system that we spoke about earlier. I wonder if the minister has been involved in the discussions around legal aid and access to legal aid for women who need it.

[5:30]

We've also got the new child support guidelines. We mentioned this earlier. Hopefully, in time that will reduce the need for women to go through the courts. There will be a set

[ Page 7464 ]

There are 23 family support clerks that have been hired, and three more will be hired, to work out of the family justice centres in 24 communities throughout the province, as well as the Supreme Court registries in Vancouver and New Westminster. Legal aid clients will be given priority. I want to reiterate -- because we did have this discussion before -- that I do hear the member's concern, and I do share it with her.

L. Stephens: The changes to the justice system and the reforms that the Attorney General has been putting in place around diversion and restorative justice, and the family justice centres and all those kinds of initiatives, impact on women as well as on men and children. The child support guidelines that the minister talked about will, hopefully, mean that there are fewer women in court seeking maintenance orders. However, in the short term I think there will be a number of them that will be going in there to seek changes to their current maintenance orders. So there is going to be a significant increase, perhaps, in these changes to maintenance orders because the guidelines put in place significantly increased payments from what is the norm now. I would suggest that perhaps there will be an increase. Many of these women are going to need legal aid services in order to access those changes.

I think it all comes down to access to justice, as well, and whether or not people are in fact able to obtain justice in the courts. One person said to me that mediation is for the poor and litigation is for the rich. That seems to be gaining a lot of momentum out there. It looks like what is happening is that the government is trying to move various family law matters out of the court system and into the family justice centres. I think that in principle that's probably a good idea; but we have to be careful about whether or not people do still retain their right to go to a court of law, to have a final arbitration settled there. We talked about this earlier: a lot of women that were going to the family justice centres felt that they were being coerced into going there, and that if they didn't it would appear that they were being uncooperative -- if in fact they did have to go to a court. . . . Those are issues that I'd like the minister to be aware of and to keep an eye on, and when and if others come to her and talk to her about these particular problems, to make inquiries and find out whether or not women are having the kind of access to the court system that they in fact deserve.

I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on what her ministry has been doing with regard to the gambling issue, which was very active in last year's session of the Legislature. There are still some ongoing concerns around the social effects of gaming, so I wonder if the minister could talk about what her ministry is doing in that regard. A year has gone by since we raised some of these issues, and I wonder if the minister could just lay out what her ministry is putting in place to deal with women and the effects of gaming.

Hon. S. Hammell: Just before we leave the last set of issues that you raised, I want to come back and talk for a minute about diversion. This has been an ongoing conversation between me and the community, as well as between me and the Attorney General. The Attorney General has reiterated again and again -- and I sort of travel to him and check out his position continually around the issue of diversion. . . . I would, in fact, expect any change to take place. . . . Both of us are absolutely adamant on the fact that there will be no diversion in domestic and violent -- where violence is involved -- unless there are extremely unusual and unique circumstances under which it makes absolute and total sense. That has been our position and continues to be our position. We have also taken the position to the federal government that their -- what is the term for it? -- conditional sentencing should not apply to those incidents where violence has been part of the crime.

Moving on to gambling, this was an issue that was canvassed a lot last year, much to my chagrin. If I recall, it was a big learning curve. We have, through the Ministry for Children and Families, an adult addiction service. Counsellors are being trained, and brochures have been produced and circulated to the casinos within the province. Ongoing advice on problem gambling is being provided by an addiction advisory council. So there is action around this issue.

L. Stephens: I see that we've got about ten or 15 minutes left. I do want to wrap up the Ministry of Women's Equality estimates today, so we'll go on to the last area that I want to talk about, and that's accountability. By that I mean accountability of the ministry as a whole. Talk a little bit about the mechanisms that the government has been putting in place to deal with the operational, financial and compliance aspects of accountability. I know that it's a government wide initiative. I think the Ministry of Women's Equality was one of the pilot-project ministries that the rest of the ministries modelled their programs after. I'd like to know if, in fact, the ministry is achieving the financial objectives that it has set out for itself.

Hon. S. Hammell: The answer is yes. Our director is on the interministry committee implementing the auditor general's recommendations. We also have our deputy on the deputies committee that is moving this initiative through government.

L. Stephens: When an organization sits down to do an accountability framework, they talk about management direction as well. My question is: as far as the organizational and management part of it, does everyone in the ministry understand what their roles and responsibilities are? Is it laid out very clearly -- the duties and responsibilities of everyone in the organization? Do they understand what the organization's mandate is?

Hon. S. Hammell: Each year we publish a business plan, and the ministry and the minister participate in building that plan and then participate in executing the plan. We have performance evaluation attached to that plan and to a determination of how successful the implementation of the plan was. So the plan is a projection of our activities, and then we proceed through the year trying to achieve them. From my personal experience within the ministry, and also from the advice I get, the ministry personnel are very, very clear about what their roles and responsibilities are and their obligations. They are a very highly motivated group of people who work hard to achieve the values and goals that the ministry sets. It is to a large extent a value-based ministry, and it engenders a lot of commitment.

L. Stephens: Does the ministry go through a process of determining the relevancy of the ministry's programs and whether they make sense in terms of the conditions, the needs and the problems that arise within the mandate and the role that the ministry has set out for itself?

Hon. S. Hammell: Everything the ministry does has to make sense in terms of its larger commitment and its overall

[ Page 7465 ]

L. Stephens: How long have this ministry's performance measurements been in place?

Hon. S. Hammell: This is the third year that the business plan evaluation process has been in place. I have been here for two of those; I guess I'm going into my third year now. It is a process that I actually found very impressive in Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services, where you had a very clear business plan and then you actually marked off what you had accomplished as you went through the year. At the end of the year you could see what accomplishments you had achieved and where you needed to maybe carry forward but work on it a bit harder.

[5:45]

What I'm asking is whether or not those objectives have been realized, whether or not when you've made your accountability plan and have your checks, you are in fact checking and meeting the goals you set out for yourself. So have the key outcomes in the two years you have had them in place in this ministry been met? Have the key performance expectations been met? Have those things happened?

Hon. S. Hammell: We do watch for external indicators as well as internal ones. If we take the two objectives around Stopping the Violence -- to strengthen our support system for people who are experiencing violence and to move more strongly around the area of prevention, to try to move in front of the issue rather than just service the aftermath -- we are in the process of working on both of those objectives. We were able to strengthen our support system by adding the two transition houses. We had to work within the ministry to achieve that and find ways to free up additional money, given that we had a shrinking budget, and we have clearly accomplished that as these two new ones come on.

Prevention is actually an area that I'm personally very excited about. I think that there are ways that we have not even yet imagined to engage the community around prevention and shared ownership. I see that as a long-term project, but we will certainly have measurements out there to see if we have achieved specific goals as we move along that path.

The economic equality area is one where you can pick up some external indicators. The wage gap continues to shrink ever so slowly. We have been able to influence work within government. So yes, we do have performance measures. We do look at how successful we are being, and we'll continue to do so.

L. Stephens: Just a couple more questions. One is around responsiveness. How responsive is the ministry to anticipating and responding to the changes that organizations bring to the ministry? How responsive is the ministry to change? What kinds of mechanisms are in place to factor those kinds of needs into the ministry's business plan?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'll be quite brief in my answer, because I know that we're sort of running out of time. I think the measure that I put the most credence in is that when the minister comes back -- given that she's been out in the community and is taking in the concerns of the community from the political side -- how responsive is the ministry itself to change as directed or indicated by me? I find the ministry very responsive. I have managed to make very clear suggestions that have been responded to because of concerns from the community. We are also trying to move the community around change. Some of them that we have indicated are performance evaluation, guidelines for counselling and organizational structures. So we are changing our culture, and we change within the cultures we work in. I actually see the ministry as a change agent. It is involved in developing a new relationship. . . . If we are successful, if we change the relationship between men and women in our community. . . . And that's our goal. If we expect the world to change, then we certainly have to be responsive to it also.

L. Stephens: A final question. It's around compliance and whether or not there are adequate controls designed to ensure that compliance with legislation and standards of conduct is in fact achieved. Are those in place in the ministry?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, every member receives standards-of-conduct information, training and expectations. That is part of their evaluation.

L. Stephens: I was referring more to the ministry as a whole than to the personnel, as to whether or not the policies, procedures and practices of the ministry in fact follow legislative guidelines and legislative. . . .

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

L. Stephens: Those are all the questions I have today. I want to thank the minister and her staff for the Ministry of Women's Equality estimates.

Vote 62 approved.

Vote 63: ministry operations, $37,062,000 -- approved.

Hon. S. Hammell: I move that we rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:53 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada