Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I rise today on a matter of urgent public importance. Currently, many people living with hepatitis C are living in crisis, a crisis created by illness, monetary deprivation, personal loss and frustration. Today I rise specifically to address the plight of those people infected through contaminated blood or blood products. The shameful legacy of an infected blood supply and its tragic results have been dramatically documented by the Krever inquiry. Who can forget the Krever inquiry and the constant contrast between poignant testimony and slick attempts to evade responsibility?

Justice Krever's recommendations include a recommendation of immediate compensation to all those affected through the blood supply, and here I quote from Justice Krever: in my opinion, a system that knows these consequences of viral transmission will occur and that brings them about has at the very least a moral obligation to give some thought to the question of appropriate relief for those affected by the inevitable results.

Madam Speaker, resolving the issue of hepatitis C's viral transmission is an urgent public matter. Moral obligation is the key phrase in Justice Krever's quoted remarks. You know that this House will adjourn today. You probably do not know that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has hitherto refused all overtures to debate private members' Resolution 67 on the Order Paper referred to as Compensation Plan for Victims of Tainted Blood. A slight misnomer since the resolution merely urges our government to consider working with the federal government on a plan.

Again, today, the Minister of Health refused to support victims or even entertain our mild resolution. Clearly there is no other time than now for us to begin fulfilling our duty, what Justice Krever has named our moral obligation. The right time, indeed the only time is now.

I turn now to the matter of urgency. Why is it urgent that we debate the question of a compensation strategy for primary and secondary victims of hepatitis C? The Krever inquiry itself is a study in the dangers of procrastination. The inquiry shows delay after delay after delay. In order to save money, all Canadians, and we all have the right to health care, were put at risk, for blood transfusion and contamination was and is a possibility for each of us.

Those infected with hepatitis C are now paying the price of this heartlessness and tightfistedness. People are losing their livelihoods, their homes. Families are suffering because breadwinners are too ill to work, indeed some are dying, some are dead. Further delay may mean that many more victims will die before a compensation package has been determined. The deaths of persons living with AIDS before compensation, a situation impelled no doubt by caution, remains a national and provincial disgrace.

Let us act now and so avoid repeating this egregious wrong. Decency and compassion must prevail. Urgency is necessary because of a forthcoming meeting of Health ministers--because of a forthcoming meeting. In January, the federal Minister of Health and his provincial and territorial counterparts will meet in Saskatchewan. Federal Minister Allan Rock and Saskatchewan Health Minister Clay Serby, co-chairs of the ministers of Health meetings, have said that compensation for victims of hepatitis C acquired through contamination will be on the agenda.

Mr. Rock has clearly signalled his belief that compensation, as well as compassion, is a joint federal-provincial responsibility which must be shared. Knowing more than any of us that compensation is urgent and knowing that the January meeting is a window of opportunity, the Canadian Hemophilia Society is endeavouring to have good-will resolutions related to compensation unanimously endorsed by provincial governments and so ensure that at the January meeting this urgent matter will be resolved.

Quebec has passed a good-will resolution supporting the principle of compensation; Manitoba has not. The need for a compensation strategy is urgent. The time line is narrow. It is urgent that we debate this matter today.

* (1440)

People acquiring hepatitis C through tainted blood and blood products have been betrayed by the blood system and continue to be betrayed by the immorality of inaction. These individuals have been victimized and revictimized. Our House is in session. We have time left to shoulder our moral responsibilities and not again turn our backs on Manitobans. We have the opportunity to make the point that we value all our citizens, value them equally, the sick as well as the healthy. Urgency in this matter is fourfold: (1) to adopt a procompensation position for the January meeting of the ministers of Health and, through this, perhaps to influence other provinces, that is, to assume leadership and become a model; (2) to alleviate the impoverishment of victims through--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask that the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) move her motion now. The procedure has not been absolutely followed. I recognize the honourable member to move her motion, and then each member, including the mover of the motion and one member from each party, is allowed five minutes to present their case of urgency, but I did not want to interrupt the honourable member for Osborne.

The five minutes has expired, but I would ask for the co-operation of the honourable member for Osborne in putting her motion on the record now, please.

Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I ask that our Legislature not disgrace itself and fail her people. With this end in sight, I move that under Rule 31 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the need for a compensation strategy for primary and secondary victims of tainted blood, especially those suffering with hepatitis C.

Motion presented.

Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable government House leader, I would remind all members that under our subrule 31.(2) the mover of the motion has already utilized her five minutes, and one member from the other parties may use not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately. As cited in Beauchesne Citation 390, urgency in this context means the urgency of immediate debate not of the subject matter of the motion.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I am, having been through this process a number of times, aware about those matters to which we are to direct our comments in this five-minute period. Now I do not recall if you said that you received the appropriate notice, but assuming that you did, the issue then becomes the issue of the urgency of debate. Certainly there is a matter of urgency of action and all of those matters, but the rule in this case talks about urgency of debate.

We all recognize the very, very serious nature of this matter that has arisen in Canada. Speaking not only as House leader but as a former Health minister and I know, from talking to my colleague the present Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), the extremely serious nature of the matter the honourable member for Osborne raises. My honourable colleague and his counterparts from across the country and the territories at the federal level are indeed working towards appropriate resolution of all blood issues in Canada.

Shortly before I left office in the Department of Health, ministers of Health had attended a federal-provincial territorial meeting, and in anticipation of the final Krever report, made plans for establishing a national blood strategy. Something needs to be done to ensure that the tragic events of the past are never repeated, so that there is no question of the weight that the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and his counterparts feel on their shoulders as they address this issue which has been so very troublesome for so many Canadians and their families.

Madam Speaker, if you look on page 7 of your Order Paper, you will see item No. 67 standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), Compensation Plan for Victims of Tainted Blood. As we looked to how we would deal with proceedings in this particular sitting or session of the House, the opposition House leader and I discussed many things as we do in the ordinary course of our work.

One of the things we could have discussed would have been to bring forward item No. 67 this morning. That would have been one option. I think one of the things you have to look at is that there may or may not be other opportunities for debate. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and his colleagues could have brought that forward, because as honourable members know we have been working very co-operatively this session, so co-operatively that we can make adjustments as we go and as we have done.

So, really and truly, Madam Speaker, the urgency is to ensure that our Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) tends to the business at hand here. I have every confidence in this Minister of Health. He has demonstrated his commitment over and over, and he has demonstrated his competency to deal with important national, provincial or any other kind of issue you can imagine extremely well. So no debate this afternoon will make any difference with respect to the urgency of the matter. Nothing in debate would make any difference in terms of the way federal-provincial-territorial ministers are going to approach the subject. They deal with it on an extremely serious basis, and for that reason I do not believe that the honourable member's motion, however well-intentioned--and I certainly do not question that--is appropriate this afternoon.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I would like to join in the debate to urge this Assembly that we set aside the business in order to discuss this issue, and I would like to outline the reasons and some of the faulty reasoning, I believe, with all due respect, made by the government House leader in this regard.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Health is going to a Health ministers' meeting, we learned, in January in order to discuss the matters relating to this issue. The National Assembly of Quebec recently passed a unanimous resolution of the Quebec Assembly with respect to dealing with the compensation issue and gave direction to their Minister of Health with respect to negotiating a compensation package for victims of hepatitis C infection.

Madam Speaker, our minister, within a month, is going to negotiate as well, and we have not been allowed an opportunity to express to this minister our Assembly's concurrence or nonconcurrence with respect to this very significant matter. In addition, the federal government whom the province is negotiating with is clearly looking to directions from other provinces as to where the other provinces are sitting with respect to the compensation issue, and we are going to this meeting without a voice, without allowing the Assembly and this Chamber to speak to this resolution.

With respect to the House leader's comments whether or not members opposite could have raised resolutions, there are a multitude of resolutions on the Order Paper. Some are a very, very high priority; others are not. We are adjourning this afternoon, Madam Speaker. We have no opportunity to debate this resolution since it is No. 60 or No. 61 on the Order Paper.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, what is required in this resolution is a unanimous passage of this resolution from members opposite in order to allow the minister to go with a voice from this Assembly, and it is clear that members opposite do not want to pass this resolution.

* (1450)

That is the issue that needs to be debated. Now, members indicate the negative. If that is the case, then let us debate the resolution, but the minister needs direction, the minister needs a voice from this Legislature, and he needs the advice of this Legislature.

A grievance is not helpful in this regard, Madam Speaker, because you have ruled in the past with respect to grievances. A grievance would only be our viewpoint in this regard. What is needed is a resolution from this Chamber to allow the minister to go and negotiate with the federal government. You know, this resolution in itself is not committing the provincial government to any course of action other--I might add, and that is the curious aspect of this-- than a negotiation with the federal government with respect to compensation.

Surely, the minister would like direction from this Chamber rather than going without any opportunity, without any debate on this very serious issue, going to a meeting of ministers and not having the voice of the Assembly of Manitoba as does the minister from the Assembly of Quebec. So, Madam Speaker, the minister's arguments about whether or not there are other opportunities to debate this resolution are not relevant. We do not have any opportunity on this occasion, with the House adjourning this afternoon, to debate this matter. The minister is leaving within a month. The Assembly will not be sitting before the minister departs. The minister will be negotiating on behalf of Manitobans, and he does not know what Manitobans wish him to negotiate on their behalf.

What more clear case would be evident for an urgent matter. I do not even have to deal with the question of the significance to Manitobans because that has been very adequately dealt with and confirmed by the government House leader of the significance of this matter.

So I urge you to accept an opportunity to allow the people of Manitoba to direct the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), to provide the Minister of Health with advice with respect to negotiations that he is entering into in January on our behalf. On our behalf, I urge you to allow this debate to go forward so the Minister of Health can negotiate on behalf of all Manitobans and on behalf of the victims of hepatitis C. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) has indeed met the notice requirement for this matter. According to Manitoba practice and Beauchesne, a Speaker's role when a matter of urgent public importance is put forward is to determine whether the matter is so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention and to judge whether the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough, and the public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.

While the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) certainly brings forward an important matter, in my judgment the public interest will not be harmed if the debate of this matter does not take place today. The member's private member's Resolution 67 will provide an opportunity for the House to debate a compensation strategy for victims of tainted blood. The member may also discuss the issue during the Budget Debate when this House reconvenes.

Mr. McCrae: I have a couple of housekeeping matters prior to getting to government orders. The first is that I believe if you canvass the House you would find that for the remainder of the afternoon everybody is agreeing that there is not going to be a requirement for a quorum in this House because, as you know, Madam Speaker, the Legislative Assembly Management Commission will be meeting and members will be busy, and we can still conduct the business of the House without the need of a quorum. That is my understanding unless there is--

An Honourable Member: During the LAMC.

Mr. McCrae: During the LAMC meeting only. Clear enough, I agree. Is that agreed?

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to ignore the regular required quorum while the LAMC meeting is meeting and up to the duration of that meeting for this afternoon? [agreed]

Mr. McCrae: On another matter, Madam Speaker, yesterday, if yesterday was December 9--

An Honourable Member: No, the 10th.

Mr. McCrae: Then, on Wednesday, the House leader for the official opposition and I, on behalf of our caucuses, made an agreement which I would like to table in the House. I have made the members of the independent Liberal caucus aware, and it is agreed that the Legislature will not sit during the week of March 30, 1998, to April 3, 1998, that being the school spring break. Also agreed that in order to accomplish this consideration, passage and Royal Assent of the Interim Supply Bill will be completed prior to the close of business on March 26, 1998. What this essentially says is that we will not sit during the spring break, and that Interim Supply will have been completed prior to that time, and I think that may come as some help for some honourable members who might have plans with their families at that time. I am tabling this document now.

Madam Speaker: The document has been received for information purposes.